Can't we sue the gun grabbers?

[Fast Frank]

I mean, really.

This is America. If somebody does us wrong, We sue their pants off, right?

Well, in my mind the gun grabbers have been doing us wrong pretty much non-stop for quite some time now and it needs to stop.

Who can't say that the grabbers have interfered with their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Who doesn't feel like their rights have been violated?

Who hasn't been systematically harassed by the non stop silliness perpetuated by these folks.

So, if all that is true, why can't we just prove it in court and slap them with the mother of all class action suits?

Bloomberg has millions to throw at it, why don't we just take that from him?

Yeah, I know that the odds of actually pulling that off are slim, but lots of folks have been sued silly for far less.

So, what's the technicality that keeps us from doing it?

It would tickle me to no end if I got check for fifty cents and they just quit.

 

[Midwest]

I mean, really.

This is America. If somebody does us wrong, We sue their pants off, right?

Well, in my mind the gun grabbers have been doing us wrong pretty much non-stop for quite some time now and it needs to stop.

Who can't say that the grabbers have interfered with their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Who doesn't feel like their rights have been violated?

Who hasn't been systematically harassed by the non stop silliness perpetuated by these folks.

So, if all that is true, why can't we just prove it in court and slap them with the mother of all class action suits?

Bloomberg has millions to throw at it, why don't we just take that from him?

Yeah, I know that the odds of actually pulling that off are slim, but lots of folks have been sued silly for far less.

So, what's the technicality that keeps us from doing it?

It would tickle me to no end if I got check for fifty cents and they just quit.

Gun grabber politicians, I don't think we can sue politicians for introducing, voting for or supporting anti-gun legislation. We should be able to sue (in my opinion) because they have taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the U.S. which should include the second amendment.

A few over the years have suggested using "treason" to prosecute anti-gun politicians who attempt to dismantle the constitution and our way of life that introduce anti-gun legislation. If "treason" were a valid reason to go after anti-gun politicians and prosecute them, I think it would have been done already.

Gun grabber activists, the same reason we can't sue pro abortion or anti abortion activists. (depending which side of the coin one is on).

The way to stop Bloomberg and other anti-gun activists is to prove that they have done something illegal and have them prosecuted in court.

.

 

[AlexanderA]

There's no legal basis for such a lawsuit. It would be thrown out of court in 5 seconds (I'm exaggerating, but it's basically true). Our system protects political advocacy. You can't shut down debate using harassing lawsuits in the courts. Look at it another way -- how would you like Bloomberg to shut down the NRA-ILA by filing a lawsuit?

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Funny you should ask, the Third District Court of Appeal (a very pro-gun Court) just ruled that a bank could not be sued for a cop kicking a guy in the head (who he thought had a gun) after the bank reported him to be a bank robber:

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-1338.pdf

Here the Court held that you cannot be "negligent" by calling the police, even if you are wrong, there has to be malice for there to be liability. This touches on one aspect of your question- guns in public (especially in banks) are likely to attract police attention and nobody is gong to stop the police from responding, or allowing people to call the police.

Who can't say that the grabbers have interfered with their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Who doesn't feel like their rights have been violated?

Who hasn't been systematically harassed by the non stop silliness perpetuated by these folks.

Happiness, feelings and silliness are not justicable claims.

 

[oneounceload]

If "treason" were a valid reason to go after anti-gun politicians and prosecute them, I think it would have been done already.

Not necessarily, because every party has dirt on every other party, so it would become a Mutual Assured Destruction (politically), so most do what they do best - nothing

 

[Fast Frank]

There's no legal basis for such a lawsuit.

Yeah... I guess proving I have standing isn't going to fly.

Too bad. It sure would be a satisfying end to this story even if it wasn't even enough money to buy a coke.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Sure you can sue 'em, go right ahead.

You -vs- Bloomberg.

Who do you think is going to run out of lawyers and money first?

 

[RevDerb]

I mean, really.

Who can't say that the grabbers have interfered with their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

So, what's the technicality that keeps us from doing it?

The technicality is called the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech I would think.

 

[Frank Ettin]

As far as suing legislators goes, there's the old and well established doctrine of legislative immunity. Basically, a legislator may not be sued for actions performed and decisions made within the scope of his responsibilities as a legislator. This principle has a long history under the Common Law and is enshrined in the Constitutions of a majority of the States.

Legislative immunity is arguably essential to effective implementation of the separation of powers and system of checks and balances core to our democratic republic. As the Supreme Court said in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951), at 372 -- 374:

......The privilege of legislators to be free from arrest or civil process for what they do or say in legislative proceedings has taproots in the Parliamentary struggles of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. As Parliament achieved increasing independence from the Crown, its statement of the privilege grew stronger. In 1523, Sir Thomas More could make only a tentative claim. Roper, Life of Sir Thomas More, in More's Utopia (Adams ed.) 10. In 1668, after a long and bitter struggle, Parliament finally laid the ghost of Charles I, who had prosecuted Sir John Elliot and others for 'seditious' speeches in Parliament. Proceedings against Sir John Elliot, 3 How. St.Tr., 294, 332. In 1689, the Bill of Rights declared in unequivocal language: 'That the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.' 1 Wm. & Mary, Sess. 2, c. II. See Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Ad. & El. 1, 113—114 (1839).

Freedom of speech and action in the legislature was taken as a matter of course by those who severed the Colonies from the Crown and founded our Nation. It was deemed so essential for representatives of the people that it was written into the Articles of Confederation and later into the Constitution. Article V of the Articles of Confederation is quite close to the English Bill of Rights: 'Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress * * *.' Article I, § 6, of the Constitution provides: '* * * for any Speech or Debate in either House, (the Senators and Representatives) shall not be questioned in any other Place.'

The reason for the privilege is clear. It was well summarized by James Wilson, an influential member of the Committee of Detail which was responsible for the provision in the Federal Constitution. 'In order to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success, it is indispensably necessary, that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offense.' II Works of James Wilson (Andrews ed. 1896) 38. See the statement of the reason for the privilege in the Report from the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts (House of Commons, 1939) xiv.

The provision in the United States Constitution was a reflection of political principles already firmly established in the States. Three State Constitutions adopted before the Federal Constitution specifically protected the privilege. The Maryland Declaration of Rights, Nov. 3, 1776, provided: 'That freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in the Legislature, ought not to be impeached in any other court or judicature.' Art. VIII. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 provided 'The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action, or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.' Part I, Art. XXI. Chief Justice Parsons gave the following gloss to this provision in Coffin v. Coffin, 1808, 4 Mass. 1, 27:

These privileges are thus secured, not with the intention of protecting the members against prosecutions for their own benefit, but to support the rights of the people, by enabling their representatives to execute the functions of their office without fear of prosecutions, civil or criminal. I therefore think that the article ought not to be construed strictly, but liberally, that the full design of it may be answered....

Some may complain that this frees legislators from accountability for their acts. But our system was designed to hold them accountable at the ballot box. If we fail to do so, it's our fault.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Of course we still have recourse to the courts, and litigation can be a useful, powerful tool in our efforts to further the RKBA. But effective lawsuits must be grounded on solid legal principles.

There are many lawsuits on Second Amendment issues currently pending in various federal courts around the country.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

So, what's the technicality that keeps us from doing it?

I guess nothing.
You could draft the complaint and pay the filing fee, but don't expect it to get past summary judgment, if it even gets that far, for the reason Frank posted above.

A few over the years have suggested using "treason" to prosecute anti-gun politicians who attempt to dismantle the constitution and our way of life that introduce anti-gun legislation.

Those people need to look up the legal definition for the word treason.

 

[ATLDave]

Ugh. Pluralism is hard.

See also Frank Ettin's post.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Ugh. Pluralism is hard.

It sure is.

The reality is that we live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as you do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government. So while you may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give you to promote your vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions.

The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.

You can't expect everyone to agree with you.

And let's also remember that it's not necessarily politicians who are the core problem. We pick the government. While it's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws, politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. And they are doing what the people who elected them want done.

So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with guns, are afraid of guns and people with guns, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs). So we need to remember that a large part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.; and finding ways to win their support.

There would not be restrictive gun laws if enough of our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc., did not vote for and support the people who enact those laws.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

And let's also remember that it's not necessarily politicians who are the core problem. We pick the government.

+1
This reminds me of a George Carlin line:

“Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. Screw Hope.”

Makes sense to me.

 

[brickeyee]

If stupidity was a crime we could never build enough prison space.

The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
We have yet to find anything useful to do with stupidity.

'Ignorant' can be fixed.
'Stupid' is more often permanent and untreatable..

 

[Sav .250]

Go for it......................... Keep us posted.

 

[TRX]

> But our system was designed to hold them accountable at the ballot
> box. If we fail to do so, it's our fault.

I have no say whatsoever as to who gets on the ballot. In my state, that's handled by party NGOs. They're private organizations with no official standing... other than the sole power to control the ballots.

My usual options are "bad" and "worse."

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I have no say whatsoever as to who gets on the ballot. In my state, that's handled by party NGOs. They're private organizations with no official standing... other than the sole power to control the ballots...

Naive and untrue.

First, one can get politically active and involved in the political party of his choice.

Second, political parties decide who to put up for election to various offices based on their assessments of whom might have a chance of winning. People who are politically active and who make their views know can influence such decisions.

Our system gives each of us a variety of ways to participate.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

As far as suing legislators goes, there's the old and well established doctrine of legislative immunity. Basically, a legislator may not be sued for actions performed and decisions made within the scope of his responsibilities as a legislator. This principle has a long history under the Common Law and is enshrined in the Constitutions of a majority of the States.

Legislative immunity is arguably essential to effective implementation of the separation of powers and system of checks and balances core to our democratic republic. As the Supreme Court said in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951), at 372 -- 374:

​

Some may complain that this frees legislators from accountability for their acts. But our system was designed to hold them accountable at the ballot box. If we fail to do so, it's our fault.

Frank, I do, however, have a problem when the legislators overstep their bounds. If Boehner can sue the President for all his dalliances beyond his bounds in the Constitution, it seems to me that we the people have a legitimate avenue as well.

I cannot find any legislative immunity granted them in the Constitution beyond their speech and debate protection in either house. I see no immunity for any unconstitutional actions. I believe the people have a right protected by the First Amendment to bring suit against the legislature or legislators, or either of the other two branches of the Union. What better way is there to petition the government than to bring suit against it? It is, after all, a power reserved to We the People.

Woody

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank, I do, however, have a problem when the legislators overstep their bounds....

I know, Woody. But we've been thorough all this before. The real world is going to go soldiering on without regard to what you have problems with.

...I cannot find any legislative immunity granted them in the Constitution beyond their speech and debate protection in either house. I see no immunity for any unconstitutional actions....

So what. We're talking about what the law actually is. And that was laid out in the Supreme Court decision I cited in post 9. You're opinion is irrelevant.

...I believe the people have a right protected by the First Amendment to bring suit against the legislature or legislators, or either of the other two branches of the Union....

And what you believe is of no consequence. Your fantasies do not change reality.

 

[Old Fuff]

If Boehner can sue the President for all his dalliances beyond his bounds in the Constitution, it seems to me that we the people have a legitimate avenue as well.

We have yet to see how this is going to shape up, but if it does go forward it will not be Rep. Boehner, but rather the House of Representatives that brings the action by asking the Supreme Court to determine if the President has, or is, exceeding the limits of his Constitutional Powers.

That, and given the make-up of today's Supreme Court, what makes you think a decision would necessarily go our way if individuals could sue?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If Boehner can sue the President...

And of course we have no idea if Boehner can sue the President. He hasn't done so, and it all looks like the usual political posturing.

Of course anyone can sue anyone. It's just a matter of writing and filing the papers. But that doesn't mean that the suit will survive the first motion to dismiss.

...if it does go forward it will not be Rep. Boehner, but rather the House of Representatives that brings the action by asking the Supreme Court to determine if the President has, or is, exceeding the limits of his Constitutional Powers...

In any event, there are ways to challenge the validity of laws or actions by the Executive Branch. That's done all the time. But that's not the same thing as:

...If somebody does us wrong, We sue their pants off, right?

Well, in my mind the gun grabbers have been doing us wrong pretty much non-stop for quite some time now and it needs to stop.

Who can't say that the grabbers have interfered with their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

...

...

So, if all that is true, why can't we just prove it in court and slap them with the mother of all class action suits?...

 

[DT Guy]

I realize I'm hopelessly naive, but I keep coming back to this:

The constitution sets limits on government; it is 'the law of the land', or at least the rules the laws of the land must follow.

People have written (as evidenced by statements by folks like Rahm Emmanuel and others) and passed laws they knew, or should have known, would not pass constitutional muster. In other words, they knowingly violated the constitutional limits on their power; wouldn't this be breaking the law?

Breaking the law usually carries penalties. Why aren't there any penalties for those who knowingly and intentionally violate the constitutional protections for specified rights?

I can't get my head around (which, I realize, might just mean my head is too small ) why the highest law in the land contains no penalties for those who break it?


Larry

 

[Frank Ettin]

I realize I'm hopelessly naive, but I keep coming back to this:

The constitution sets limits on government;....

The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us recourse and remedies. We have political recourse, and we can challenge laws and actions of government in court.

 

[DT Guy]

But knowingly violating the constitution isn't, in and of itself, a criminal act?

That's the part I get stuck on...


Larry