I was just wondering this... think about this when you call your senator about S.69

 

Someone could just happen to go public saying a certain party/senator is planning on spending taxpayers money on defending the current system, lawsuits on the right to bear arms after the highest court have already ruled on this issue.

 

hint hint, nudge nudge...

 

Mr. Senator,

 

you do realize spending taxpayers money on defending the current unconstitutional gun control schemes in this state could hurt your party or you for that matter come November, it would be a shame if this went public.

What? Do you mean like this?

 

Lawyers in D.C. Gun Case Want $3.12 Million in Fees

 

The lawyers who successfully challenged the District of Columbia's handgun ban, securing a victory in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, are asking for more than $3.1 million in attorneys fees and costs.

 

Alan Gura, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs in Heller v. District of Columbia, said in a motion June 18 in Washington federal district court that the plaintiffs

no like if you sue a state, does it cost the state money?

 

meaning...

 

eventually costing the taxpayer money.

Yes

ok, cause I sent a letter to all the senators, just didn't want to sound like an ***

no like if you sue a state, does it cost the state money?

 

meaning...

 

eventually costing the taxpayer money.

 

 

The state has no money of its own. They have no interest bearing assets, do not operate w/ a surplus, etc. Every $ they get comes from Joe Taxpayer...

no like if you sue a state, does it cost the state money?

 

meaning...

 

eventually costing the taxpayer money.

 

The DC v Heller case is costing Washington D.C money (the link I posted)

Everything costs money except the air you breathe and sunlight.

 

However the line, "They will sue at the expense of taxpayers everywhere" is always used as a last ditch effort to shore up public support on the side that is most backed up into a corner.

 

I have read that line said about so many things it has become quite a farce. The government, state and local, can be sued an will be sued. The only time anyone should take exception to it is when someone wants to fake and injury and get a negligence lawsuit payout. A lawyer told me this was what they call "rolling the dice" with a jury.

 

NOT bringing a valid lawsuit because you fear the taxpayers will suffer is exactly what a guy that knows he will lose wants you to do. OR, failing that, he wants to incite public opinion for those that might be on the fence on the issue, to wiegh in on the side of "why waste our taxes on this stuff when we could be doing that stuff."

 

A common ploy, but with no merit or logical validity because we can sure that the man saying it would have no remorse doing the same if he could for his own agenda.