Crowd Source Funding For RKBA Litigation

[MagnumDweeb]

Peruta looks like it is here to stay <knocks on wood>. I'm glad about that as it means Californians stand to possibly gain their right to a CWP, with a few ridiculous hoops to jump through, with greater ease than those folks in NYC. I believe if more folks can get their CWPs with greater ease, there will be greater growth of gun ownership and greater and greater call for RKBA to be observed by the critters in government.

It's still bitter sweet for me as I had hoped to build an innovative movement where donees became beneficiaries and had a right to vote by majority as to how funds were going to be used to get anti-Sheriffs in California kicked out of office in California. So now I'm sitting back wondering if there is any Cause Cele'bre left out there to rally gun owning RKBA'ers around in a big new way. Mind you all this was going to be done by volunteers. No one affiliated with the group was going to receive money for their efforts to make it abundantly clear that this was a true grass roots movement.

The only thing I can think of is litigation. Crowd Source Funding has been a big deal.A good example is Kickstarter, Kickstarter helped me get my first 3D Printer. Then there was another one out there to help support Olympic competitors. So I have to wonder why we can't sort of do the same for gun rights litigation.

There is no shortage of issues to litigate on. Let law firms make proposals as to what issues they plan to tackle and what clients they seek to gain so as to have standing to bring the litigation. The idea being that firms would seek out model clients who make for the most sympathetic straight arrow out there (you know, pull a Gura I guess you could call it), and then propose the litigation to the group. The firm would provide the low and high ends of its litigation budget, a number of memorandums showing that their points of argument are legitimate, and also the budget for expert witnesses if necessary. It would paint a clear picture of who the client is, where they seek to bring the case, what cases they have to support their cause of action, and the theoretical costs that the firm would try to seek repayment of from the government as much as possible.

The group would be made up of folks who donate a dollar month to the group's budget (provided with a slew of other details) and every three months the group would hold a vote on which cases to fund. Failing to vote would functioning as a no vote for funding as well. The firms would post all the materials ahead of time so prospective voters could read up on and discuss the litigation with fell members, as well as post questions to the law firm.

I like the idea and when I've discussed it with some fell RKBA'ers they think the idea is a good one. It'd be a national group instead of a focused one, mind you I'd be pushing for California cases as much as possible because they have some of the flimsiest yet most stringent forms of gun control there is (rosters and such).

There are a whole host of other details to flesh out but does anyone like this idea? Again, it's a purely volunteer effort. No one besides the lawyers gets any pay. Voting would be electronic and based on the setup I don't think any antis could realistically hi-jack the idea, plus I would put language in the setup that if a yes vote didn't happen once every twelve months, all funds would be returned to the donees unless they elected to keep the funds in the group for use in future litigation, or something like that.

This just the superficial part so far so please bear in mind when responding. I'm hoping to get an idea of what folks might think. Of course there will be a forum and blog setup dedicated to discussing RKBA litigation and such for members and prospective members. The right to vote would be limited to $1 for every vote so if someone only contributes $1 they can only vote once on one case but they would still have a variety of other rights and interests in the group.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

It sure seems like you've come up with a solution and are now just shopping around for a problem to solve.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Jorg, don't we have a lot of problems to solve when it comes to RKBA.

I realize folks could say my idea is a solution looking for a problem but can't that be said about almost all gun control laws. The fact is, the RKBA is playing defensively it seems. I'm trying to create a solution that puts us on the offensive. Not only puts on the offensive but gets folks motivated and organized. Our biggest enemy is apathy for the RKBA, especially from gun owners.

You give folks an opportunity to have a hand in crafting a solution, you potentially start chipping away at the apathy, and once they find one form of activism to engage in. You've then opened the door for them to possibly want to find more forms of activism to join in on. I'm working with a few range buddies to start something were we supply ammo and firearms instruction for kids in the Boyscouts, so I'll finally be getting my rifle and shotgun instruction certification. It's not the biggest deal but if I can influence ten young minds in a healthy and firearm safety appropriate way, that's potentially ten new gunnies one day.

The biggest obstacle is money. I get that, so I'm trying to find a way to reduce that issue and I can't see reducing it any farther than a dollar a month. That's one less candy bar (haven't seen one for a dollar lately) or one less can of coke (have seen those for a dollar). Plus then there is the raw numbers issue. You one day find you have five million folks who are "members" in the group, your group starts to develop some room for political sway potentially, and the RKBA needs all the political sway it can muster.

If we sit home and whine and bitch on our computers then we are no better than the antis. I'm not asking for anything really sophisticated here. I'd put in the safeguards so that if someone was dumb enough to steal the money they'd likely face prison time (embezzling can get you prison time). But if we start to get organized beyond the NRA (NRA member, believe in the NRA, recommend all gun owners join the NRA), we do so much more out there.

The antis aren't quitting but what is it we are doing? Are we just now sitting back and waiting for the next push while they erode our rights a single cut at a time, and I believe they are doing that. I mean take a frigging note out of the Israeli warfare handbook and history. He who strikes first tends to win, he who rests on their victories faces defeat.

So I'd like to characterize my idea as a solution looking for a fight before the fight gets brought to our door.

