Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Soliciting Contributions for Non-Res CHL Case Against Denver, CO

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    I got the approval from my attorney to discuss this issue publicly, in order to solicit contributions.

    I intend to file a lawsuit against the City and County of Denver for refusing to accept applications for concealed handgun licenses for non-residents of the state of Colorado. This is in violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment, under Ward v. Maryland and Saenz v. Roe. My attorney is John Monroe, who is legal counsel for GeorgiaCarry.org and has scored several victories in both Georgia and federal court in regards to the gun rights of Georgians.

    As a result of Colorado's law of SB07-34, as well as Denver's open carry ban, I had a life threatening experience when coming back when I flew back in from Colorado, that actually happened here in Washington State.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=11286&forum_id=55

    We are targeting Denver for two specific reasons:

    1) The Sheriff's Departments and the DPD are the issuing authority for licenses in the state of Colorado. Targeting the State of Colorado would be imprecise as they are not the ones issuing licenses.

    2) Denver has an open carry ban. Denver fight all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court to keep their open carry ban and they are only keeping it by the skins teeth of the fact that they ruled 3-3. Suing the City and County of Denver forces them to make a choice: Either repeal their open carry ban or start accepting applications and approving licenses to carry.

    I know that there are many thousands effected by the law change, and it's time to fight back against the anti-gunners. I myself can contribute some money to the effort but since there are so many affected by the SB07-34 law (which prohibits recognition of non-resident licenses of reciprocal states), I'm hoping that some others may be willing to help shoulder the load. Though John Monroe is a good attorney who doesn't charge an outrageous rate, he does have to travel to Colorado and he needs to be able to make a living just like any of us, and has bills to pay. I myself am in the same boat, and cannot simply drop thousands of dollars into this case in one fell swoop.

    Goycke v. Toomer

    The above complaint is an example of what will be filed against Denver.

    I have a paypal account that you may donate to, at lonnie.wilson @ comcast.net, put in there "Colorado case" and I will send it to my attorney. If you prefer snail mail/fedex/UPS or whatever delivery services, you can send it my attorney directly at:

    John Monroe
    re: Colorado Case
    9640 Coleman Rd
    Roswell, GA 30075

    Regards,

    Lonnie Wilson

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    This is a great companion case to the one being brought in Georgia!

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    It is, Mike.

    Would you like to make this posting a little more public?

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    I got the approval from my attorney to discuss this issue publicly, in order to solicit contributions.

    I intend to file a lawsuit against the City and County of Denver for refusing to accept applications for concealed handgun licenses for non-residents of the state of Colorado. This is in violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment, under Ward v. Maryland and Saenz v. Roe. My attorney is John Monroe, who is legal counsel for GeorgiaCarry.org and has scored several victories in both Georgia and federal court in regards to the gun rights of Georgians.

    As a result of Colorado's law of SB07-34, as well as Denver's open carry ban, I had a life threatening experience when coming back when I flew back in from Colorado, that actually happened here in Washington State.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=11286&forum_id=55

    We are targeting Denver for two specific reasons:

    1) The Sheriff's Departments and the DPD are the issuing authority for licenses in the state of Colorado. Targeting the State of Colorado would be imprecise as they are not the ones issuing licenses.

    2) Denver has an open carry ban. Denver fight all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court to keep their open carry ban and they are only keeping it by the skins teeth of the fact that they ruled 3-3. Suing the City and County of Denver forces them to make a choice: Either repeal their open carry ban or start accepting applications and approving licenses to carry.

    I know that there are many thousands effected by the law change, and it's time to fight back against the anti-gunners. I myself can contribute some money to the effort but since there are so many affected by the SB07-34 law (which prohibits recognition of non-resident licenses of reciprocal states), I'm hoping that some others may be willing to help shoulder the load. Though John Monroe is a good attorney who doesn't charge an outrageous rate, he does have to travel to Colorado and he needs to be able to make a living just like any of us, and has bills to pay. I myself am in the same boat, and cannot simply drop thousands of dollars into this case in one fell swoop.

