Punitive damages against the state of CA?

[RADW]

Just throwing it out there to those legal folks. Can/should gun owning citizens of CA bring or amend a lawsuit against the state of CA seeking punitive damages regarding the recent ruling of the unconstitutionality of gun laws? Given that punitive damages would require one of the below.


"Malice" means:

Conduct that is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff, or
Despicable conduct carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

"Oppression" means:

Despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that persons rights.

I believe California's reckless gun law actions would would qualify under these definitions.

[newbutold]

Sueing idiots is always possible, good luck.

[RickD427]

Just throwing it out there to those legal folks. Can/should gun owning citizens of CA bring or amend a lawsuit against the state of CA seeking punitive damages regarding the recent ruling of the unconstitutionality of gun laws? Given that punitive damages would require one of the below.


"Malice" means:

Conduct that is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff, or
Despicable conduct carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

"Oppression" means:

Despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that persons rights.

I believe California's reckless gun law actions would would qualify under these definitions.

California Government agencies are immune from punitive damages under Government Code section 818 in state court actions. They are also immune from punitive damages in federal court actions (City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247).

If you were to file such a lawsuit, how would you go about defeating that immunity?

On top of that little legal problem, you need to keep in mind that there has been no final decision holding that any of California's firearms statutes are unconstitutional. The NYSRPA case invalidated New York statutes that have some similarity to California statutes, but the NYSRPA decision did not address any of California's laws.

[RADW]

The Handgun roster is unconstitutional (see below). As far as beating the immunity I see it would be a hard hill to climb in Federal litigation given the case referenced above and the 11th amendment. If a individual working for the state is reckless in their law making without considering constitutional analysis, (which our state commonly does), is that not reckless disregard of personal rights of their citizens? The idea is that a member of a legislative body must consider the constitutional rights of all its citizens before drafting, considering or passing laws. Otherwise it is reckless disregard of a Plaintiffs rights. Is an individual that is working for the state in the capacity of a legislator also immune to punitive damages?

if all have immunity under the federal law, I guess the best we can ask for, is for the state to pay the legal fees in these cases.

Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art
handguns to protect themselves. They should not be forced to settle for decade-old
models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home. But
unfortunately, the UHA’s CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements do exactly that.
Because enforcing those requirements implicates the plain text of the Second
Amendment, and the government fails to point to any well-established historical
analogues that are consistent with them, those requirements are unconstitutional and their
enforcement must be preliminarily enjoined. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for a
preliminary injunction is GRANTED.
DATED: March 20, 2023
__________________________________
CORMAC J. CARNEY

[RickD427]

The Handgun roster is unconstitutional.
Californians have the constitutional right to acquire and use state-of-the-art
handguns to protect themselves. They should not be forced to settle for decade-old
models of handguns to ensure that they remain safe inside or outside the home. But
unfortunately, the UHA?s CLI, MDM, and microstamping requirements do exactly that.
Because enforcing those requirements implicates the plain text of the Second
Amendment, and the government fails to point to any well-established historical
analogues that are consistent with them, those requirements are unconstitutional and their
enforcement must be preliminarily enjoined. Accordingly, Plaintiffs? motion for a
preliminary injunction is GRANTED.
DATED: March 20, 2023
__________________________________
CORMAC J. CARNEY

What is your point here?

All that you have done is to regurgitate a portion of the preliminary injunction in the Boland v Bonta case (and without citing the case).

This preliminary injunction is a great start, but it's quite far from being a final decision that any of California's firearms statutes are unconstitutional.

But my original question still remains - How would you go about defeating California's immunity from punitive damages? Still waiting for you to tackle that one.

[The Gleam]

Could always resort to tar and feathers!

--

[Dvrjon]

If a individual working for the state is reckless in their law making without considering constitutional analysis, (which our state commonly does), is that not reckless disregard of personal rights of their citizens? The idea is that a member of a legislative body?[]

You may want to review how the Legislative Branch of government works. No single individual creates law through fiat.

The system is comprised of representatives elected by the People. The fact that the people voting are morons and elect folks who as a group pass these laws doesn?t establish a cause of action against any one member or the group.

Justice Brandeis stated in in 1932:

To stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the nation. It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

Good luck suing for ?malice and oppression? or anything else.

[RADW]

RickD427 :

The point is to get retribution for violating our rights as Americans. The amount of money we have to pay to organizations to protect our rights while paying taxes to the state that violates them is Ludacris. Leaving the state seems to be the only answer for many, but they have no chance of making any changes for their fellow citizens from outside the state. The point ultimately is to make it so costly to continually violate rights given to us as citizens of the United States. And that our state government will look to keep legislation within the parameters of the federal constitution. Besides that it is a way to get some of our our money back.

Thanks for your input. I will just let it be.

[RickD427]

RickD427 :

The point is to get retribution for violating our rights as Americans. The amount of money we have to pay to organizations to protect our rights while paying taxes to the state that violates them is Ludacris. Leaving the state seems to be the only answer for many, but they have no chance of making any changes for their fellow citizens from outside the state. The point ultimately is to make it so costly to continually violate rights given to us as citizens of the United States. And that our state government will look to keep legislation within the parameters of the federal constitution. Besides that it is a way to get some of our our money back.

Thanks for your input. I will just let it be.

That's a very noble goal, and one that is deserving of support.

My point is that we need to be wise in the methods of pursuing that goal. Remember back to the days of California's "Open Carry" protests? The goal was to gain gain support for firearms rights. Notice how it backfired and produced even more onerous legislation?

We're finally on track to achieve this goal, but like any legal undertaking, it's gonna be a long path. The NYSRPA case was an outstanding breakthrough. Now we just need to challenge the California statutes that are implicated through it.

[pacrat]

RickD427 :

The point is to get retribution for violating our rights as Americans. The amount of money we have to pay to organizations to protect our rights while paying taxes to the state that violates them is Ludacris. Leaving the state seems to be the only answer for many, but they have no chance of making any changes for their fellow citizens from outside the state. The point ultimately is to make it so costly to continually violate rights given to us as citizens of the United States. And that our state government will look to keep legislation within the parameters of the federal constitution. Besides that it is a way to get some of our our money back.

Thanks for your input. I will just let it be.

RADW;

This is CrapOfornica, the capital of which is EXCREMENTO, it is populated by TURDS like this; https://youtu.be/Z6Dj8tdSC1A

TURDS who, like this one, know that they are protected by legislative immunity.

The most one can hope to get when suing them for violation of rights. Is to make the violation stop. [eventually]

The only monetary compensation allowable is for attorneys fees. And the TURDS that created the infringements of rights could care less. Those are paid out of the taxpayers pockets.