just read something in another forum

[1LtCAP 4,264]

it's not a guns forum, but there is a subforum within for guns topics. one of the kalifornia members stated something that i've been thinking about lately, concerning carry permits.

 

he'd basically mentioned that someone that is hurt or injured in a gun free zone, should have the ability to sue over the fact that he was denied his 2a rights to self defense.

i'd been thinking about this concerning nj, especially after reading the thread that the landscaper guy has...the one where the sheriff issued it, then the courts took it away.

 

so i guess the gist of it here in nj is.......you're denied your 2a rights. you get carjacked coming out of the moorestown mall. in this incident, the jacker shoots you in the leg, 'cause you didn't move fast enough..........now it's time to take nj to court, because in the long run, your injury, and lost car is basically blood on the states hands.

 

or am i reaching?

[Arbelest 29]

You will need a good lawyer and a lot of open minds to agree. (almost) Anything is worth a shot.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

well, my reasoning is that they've gotta get hit in the pocketbook. trust me, i'm not a fan of suing anyone.....but this may just get them to see the light......

[EchoMirage 137]

that argument seems like the survivors of newtown could also sue CT, since they were denied their 2A right in a gun free zone.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

that argument seems like the survivors of newtown could also sue CT, since they were denied their 2A right in a gun free zone.

 

THAT sir is part of where i was going. we all know it wasn't the guns fault that that loon did what he did. but...the fault of his ability to do that lays at least in part with the governing body that created that gun free zone....otherwise known as a target rich environment.

[rlsbee 1]

If enough people start asking this question, it could make some people nervous. Maybe we should, at least, bring up the subject at every opportunity.

[TunnelBuilder 0]

I could also see a solid lawsuit for someone who was denied a ccw in NJ, that has gotten mugged/attacked after their denial.

[Handyman 5,682]

Before the ink was dry on the paperwork the NJ legislature would pass a law granting the state immunity.

[PeteF 1,044]

Could only hold for public "Gun Free Zones". Any private area you accept their rules as a agreement for entry.

[ryan_j 0]

Do you mean like Muller ? We know how that turned out. Denied. Appealed, and only when it was made into a federal lawsuit did they issue his permit. I wonder if they'll renew it.

[Bob2222 317]

he'd basically mentioned that someone that is hurt or injured in a gun free zone, should have the ability to sue over the fact that he was denied his 2a rights to self defense.

 

He has the ability to sue -- pretty much anyone for any reason at any time. However, I think this would get tossed fairly quickly. Newtown parents might sue the State of Connecticut for not institutionalizing a homicidal maniac or sue the school district for lax security. They might even win a settlement or win in court. Would it survive appeal? Warren v District of Columbia http://en.wikipedia....ict_of_Columbia -- the police/government have no duty to protect you.

 

so i guess the gist of it here in nj is.......you're denied your 2a rights. you get carjacked coming out of the moorestown mall. in this incident, the jacker shoots you in the leg, 'cause you didn't move fast enough..........now it's time to take nj to court, because in the long run, your injury, and lost car is basically blood on the states hands.

 

or am i reaching?

 

If you're worried about being safe from carjackers -- drive a stick shift.

 

90% of the people in NJ won't be able to drive your car.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

correct.,,.,,they have no duty to protect me/us.......so it would then be incumbent on them to allow me/us to protect ourselves as best as we see fit. if said protection means getting as permit, learning how to safely handle the firearm, then they must do this, unless they are going to be there. which is really impossible for them.

 

no....i'm not worried 'bout being jacked, i was using that as an example. and everythign of mine is stickshift.

[maintenanceguy 510]

I'm not a lawyer but I believe you can't sue the State for monetary damages with very few exceptions such as: the state agrees to let you sue them or the US congress allows you to sue the State for civil rights violations. Of course these are civil rights violations but the congress will never see it that way.

[High Exposure 5,673]

This line of thinking made some waves after the shootings in the movie theater in Aurora CO

 

I seem to remember that there was speciation he picked that movie theater out of all the others in the area specifically due to their "No Guns/Gun Free Zone" Policy as that allowed him unrestricted access to victims that could not fight back.

 

If that turns out to be the case, I would expect to see lawsuits after the criminal trial is completed.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I would not want to see a lawsuit like that... because if you can sue for being hurt because the government did not allow you to carry and you were hurt... the next logical stretch is you could sue the government for allowing any condition that MIGHT get you injured... the problem with that is a million and one laws to protect the government from being sued.... carrying a gun does not guarantee safety.... so you really could never prove the case that having a gun would have saved you... it may or may not have saved you...

[Anselmo 87]

To sue that you were denied your 2A rights outside your home, you'd have to successfully argue that 2A extends outside of the home. That is unsettled law. It would be difficult for you to prevail in civil court arguing unsettled law. If SCOTUS was to rule that 2A extends outside the home then you'd have an interesting lawsuit.

[High Exposure 5,673]

I would not want to see a lawsuit like that... because if you can sue for being hurt because the government did not allow you to carry and you were hurt... the next logical stretch is you could sue the government for allowing any condition that MIGHT get you injured... the problem with that is a million and one laws to protect the government from being sued.... carrying a gun does not guarantee safety.... so you really could never prove the case that having a gun would have saved you... it may or may not have saved you...

 

I believe the lawsuits being threatened are not over being hurt, but over the fact that people were targeted/victimized specifically because of a "Company policy" that was counter to CO State Law. They are suing the Movie Theater, not the Govt.

[Babyface Finster 45]

I believe the lawsuits being threatened are not over being hurt, but over the fact that people were targeted/victimized specifically because of a "Company policy" that was counter to CO State Law. They are suing the Movie Theater, not the Govt.

 

So wouldn't the moviegoer have made an "assumption of risk" by patronizing a movie theater that doesn't allow firearms?

[High Exposure 5,673]

Not my lawsuit. Don't live in CO. I am neither a victim or a lawyer. Just reporting what I heard from friends in CO.

 

However, in my mind there is "assumption of risk" and there is "specifically targeted" due to company policy.

 

Does personal responsibility and adult decision making factor in? Absolutely.

 

Do the victims have a case? Maybe

 

Should be interesting.

[Babyface Finster 45]

Not my lawsuit. Don't live in CO. I am neither a victim or a lawyer. Just reporting what I heard from friends in CO.

 

However, in my mind there is "assumption of risk" and there is "specifically targeted" due to company policy.

 

Does personal responsibility and adult decision making factor in? Absolutely.

 

Do the victims have a case? Maybe

 

Should be interesting.

 

I'm not too sure anyone will ever be able to prove that the victims were "specifically targeted" due to the no-gun policy at the theater. Even so, it seems like a real reach to me. Following this logic, anyone who is mugged in the parking lot of a restaurant with a "cash only" policy may have been specifically targeted by the assailant as likely to be carrying a wad of cash. Should that business owner be held responsible or is it just one of the innumerable risks we take every time we walk out the door?

 

I don't see this going anywhere, and in my mind it shouldn't. If someone carries a gun for protection and comes to a business that prohibts them, he/she should just keep walking. If he/she chooses to patronize this business, they accept the lawful conditions that the private property owner sets.

 

CO in particular seems to be moving in the wrong direction in public attitude, especially in the cities. I was strongly considering moving there in the next few years, but I've pretty much scratched CO off the list. The reason that so many businesses have such policies is because it does not hurt their business significantly to do so. If enough consumers cared about this issue you wouldn't see signs like this anywhere, but it looks like most CO citizens are either anti-gun or totally ambivalent. This thinking seems to be spreading in CO like wildfire and it's a damn shame. In time it will be just like this shithole only with better scenery and worse food.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I believe the lawsuits being threatened are not over being hurt, but over the fact that people were targeted/victimized specifically because of a "Company policy" that was counter to CO State Law. They are suing the Movie Theater, not the Govt.

 

ah then as others pointed out that is IMO complete fail.... I do not really mind when a business makes a "gun free zone"... I prefer a business to be able to do what it likes... if a business does not want my money because I choose to carry a gun... I will simply give someone else my money that is more respectful of me... I rarely go anywhere I am not "allowed" to carry a gun..

[1LtCAP 4,264]

guys.....don't get me wrong. i'm the last person that likes the thought of lawsuits. i could be fairly well off right now, had i sued the lady in the saturn that whacked me head on.....but i wasn't raised like that.

 

my main thing is.........police do what they can, as best as they can. but they cannot possibly be everywhere all the time. it's even been stated before(i think) that they are not obligated to protect an individual person, although i see them doing this whenever they can. i think that most honest law enforcement officers would agree that the ability to carry increases ones personal safety 10fold.

 

the argument could be made that one assumed the risk by entering a "gun free" establishment, such as the theater in colorado. BUT.......then again, how well informed were those peoples decisions to enter that place? in a state such as Colorado, if a business owner(and i fully agree that it should definitly be the business owners choice to do as they please within the law) should choose to make their venue a "gun free" zone, then is it not incumbent on them to provide security? and the same question arises concerning the school in ct.

 

then taking it a step farther, knowing that nj is ridden with crime, and knowing that your life pretty much has to be at risk to get the courts to issue a carry permit.....would it not then be incumbent on the state(and i know this is impossible) to provide for our personal safety, as they choose to not allow us to take the personal responsibility for our own safety?

 

vladtepes mentioned a suit would be hard to win, due to the fact that it could not really be proven that possessing a pistol would have prevented injury, or death. on the other side of that argument, i would proport that it could in deed be argued as such. criminals are generally cowards, and they want fast/easy. if they even had the slightest hint that that woman walking through the parking garage to her car was carrying, they would wait for someone they thought wasn't carrying.....or they'd simply go somewhere else.

 

i think that the statistics all across the country support some form of carry making people in general safer....the problem is to get nj to recognize this. and if not, then the possibility of getting hit with these suits virtually every time something happens that could have been prevented simply by possessing.....not even using, but just letting the criminal see it........a pistol.......that may open their eyes.

 

of course, i'm no lawyer, nor am i intending to stir up any poop.....but it does look like there's some good interesting conversation going on here.

[maintenanceguy 510]

Nobody can get a federal court to rule that the second amendment even says what it says. Good luck suing the government for damages caused by violating that right.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

well you know.....we can dream, right?

[H.M. Murdock 0]

well you know.....we can dream, right?

 

For now.