    Goycke v. Toomer

    The above complaint is an example of what will be filed against Denver.

    I have a paypal account that you may donate to, at lonnie.wilson @ comcast.net, put in there "Colorado case" and I will send it to my attorney. If you prefer snail mail/fedex/UPS or whatever delivery services, you can send it my attorney directly at:

    John Monroe
    re: Colorado Case
    9640 Coleman Rd
    Roswell, GA 30075

    Regards,

    Lonnie Wilson
    Having looked at this again, you seem to miss suing over their refusal to accept your FL CHP based soley on your WA state citizenship - this claim is your most important claim for advancing reciprocity. This is what might motiviate people to give money to support.

    Further, I do not understand the linkage between the open carry ban in Denver and the refusal to issue CHPs to persons who are not citizens of Colorado. Apples and oranges for many reasons - including the fact that state law forbids issuance of CHPs to non-citizens of Colo., not a Denver ordinance.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    489

    Post imported post

    imagine if this happened in every state, we could have nationwide reciprocity

    if you havent read it yet check out GCO's case http://www.georgiacarry.com/county/fulton_nonres/ here is all the motions etc so far

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    Lonnie

    You should have received the additional funds I sentvia snail mail by now. I hate to use PayPal they are so anti-gun.

    Mike

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    489

    Post imported post

    are they really??

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Just a quick question....


    Are you a resident of Colorado?


    I don't think you can sue another state over it's laws.


    Source: 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Phoenixphire wrote:
    Just a quick question....


    Are you a resident of Colorado?


    I don't think you can sue another state over it's laws.


    Source: 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
    State sovereign immunity secured by the federal constitution merely limits in some cases suits against states in federal courts. However, anyone with standing may sue a state in federal court for violation of a federal law. In this case, Lonnie is going to sue Colorado for violating the federal constitution' Art. IV priveleges and immunities clause by discriminating against him based purely upon state citizenship.