 

[larryh1108]

For the record, I am 100% opposed to any form of infringement, regulation or registration of any kind for the right to own guns. It is wrong what they are doing to us in the name of ___________________ .(fill in the blank)

I believe our biggest fear should be the way that some states are over-regulating our choices. Take NYS and CT, for example. Recently, the government of thses 2 states feel that 30 round mags were too much and came up with an arbitrary nimber of 10. They also came to the conclusion that purely cosmetic features makes a gun more scary and banned them for that reason and that reason only. Cosmetic features.

Now, that can and should be fought in the courts but they are saying they are not taking away our rights to keep and bear arms, they are just saying that a few of our choices should be eliminated. We can all own various types of rifles, pistols and shotguns. They aren't taking that right away. The SC has, basically, stated it is ok for the states to deem what is best for public safety as long as they don't take away our rights to keep and bear arms. The recent ruling in CA may make shall issue a requirement rather than an option. Good news for those who live in may issue cities or states.

The scariest part is the states can legislate, one-by-one, the most popular and proven guns out of our choices to own. If the NYS and CT (and NJ, VA, MD, etc) are not overturned, then I believe more and more states will just pass similar laws because they can. All the blue states will jump on this. Once there is a majority of states who choke us, it will pass thru Congress as a federal law because more than half of the staes already have it in place.

This can and will lead to eliminating all but a few pre-chosen guns. They'll pass laws that outlaw any mag over 10 rounds, any rifle that holds 5+, etc. All guns will then have a mag of 10 rounds or less. Then they'll attack barrel length on handguns (see Canada) and then they will attack anything else they can like a minimum weight, minimum height, etc. (see Canada, AU). Within a generation, we'll only be able to buy single shot rifles, shotguns and pistols.

They'll keep taking an inch until we are left with the last inch. They won't ban owning a rifle, shotgun or pistol. They won't take away that right. They will take away our choices. They will also tax ammo something like $0.10 a round to help pay for all the damage caused by guns because it is taxing the new obummercare system. Then, like all taxes, it will "only" go up a penny here and a penny there until it hits $1.00 a round. All in the name of health care for all and safety for our children.

My point is this is where the money needs to go. MD has a great idea in finding money for the elections, before it is too late. Once they pass a law, I doubt it will be overturned if it does not take away our right to keep and bear arms. Remember, the SC has already ruled that states can pass laws for public safety and we all know how a flash hider or pistol grip turns a rifle into a weapon of mass destruction.

It starts in the voting booth. If you don't vote this November, you have no right to complain. None. You stated how you feel by not voting. It's up to us, now, not once they pass a law(s) we don't like. It will be too late if we don't fight now.

 

[RPRNY]

For the time being, it is the States where RKBA issues need to be addressed. With vile legislation now in place in NJ, NY (a long sufferer under the Sullivan Act in any event) CT, and MA, and RI now targeted with legislation similar to that recently adopted by NY and CT, the answer is not, "well, sucks for them". There is the potential medium term impact in other States, where these laws are used as templates, and in the longer term at the Federal level. These States, while small with the exception of NY are densely populated, and send virulently Liberal delegations to Congress.

Defeating anti-Second Amendment legislation in the heart of the Liberal East is a good strategy. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of voters, they may better see that the Liberal elites they enable are committed to taking away their rights. Another way to look at it is the Churchill Corollary: the gun owner discrimination advocates must be fought on the beaches, the rooftops, wherever their evil is manifest.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Thank you for getting what it is I'm trying to put out there. Getting a war chest to help Pro-2d campaign against Anti-2d politicians isn't something folks are going to be able to get behind right off the bat. They are going to be distrusting because it involves politicians, and it also involves lobbying, something most gun owners believe is accomplished by just sending the occassional letter and showing up at the ballot box, and that certainly is an indispensible part of it but we need to think bigger. The antis sure are.

We need to start somewhere and somehow, the easiest to identify at this point in my opinion is the courtroom. The news gets all over it at times and if contributors actually feel like they are being communicated to in an intelligent manner and feel they have an actual say, they are more likely to be involved. We need publicity for gun owners, wannabe gun owners, and gun ownership sympathizers. We can dress up in camo and hold up signs all day long or we can get lawyers in suits and ties to stand before the public. At the end of the day we need both.

What else are we doing?

 

[Frosty Dave]

I wouldn't characterize it as a solution looking for a problem at all. It seems to me it's a method of choosing which problem to try to solve first and then acting.

 

[RPRNY]

I'm interested in anyone proactively seeking to do something rather than just talk about it. So good on you.

But what is it? While I seriously question the tactics and political savvy of Wayne LaPierre as an individual, the NRA is a capable lobby group and has also supported effective litigation. The Second Amendment Foundation has also been an effective resource to pro 2A litigants.

There are lobby groups and resources with tremendous expertise and experience out there fighting the good fight. I and many others may not always agree with them or always be keen on their insatiable fundraising, but they are active and effective.

Are you talking about establishing a new entity in this field or really about using technology that has been successful elsewhere to expand the war chest that funds efforts already being made by these and other groups?

 

[Fremmer]

It sounds like you need to form a PAC; lobbying is more effective than litigation.