Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Restoring our right to self defense

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    I got to thinking about this today and I think it may have merit. Feel free to tell my I'm full of it though.

    Regardless of how McDonald comes out in SCOTUS and whether they consider the issue of self defense or not, I think we have a fairly good case to bring up.

    Why couldn't we find a victim or two from each state and territory; which sadly, should be extremely easy, and file a class action lawsuit against every state and 1983the federal goverment claiming that they are not allowing us to defend ourselves? I'm pretty sure the case law is on our side here and I think SCOTUS has talked about being interested in bringing up self defense. Now, I know some states do allow it to a large degree but others, pretty muchnot at all.

    As for the case law that's on our side; it's pretty clear, as most of you know:

    Warren v. DC of course and;



    Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958);
    Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968);
    Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983);
    Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985);
    Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982);
    Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981);
    Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978);
    Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977);
    Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.);
    Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969)
    and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).




    It's certainly easy to argue that the police have no duty to protect; it's already established case law. It doesn't seem like a stretch to argue that somebody has to protect us, and that somebody is us. Following along, if we have sole duty to protect ourselves we must have the tools with which to do it.

    It could also be argued in the case that without castle doctorine people are too worried about the legal and civil consequences of self defense and that we should be allowed the same benifit of the doubt and civil protection of the same police that don't defend us. This could help the states that don't have good castle doctorine; like mine, get it.

    To summarize; I just don't see how we wouldn't win. I'm sure there are pitfalls here that I'm not thinking about and someone else has probably had this idea before but I thought I'd bring it up anyway and see what you guys think.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Your Right Brass, Your full of it.















    Just Kidding, I think your right. This would be a good approach and at least get the attention of the SCOTUS.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    It's not about any DUTY to protect one's self.

    It's about one's RIGHT to do so. Especially in light of the absence of any duty on the part of the government's minions.

    And there is a part of your scheme that has merit. It's just going to be difficult to locate a plaintiff that was denied the right and then suffered an injury that could have been prevented only (or mostly, if you really want to gamble) if they had not been denied the right to protect themself by that specific means.

    You see, that's just what the attorneys (and us lawyers) are trained to do - look for the exception Your plaintiff could have had a taser, or pepper spray, or a baseball bat, or a screwdriver, or awooden spoon and still defended themself. So carrying a firearm - specifically a handgun - is not the only way, and therefore their right to self defense was not violated. All you are arguing about is level of effectiveness and convenience. If D.C. v. Heller had been about duty instead of right, we would have seen a completely different decision.

    Now stepping down from my role as devil's advocate, let me say that my biggest objection to your scheme is that it moves from the Constitutiuonal question of the 2nd Amendment to a question regarding a specific individual in an unrepeatable set of circumstances. There may be many cases like that one, but that is the one the court will be deciding. THe next case to come along will have to prove more than passing similarity to be able to claim precedent applies.

    Please don't let thois stop you from considering the options. If we don't run them up the flagpole we will never see if anyone salutes them. Almost all of the greatest thoughts have come from "ordinary" folks, not "great minds". Some of them were later called "great minds" but rarely did that happen before they had their great thought. And only a relative few were able to repeat the feat with another "great thought". So, yes, we are counting on you to come up with the solution.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    It's not about any DUTY to protect one's self.

    It's about one's RIGHT to do so. Especially in light of the absence of any duty on the part of the government's minions.
    I shouldn't have used "duty", that was a OCDO faux pas on my part.
    And there is a part of your scheme that has merit. It's just going to be difficult to locate a plaintiff that was denied the right and then suffered an injury that could have been prevented only (or mostly, if you really want to gamble) if they had not been denied the right to protect themself by that specific means.

    You see, that's just what the attorneys (and us lawyers) are trained to do - look for the exception Your plaintiff could have had a taser, or pepper spray, or a baseball bat, or a screwdriver, or awooden spoon and still defended themself. So carrying a firearm - specifically a handgun - is not the only way, and therefore their right to self defense was not violated. All you are arguing about is level of effectiveness and convenience. If D.C. v. Heller had been about duty instead of right, we would have seen a completely different decision.
    Best with a large class actioin suit? Most petitioners will be found to not have standing but a few should get through. Pretty much the same model as the latest cases making it to SCOTUS.
    Now stepping down from my role as devil's advocate, let me say that my biggest objection to your scheme is that it moves from the Constitutiuonal question of the 2nd Amendment to a question regarding a specific individual in an unrepeatable set of circumstances. There may be many cases like that one, but that is the one the court will be deciding. THe next case to come along will have to prove more than passing similarity to be able to claim precedent applies.
    Maybe itcould be set up to be decided more generally? Maybe something along the linesthatcitizens should have the same set of standards as police; basically a version of the force continuum?
    Please don't let thois stop you from considering the options. If we don't run them up the flagpole we will never see if anyone salutes them. Almost all of the greatest thoughts have come from "ordinary" folks, not "great minds". Some of them were later called "great minds" but rarely did that happen before they had their great thought. And only a relative few were able to repeat the feat with another "great thought". So, yes, we are counting on you to come up with the solution.

    stay safe.
    I appreciate your input skidmark. In Wisconsin, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to have tazers; so that's off the table here, I believe it's even against the law to own your own bullet proof vest.With all the places we can'texercise our 2A rights (currentlyanyway), how do we exercise our fundemantal human right to protect our persons?

    To me, this case wouldn't be about firearms only. We need to know that we can defend ourselves in any part of the country and have the same standards apply. Normally I'm big on local goverment and states rights but in this particular matter we shouldn't be subjected to different treatmentbased on wherewe live or travel.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

Posting Permissions

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