    Art. IV privileges and immunities clause has been successfully used, for example,to quash state discrimination in FOIA matters and bar license privleges.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    I'll say it again: there is no standing to sue Denver. It will be tossed immediately. A suit against the state at least would have some merit, although it is a loser, as well. Denver doesn't control non-res CCWs, the state of CO does. The fact that a county sheriff issues permits has nothing to do with the laws of the state governing that issuance.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    I'll say it again: there is no standing to sue Denver. It will be tossed immediately. A suit against the state at least would have some merit, although it is a loser, as well. Denver doesn't control non-res CCWs, the state of CO does. The fact that a county sheriff issues permits has nothing to do with the laws of the state governing that issuance.
    Huh? You can't sue the state directly due to sovereign immunity, so you sue it's officials, a legal fiction around soverign immunity. Suing the Sheriff for following the statute and refusing to issue to non-residents is exactly what you have to do to get the state statute invalidated (that's what i did in Stollenwerk v. Miller and won over SSN demands for carry permits), and the injury is clear here, as is the constitutional violation, i.e., discriminating against permit applicants based solely upon state citizenship in violation of Article IV's privileges and immunities clause.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    I'll say it again: there is no standing to sue Denver. It will be tossed immediately. A suit against the state at least would have some merit, although it is a loser, as well. Denver doesn't control non-res CCWs, the state of CO does. The fact that a county sheriff issues permits has nothing to do with the laws of the state governing that issuance.
    Huh? You can't sue the state directly due to sovereign immunity, so you sue it's officials, a legal fiction around soverign immunity. Suing the Sheriff for following the statute and refusing to issue to non-residents is exactly what you have to do to get the state statute invalidated (that's what i did in Stollenwerk v. Miller and won over SSN demands for carry permits), and the injury is clear here, as is the constitutional violation, i.e., discriminating against permit applicants based solely upon state citizenship in violation of Article IV's privileges and immunities clause.
    I say it will be tossed immediately. And you certainly can sue the state directly--as well as the Feds. I'm amazed you would say otherwise. Lese majeste has no bearing. Suing the sheriff for following state law is ludicrous. He can be sued by mandamus to obey the laws; he cannot be sued to disobey them. He is merely a transfer agent in this case. Your case has no relation to this one. As we have gone over P&I vs FF&C at length in the past, there's no point in reopening it. Time will tell.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    I'll say it again: there is no standing to sue Denver. It will be tossed immediately. A suit against the state at least would have some merit, although it is a loser, as well. Denver doesn't control non-res CCWs, the state of CO does. The fact that a county sheriff issues permits has nothing to do with the laws of the state governing that issuance.
    Huh? You can't sue the state directly due to sovereign immunity, so you sue it's officials, a legal fiction around soverign immunity. Suing the Sheriff for following the statute and refusing to issue to non-residents is exactly what you have to do to get the state statute invalidated (that's what i did in Stollenwerk v. Miller and won over SSN demands for carry permits), and the injury is clear here, as is the constitutional violation, i.e., discriminating against permit applicants based solely upon state citizenship in violation of Article IV's privileges and immunities clause.
    I say it will be tossed immediately. And you certainly can sue the state directly--as well as the Feds. I'm amazed you would say otherwise. Lese majeste has no bearing. Suing the sheriff for following state law is ludicrous. He can be sued by mandamus to obey the laws; he cannot be sued to disobey them. He is merely a transfer agent in this case. Your case has no relation to this one. As we have gone over P&I vs FF&C at length in the past, there's no point in reopening it. Time will tell.
    You need to review soverign immunity law - you cannot sue a state diretly, only its officers as a legal fiction - and the way you challenge state laws which are unconstitutional is exactly as I have explained, as the fedeal judge in my and other cases have ruled, etc.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    I'll say it again: there is no standing to sue Denver. It will be tossed immediately. A suit against the state at least would have some merit, although it is a loser, as well. Denver doesn't control non-res CCWs, the state of CO does. The fact that a county sheriff issues permits has nothing to do with the laws of the state governing that issuance.
    Huh? You can't sue the state directly due to sovereign immunity, so you sue it's officials, a legal fiction around soverign immunity. Suing the Sheriff for following the statute and refusing to issue to non-residents is exactly what you have to do to get the state statute invalidated (that's what i did in Stollenwerk v. Miller and won over SSN demands for carry permits), and the injury is clear here, as is the constitutional violation, i.e., discriminating against permit applicants based solely upon state citizenship in violation of Article IV's privileges and immunities clause.
    I say it will be tossed immediately. And you certainly can sue the state directly--as well as the Feds. I'm amazed you would say otherwise. Lese majeste has no bearing. Suing the sheriff for following state law is ludicrous. He can be sued by mandamus to obey the laws; he cannot be sued to disobey them. He is merely a transfer agent in this case. Your case has no relation to this one. As we have gone over P&I vs FF&C at length in the past, there's no point in reopening it. Time will tell.
    You need to review soverign immunity law - you cannot sue a state diretly, only its officers as a legal fiction - and the way you challenge state laws which are unconstitutional is exactly as I have explained, as the fedeal judge in my and other cases have ruled, etc.
    You can sue any government entity with certain permissions which, as a rule, are granted immediately. Waiver of immunity under lese majeste, as I reference, is the rule rather than the exception and supported hundreds of times in case law both states and the Feds. That being said, the sheriff has no liability when acting under the color of law in a civil matter. Standing exists only with the creator of the law in question: viz., the state of Colorado. The court will decide this and toss the suit. The challenge to an unconstitutional law is the law, not the functionary. The sheriff is not an agent of the state, only the county.

    e.g.

    HUNDREDS of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans have filed a class-action lawsuit against the US government for providing them with deficient medical and financial support.

