Tweet
Here is my theory... I was talking with the my Gramps this morning when this conversation came up... He was stating that if he gets taken out in the parking lot of his bingo facility he wishes I sue the state. He thinks since he wins bingo all the time (seriously like a 2 gun a year bingo cash grab) and he can have 200-300 dollars in winnings as he walks to his car. That if he gets robbed, shot, beat up or stabbed that he will contact whatever serious lawyer he can and sue the state of california for infringing his right to protect himself.... It made me think... THATS A BRILLIANT IDEA. If criminals can sue for any damn reason, it would only be right if the victim could sue the system as well... I tried the search button and came up with nothing. Has this been discussed before? Tried before?
-
Happiness is a WARM AR
-
I think a more appropriate defendant would be the county sheriff who denied the LTC application, And only AFTER said application was in fact submitted and denied in writing... -
You can sue, but wouldn't it get thrown out? It seems to me you are suing CA or your local sheriff over failure to protect the individual. But would not the case be dismissed because no government entity has a legal obligation to protect any particular individual?
I am not a lawyer, not am I qualified to play one on TV, but the above legal precedent is well known here on CalGuns.Comment
-
Castle Rock Vs. Gonzales
Despite repeated attempts to get the local PD to do anything when her estranged husband kidnapped Gonzales' three little girls, they ignored her.
They did F-All until a crazed madman rammed his car into the police station and opened fire on watch staff. They shot him to death and found the bodies of Gonzales' murdered children in the back seat.
The court ruled that the Police are NOT responsible for the individual in ANY way. No matter how incompetant, lazy, or corrupt those cops might have been.
Read the Wiki Case on it and it will make you sick and to never put any faith in why the cops are out there. It certainly isn't to protect you.Comment
-
I think what the OP is getting at is sueing them because they have placed restrictions on you which prevented you from defending yourself.....not for their failure to act in your behalf.
But Im sure somewhere that tactic has been tired and failed already too.
That really is the basis of all the current 2A lawsuits. The 2A and Heller say I have an uninfringable right to arms to protect myself, yet many places have made it illegal to do so. That is a problem that needs fixing."Freedom begins with an act of defiance"
Quote for the day:"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the SunComment
-
There is no way you will ever sue the state and win. The cops/Sheriff/etc DO NOT have any legal obligation to save your life or come to your aid. It's up to you to protect yourself, oh wait you can't. Your only one vote lost so no one really cares.Comment
-
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff CooperComment
-
IIRC the oath most police offers swear to does not mention protection of the public.Comment
-
Aside from the generally accepted 'no duty to protect any specific person without special circumstances', CA Government Code makes agencies and their employees immune to such suits for issuing, or failing to issue, a license.
See the wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Ca...uing_AuthorityARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page
Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!Comment
-
NO ISSUE / MAY ISSUE / SHALL ISSUE - LTC progress over time since 1986
Comment
-
wow i wish some one would use that line of thinking when it comes to getting a sheriff to approve a permit it seems they have a feeling of liability giving someone a permit
the generaly accepted qualified immunity makes "the people" not responsible for policy
like sf and its sanctuary policy if that policy causes problemsComment
-
Maybe I'm thinking too much, using too much common sense or logic, but isn't his akin to saying " I say I'm not liable so I'm not". This happens in Tort Law all the time, but then again, IANAL. Just because a company puts a disclaimer on a product disavowing themselves of all liability, consequential damages, etc. Doesn't mean they won't be found liable in a court of law.
Times, attitudes, circumstances and case law change over time. The law necessarily plays catch-up to reflect the changing circumstances in a society. Remember, we just got incorporation.... of a fundamental right. The full effects of this will take years to flesh out. However, if a government entity has codes/regulations, etc. that now DO effect / inhibit / consequentially cause harm, etc., they should be held liable for them. Simply pointing to a Government (Immunity) Code while thumbing their noses at their citizens won't cut it much longer, IMO (think of the Civil Rights Movement). That code prevents them from having incentive to change the laws to reflect reality and enables them to drag their feet for years and years on a whole host of unjust, unconstitutional laws and regulations. Again, think of the Jim Crow Laws. If all the Southern States had to do was pass a law stating people couldn't sue them for continuing to pass laws violating the civil rights of blacks, where would we be now?
Again, I am NOT a Lawyer, but it would seem logical for a suit to include the County Sheriff, and the State (i.e. attacking the code that gives him his discretion), as well as the Code that Gives immunity, especially when there has been not only a legal injury, but a physical on as well; by a plaintiff who followed the process, was denied, and was injured. The legal hurtles may be high, and right now, insurmountable. But it won't always be the case. At least I hope not. But hey, what do I know, LOL.
Something has to give somewhere, somehow, sometime. CGF is doing their part and I can only offer my sincere thanks to them.Originally posted by Southwest Chuck^^^ Wise Man. Take his adviceOriginally posted by tobyComment
There are currently 4075 users online. 132 members and 3943 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 8:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment