Is this a legitimate argument...

[wash]

The injury would be tangible damages to sue for I think.

I'm not sure if that would make any difference.

[snobord99]

The injury would be tangible damages to sue for I think.

I'm not sure if that would make any difference.

Not really. I can't really think of any theories you can sue under besides negligence. Elements of negligence:

1. Duty
2. Breach of Duty
3. Causation
4. Damages

It's pretty clear that damages are there. I can see an argument that duty and breach of duty happened too. Problem is, I don't see how you can prove causation.

[OHOD]

Think of it this way. If you had a CCW and went to a private business that doesn't allow guns but was later shot by someone that slipped through with a gun, could you sue the business for not allowing you to carry your gun in? No. You might win for them being negligent by letting the other gun in, but you will not win because they didn't allow you to carry your gun in.

I really like the way you explained by using an example. Legal terms tend to make my brain explode and the mess is awful. Gray matter everywhere and all.

What if there were a class action suit, would the outcome still be the same?

[snobord99]

I really like the way you explained by using an example. Legal terms tend to make my brain explode and the mess is awful. Gray matter everywhere and all.

What if there were a class action suit, would the outcome still be the same?

No problem, just glad it actually helped someone .

As far as class action, no, it wouldn't make a difference. You run into the same problem of proving cause. The only (plausible) way I can imagine this being a class action is if a guy decided to go on a shooting rampage and shot a bunch of people and these people all now want to sue the state for their injuries because they state didn't allow any of them to have a CCW.

Again, this would run into problems of proving that the state not handing out the CCW caused the victims' injuries. You can't prove that if the state had given everyone a CCW then the shooting would have stopped with the first, 5th, or even 100th victim. Of course odds are very good that the gunman would have eventually been shot and stopped, but there's no way to prove when the gunman would have been stopped or even if the gunman would had been stopped had the CCWs been issued.

This doesn't even get into issues of getting the victims certified as a class.

*Disclaimer: I am not an attorney (yet ) and this is not meant to be legal advice. If you are considering or involved in a lawsuit, consult an attorney.

[wash]

Not really. I can't really think of any theories you can sue under besides negligence. Elements of negligence:

1. Duty
2. Breach of Duty
3. Causation
4. Damages

It's pretty clear that damages are there. I can see an argument that duty and breach of duty happened too. Problem is, I don't see how you can prove causation.

I was under the impression that in a civil suit the burden of proof was reduced, like the way OJ lost his wrongful death suit after being acquitted on his criminal charges.

[Glock22Fan]

I wonder about your "every other" statement.

Wouldn't you be entitled if they issued a permit for a campaign donor with the same good cause statement?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but that seems like an angle that might work.

There are people, TBJ included, working on that sort of premise to get people a CCW. It is an angle that should work for that purpose, if you don't get a judge that rewrites the law. However, it would almost certainly fail in the more general type of lawsuit envisaged by the OP. I would have left out the "almost," but one day pigs might fly.

[Fjold]

Exactly.

If/when we get 2A incorporated, then you would have a law suit.

I wouldn't bet on that.

Even if you applied for a CCW, articulated a "Good Cause" outlining a specific threat to you and were denied and then that specific threat actually occured and you or your family was injured. The laws still protect the LEOs and the States from civil and criminal liability.

JMHO, The only way you could win in a suit like this is if the LEO or State had violated the law previously and had lost in court, on that same issue.

[OHOD]

I have definitely been enlightened reading this thread. Thanks to all posters.

The scenario is not real and not my intent to pursue some sort of class action suit. I was on my way home from work on my motorcycle thinking about stuff in general and the scenario came to mind and I was wondering how it would play out in real life.

I love this forum. Very cool.

Joanne

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Laws don't stop someone from carrying a gun. If you really wanted to defend yourself, you would carry, regardless of the consequences.

[unusedusername]

Laws don't stop someone from carrying a gun. If you really wanted to defend yourself, you would carry, regardless of the consequences.

Perhaps that is true, however the point is that it ought to be legal for "law abiding" people to have the same right of self-protection that the "non-law abiding" already enjoy.

[B Strong]

Nice try, but even if you're Larry Vickers, you'll be unable to prove in a court of law what would have happened had you been armed.

[snobord99]

I was under the impression that in a civil suit the burden of proof was reduced, like the way OJ lost his wrongful death suit after being acquitted on his criminal charges.

It is. Problem is that even with a lower burden of proof, I can't see a judge saying "yes, I believe you can show that if you had a gun, you wouldn't have been shot." (I say judge because I don't believe this will get past summary judgment so the jury won't even come in). I just don't see a judge being convinced that you can prove that if you had a gun: 1) robber wouldn't have shot you first, 2) you would have shot the robber, and 3) the shot would have stopped the robber to the extent that you wouldn't have been shot at all. Even assuming that you demonstrate that you're an EXCELLENT shot and wouldn't have missed, you really have no way to prove that they wouldn't have shot you first.

It's a lower burden, but the burden is still on the plaintiff.