    They accused the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) of violating the constitutional rights of war veterans who have to face a bureaucratic nightmare that leaves claims pending for up to 10 years.

    "The delays have become an insurmountable barrier preventing many veterans from obtaining health care and benefits," the plaintiffs said in their 11-page complaint filed at a US District Court in San Francisco.

    The Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth Inc complained on behalf of "hundreds of thousands of men and women who have suffered grievous injuries", alleging the system for deciding VA claims "has largely collapsed".

    "The huge influx of injured troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan has overwhelmed the VA's outmoded systems for providing medical care and disability benefits," the complaint said.

    In addition, it said the VA's "archaic systems are structurally unsuitable for dealing with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)", which afflicts many war veterans.




    The veterans charge the VA with deliberately tricking some PTSD sufferers by having them acknowledge pre-existing personality disorders in order to avoid giving them benefits.

    "Unless systematic and drastic measures are instituted immediately," the complaint said, "the costs to these veterans, their families, and our nation will be incalculable, including broken families, a new generation of unemployed and homeless veterans, increases in drug abuse and alcoholism".

    The difficulties injured war veterans have to face at home caught the US public's attention earlier this year when the media reported on scandalous conditions at Washington's Walter Reed military hospital.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    You can sue any government entity with certain permissions which, as a rule, are granted immediately. Waiver of immunity under lese majeste, as I reference, is the rule rather than the exception and supported hundreds of times in case law both states and the Feds. That being said, the sheriff has no liability when acting under the color of law in a civil matter. Standing exists only with the creator of the law in question: viz., the state of Colorado. The court will decide this and toss the suit. The challenge to an unconstitutional law is the law, not the functionary. The sheriff is not an agent of the state, only the county.

    e.g.

    HUNDREDS of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans have filed a class-action lawsuit against the US government for providing them with deficient medical and financial support.
    ??Huh? This is complete made up nonesense - very disapointing.

    What are the named parties in the suit you mention above?

  16. #16
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger,

    The class action suit you are referring to is Veterans for Common Sense v. Nicholson and it was NOT filed against the US Government. As Mike has repeatedly pointed out, you cannot do this (except in very limited circumstances where, by statute, a direct cause-of-action has been provided).

    Rather, the class action suit in question was filed against the following officials (again as Mike pointed out would need to be done):

    * R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Department of Veterans Affairs; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
    * JAMES P. TERRY, Chairman, Board of Veterans Appeals
    * DANIEL L. COOPER, Under Secretary, Veterans Benefits Administration
    * BRADLEY G. MAYES, Director, Compensation and Pension Service
    * DR. MICHAEL J. KUSSMAN, Under Secretary, Veterans Health Administration
    * PRITZ K. NAVARA, Veterans Service Center Manager, Oakland Regional Office, Department of Veterans Affairs; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    * ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States
    * WILLIAM P. GREENE, JR., Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims


  17. #17
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Fresh from settling a lawsuit over last year's fatal explosion at its Texas City oil refinery, BP looks set to become embroiled in a legal battle in Alaska over royalties paid on oil production in Prudhoe Bay.

    The family of Andrew Oenga, an Inupiat who lived on the North Slope in Alaska until his death a decade ago, is suing the US government, claiming his eight descendants are owed $40m (£21m) in back rent. In the 1970s, Mr Oenga was allotted property in Alaska under a federal government programme for native Indians. The allotment, administered by the Bureau for Indian Affairs, does not include rights to the oil under the surface, but does provide for payments if the oil companies make use of the area underground.

    BP applied to run a road and pipeline on the surface, and has since paid the Oengas - via the US government - over $650,000. However, the lawsuit filed earlier this year claims BP also operated oil production facilities on the 10-acre site that were not covered by the lease, and as such, the Oengas are entitled to about $40m in back payments.

    The family is suing the US government for breach of its fiduciary duty, claiming it incorrectly drew up the lease so that BP has paid the family less than 0.1pc of the $1.6bn of oil produced at the site, rather than the 4pc they claim they are entitled to.

    The government denies the claim, saying BP was entitled to use the land for production. However, lawyers say that if the government loses the case, it could sue BP for any damages awarded. "We're just seeking justice for the wrong they've done," Joseph Inuquruq Delia, Mr Oenga's grandson said. "My grandfather couldn't speak or read English. The government betrayed him. BP has profited from it and we just want the same justice that others have got."

    BP has intervened in the lawsuit, but notes that the company itself is not a target.

    "We have always paid the lease amount that the Bureau of Indian Affairs determined," a spokesman said. "We have intervened to keep our options open."



    WASHINGTON, May 17, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The American Civil Liberties Union sued the US government Monday, arguing that federal funding of a countrywide abstinence program is illegal because it promotes religion.

    The ACLU takes issue with the Silver Ring Thing abstinence drive because it derives from a Christian ministry. In addition, the silver ring - a perpetual memento of the abstinence oath - has inscribed upon it a verse of scripture. The program has received over $1 million in funding from the Department of Health and Human Services since 2003, as part of abstinence-only sex education.

    "The courts have repeatedly said taxpayer dollars cannot be used to promote religion," said ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project attorney Julie Sternberg, according to an AP report. "The Silver Ring Thing blatantly violates this principle," she claimed.

    The ring is inscribed with a bible verse - 1 Thessalonians 4, 3-4, which reads: "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin. Then each of you will control your body and live in holiness and honour."

    The Silver Ring Thing founder and president, Denny Pattyn, said that more than 30,000 young people have vowed to remain chaste before marriage after taking one of their 3-hour presentations, which includes music and comedy



    Ford Motor Co., struggling amid the U.S. auto sales decline, has sued the U.S. government, alleging the IRS owes the automaker $445.3 million in interest on tax overpayments.

    Ford, which posted losses totaling of $2.7 billion last year and recently abandoned its long-standing goal of returning to profitability in 2009, said the interest owed stems from tax overpayments in 1994, 1992, and the period 1983-1989.

    The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit on Thursday, follows a long-running dispute between Ford and the IRS over how interest should be calculated for excess tax payments.




    The VA official, op cit,is being sued, ex officio as an agent of the US government. It will be defended by the Justice Department, not his private lawyer. Suits against the US government are virtually always against an official of it acting in official capacity. Let's not muddy the water. If a suit against an official is won, who pays? The US Treasury.





    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    The VA official, op cit,is being sued, ex officio as an agent of the US government. It will be defended by the Justice Department, not his private lawyer. Suits against the US government are virtually always against an official of it acting in official capacity. Let's not muddy the water. If a suit against an official is won, who pays? The US Treasury.
    OK, finally, you see now that suits against the government generally proceed against a named official of the government, a legal fiction around the doctrine of sovereign immunity, in order to reach the state itself.

    That is the point of Lonnie's proposed suit - to sue the official who denies his carry permit application in order to facially attack the unconstitutional state statute.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    85

    Post imported post

    SCOTUS hinted in the Heller Decision that Open CarryWAS constitutionally protected. A lawsuit challenging the OC ban directly would most likely be a winner and get SCOTUS to incorporate OC to the states via the 14th amendments due process clause.

    PS the privileges and immunities clause has been gutted bythe Court during the Slaughter House Cases to be almost meaningless. However the McDonald v. Chicago case (over turning Chicago's handgun ban and long gun registration) is trying to get SCOTUS to rethink its interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause. Hopefully they reconsider.

    GOOD LUCK!






  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Johnyt101 wrote:
    PS the privileges and immunities clause has been gutted bythe Court during the Slaughter House Cases to be almost meaningless.
    No, the privileges and immunities caluse in Article IV banning state discrimination against citizens of other states is alive and well.

    The Slaughter House Cases gutted the privleges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    85

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the correction, misunderstood what part of the constitution was being discussed.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    The VA official, op cit,is being sued, ex officio as an agent of the US government. It will be defended by the Justice Department, not his private lawyer. Suits against the US government are virtually always against an official of it acting in official capacity. Let's not muddy the water. If a suit against an official is won, who pays? The US Treasury.
    OK, finally, you see now that suits against the government generally proceed against a named official of the government, a legal fiction around the doctrine of sovereign immunity, in order to reach the state itself.

    That is the point of Lonnie's proposed suit - to sue the official who denies his carry permit application in order to facially attack the unconstitutional state statute.
    There is nothing to "finally" see. You keep missing the point: the US or any state government can be sued, has been and will be again. The lead agency head is generally named. E.g., the head of the VA, or Treasury or whatever, but he is not being sued. He is named as a stand in against the respondent: the US government. If the suit is won, who pays? Not him, but the US Treasury. A county sheriff has no standing to be named in a suit against state law, any more than a county Dogcatcher. I've never said a person can't be named in the complaint; simply that the ultimate respondent is the state/country.

    The statute is fully constitutional, fully within residual powers,and the case will be tossed. Or maybe you can start a collection to sue the state of ND because they don't accept your VA fishing license. That makes an equal amount of sense.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    The VA official, op cit,is being sued, ex officio as an agent of the US government. It will be defended by the Justice Department, not his private lawyer. Suits against the US government are virtually always against an official of it acting in official capacity. Let's not muddy the water. If a suit against an official is won, who pays? The US Treasury.
    OK, finally, you see now that suits against the government generally proceed against a named official of the government, a legal fiction around the doctrine of sovereign immunity, in order to reach the state itself.

    That is the point of Lonnie's proposed suit - to sue the official who denies his carry permit application in order to facially attack the unconstitutional state statute.
    There is nothing to "finally" see. You keep missing the point: the US or any state government can be sued, has been and will be again. The lead agency head is generally named. E.g., the head of the VA, or Treasury or whatever, but he is not being sued. He is named as a stand in against the respondent: the US government. If the suit is won, who pays? Not him, but the US Treasury. A county sheriff has no standing to be named in a suit against state law, any more than a county Dogcatcher. I've never said a person can't be named in the complaint; simply that the ultimate respondent is the state/country.

    The statute is fully constitutional, fully within residual powers,and the case will be tossed. Or maybe you can start a collection to sue the state of ND because they don't accept your VA fishing license. That makes an equal amount of sense.
    Actually, "he" will be sued in his personal and official capacity if Lonnie brings the action - the state comes in as a legal fiction around soverign immunity. "Standing" is not a doctrine applicable to Defendants, only Plaintiffs. The case will not get "tossed," maybe what you meant was "dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"? Probably not as it is clear that states may not discriminate against citizens of other states when applying for licenses (e.g., bar licenses), making state FOIA requests, see Lee v. Minner (3d. Cir. 2006), etc., unless compelling reasons are present. This is why a similar suit is proceeding right now in federal court in Georgia right now spearheaded by Georigia Carry.org.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    "Standing" applies to respondants as well as plaintiffs. You can't sue the 'wrong' person and if you do the case is dismissed in limine as any evidence brought would be immaterial to the respondant and therefore excluded. But, let's see what happens. You and I can go around on this--and have, forever, but the court has the last word. As I said, I fully support the principle, but have grave doubts as to the execution.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    "Standing" applies to respondants as well as plaintiffs. You can't sue the 'wrong' person and if you do the case is dismissed in limine as any evidence brought would be immaterial to the respondant and therefore excluded.
    What on earth are you talking about? Standing is a doctrine to implement Article III case or controversy limits on the jurisdiction ofcourtsand is applicable only to Plaintiffs, not Defendants.

    A Plaintiff has standing if he sustains an "injury in fact." Lujan. Further, Courts must assume Plaintiff's case, including designation of Defendant,to be meritorious when ruling on standing.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •