could you sue state for damages if denied LTC and attacked

MasterShinken

MasterShinken

Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,139
Likes
122
Location
New Hampshire
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
So I was having a thought and wasn't sure if this was possible nor if it has been brought up before, so sorry if its a dup.

Say that someone tried to get a LTC ALP and were only given a t&h restriction. a few weeks later, someone comes up to this poor person, rapes them and shoots them. This person survives as the BG was a bad shot and did minimal damage. could this person go and sue the state (or whoever) for damages because they were not allowed to have the means to defend themselves. I would also like to run this scenario if the person was on school grounds that had a no gun rule, could they go after the school for effectively and literally disarming them, leaving them helpless.

Thoughts and comments please [grin]
 
Bob P said:
IANAL. I THINK the state has governmental immunity on that issue but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
IANAL either, but its called "sovereign immunity" and as I undertand it covers the government pretty broadly for liability...

There are various things from which they are not "immune" (i.e. civil rights violations), but expecting to get damages in your instances is pretty wishfull thinking...

As I recall from helping multiple family members study for law school, to get anywhere beyond issues the Feds or state specifically say you can sue over, you have to show an individual or individuals in government positions were acting outside the scope or authority of their position... Even then, its an uphill battle...

So, long as the law says "may" at their discretion - you don't stand a chance IMO...

That is not to say that the government does not need to be sued - particularly for example - in the case of our AG threatening nuisance and malicious lawsuits to prevent lawful interstate commerce authorized by both state and Federal law... The creation of monopoly powers of in-state vendors and harm to consumers with regard to price is pretty obvious...

This is one of those instances where the shop owners and gun owners are NOT aligned. There are certainly shops who would join "on principle" but from an economic standpoint, they are potentially named defendants in an anti-trust lawsuit on behalf of gun owners...

Fun, fun, fun... This is why I am an engineer not a lawyer...
 
cekim said:
IANAL either, but its called "sovereign immunity" and as I undertand it covers the government pretty broadly for liability...

There are various things from which they are not "immune" (i.e. civil rights violations), but expecting to get damages in your instances is pretty wishfull thinking...

As I recall from helping multiple family members study for law school, to get anywhere beyond issues the Feds or state specifically say you can sue over, you have to show an individual or individuals in government positions were acting outside the scope or authority of their position... Even then, its an uphill battle...

So, long as the law says "may" at their discretion - you don't stand a chance IMO...

That is not to say that the government does not need to be sued - particularly for example - in the case of our AG threatening nuisance and malicious lawsuits to prevent lawful interstate commerce authorized by both state and Federal law... The creation of monopoly powers of in-state vendors and harm to consumers with regard to price is pretty obvious...

This is one of those instances where the shop owners and gun owners are NOT aligned. There are certainly shops who would join "on principle" but from an economic standpoint, they are potentially named defendants in an anti-trust lawsuit on behalf of gun owners...

Fun, fun, fun... This is why I am an engineer not a lawyer...
Click to expand...

governmental immunity n. the doctrine from English Common Law that no governmental body can be sued unless it gives permission. This protection resulted in terrible injustices, since public hospitals, government drivers and other employees could be negligent with impunity (free) from judgment. The Federal Tort Claims Act and state waivers of immunity (with specific claims systems) have negated this rule, which stemmed from the days when kings set prerogatives. (See: immunity, Federal Tort Claims Act)

In the US the term Sovereign Immunity usually is used in conjunction with the Federal Government. States have Governmental Immunity.
 
Last edited:
If you are talking about MA you do not have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for your own protection outside of defense of the state. And therefore you can sue all you want but you would be wasting your money. Chief has no obligation to give you the privaledge of an LTC. Yes in MA it is a privaledge and not a right. So they in no way shape or form have any responsibility or obligation to grant you that and you have no shot in hell in court.
 
Bob P said:
In the US the term Sovereign Immunity only applies to the Federal Government. States have Governmental Immunity.
Click to expand...
It's been 10 years, I guess my 2nd hand law is getting rusty... On the bright side, my 1st handers got through cum laude (magna in one case) so I'll just call them if I get in trouble... [wink]
 
cekim said:
It's been 10 years, I guess my 2nd hand law is getting rusty... On the bright side, my 1st handers got through cum laude (magna in one case) so I'll just call them if I get in trouble... [wink]
Click to expand...

Sounds like a plan to me!
 
kiver said:
Didn't the state get sued for the big dig tunnel collapse? Or was it the company that did the work?
Click to expand...

That was the contractors that got sued. Like cekim said, if you can show a state employee acted outside the scope of his duties - like took a bribe to look the other way - you can get around it.
 
Bob P said:
VA Tech isn't part of the state government.
Click to expand...

I also threw out the question about a school, such as VA tech. if I have a LTC ALP in MA, and get shot in a school that's a gun free zone, what would be the option of the victims as far as legal action against the school?

Thanks for the thoughts [grin]
 
MasterShinken said:
I also threw out the question about a school, such as VA tech. if I have a LTC ALP in MA, and get shot in a school that's a gun free zone, what would be the option of the victims as far as legal action against the school?

Thanks for the thoughts [grin]
Click to expand...


School's likely got a damages cap based on Charitable Immunity as a non-profit. They've got you coming and going [laugh]
 
Bob P,

BTW, I re-read my post and realized it could be taken to be argumentative or corrective of your comment and I did not intend it to be so - just elaborating...

Though now that I think of it, I have frequently seen (in legal writing) the terms used interchangeably to describe state's immunity and discussions of Federal abrogation and such...

But they too may be mis-using the term... I'll have to ask when my in-house counsel gets home... [wink]
 
Bob P said:
School's likely got a damages cap based on Charitable Immunity as a non-profit. They've got you coming and going [laugh]
Click to expand...

I would think from my armchair that you might have better luck going after the systemic failure to "secure" the campus from firearms and lunatics wielding them than any other approach...
 
Last edited:
MasterShinken said:
I also threw out the question about a school, such as VA tech. if I have a LTC ALP in MA, and get shot in a school that's a gun free zone, what would be the option of the victims as far as legal action against the school?

Thanks for the thoughts [grin]
Click to expand...

Nothing, because the prohibition is based on MGL 269.
 
when is the NRA going to stand behind us and sue the state for denying our rights here?
I would love to see all of these lawmakers/ LEO go to jail for breaking the very laws that bind the country together. But the NRA picks their fights carefully and they're not interested in MA
 
massamerican said:
when is the NRA going to stand behind us and sue the state for denying our rights here?
I would love to see all of these lawmakers/ LEO go to jail for breaking the very laws that bind the country together. But the NRA picks their fights carefully and they're not interested in MA
Click to expand...
Just MHO, but the NRA since I've paid any attention in the 80's has always tip-toed around the real reason for 2A and focused on "hunter's rights" which is absurd...

I think they swam in the water treatment tank of DC so long they can no longer get the stench of politics off their clothes... So, they try to "soft sell" gun rights... The time for that has passed...
 
Hmm, discouraging that such institutions are so well protected vs. us who are not...
I guess the next question would be if there is anything that a boatload of victims and parents could do to help turn around some of the current laws. putting numbers down on a flyer is easy to ignore. A lot of greeving parents and past victims might speak a bit louder, but i am unsure of the best outlet to funnel such support would be. marches and whatever are good and all, but theres got to be a larger blow that can legaly be delt by such a crowd.
 
Last edited:
Its kind of weird you posted it today. I was on campus for about 3 hours this morning before I came to work. During this time I thought about both of the issues you brought up here "MasterShinken"

Of course I know I would never ever win, nor would I try but I honestly don't know what I would do if I were in school and SHTF. If I lived through it, I would probably have a hard time going back unless policies were changed and I was allowed to carry. Since that would never happen who knows.

I just hope that never happens but a better part of me says the most likely place I am to be a victim of violence is in a school where all weapons (including mace as we discussed last week) are prohibited. History has proven this time and time again.

Also kinda funny that the viloence always seems to happen in the "weapon free" zones. Of course all of us at NES realize this and realizes criminals are called criminals because they break the law and prefer an un-armed society.

Its just rather unfortunate law makers will never open their eyes to it.
 
LT1MCSS said:
Of course I know I would never ever win, nor would I try but I honestly don't know what I would do if I were in school and SHTF.
Click to expand...

glad Im not the only one thinking of such things [smile]

I agree that as one, we cant do anything, an institution so large would snuff us out like an ant. I however have to believe that there is a way. I hate to think that people are realy THAT stupid, however I do believe that people are gulible. Rite now,ads that go out are posted by such large institutions (.gov) that it makes sence for the unlearned to believe them. The only way to counteract this is to give them somthing they can relate to, themselves. ordinary people like them. This is how BO won the presidency, a grass roots effort. much like in a fight you can win, but only if you have secured your tactics, your technique, having everything you have behind your move, and most importantly your timing.

I'm not naive enough to believe that I can do something, I am however confident that we all can if we can find the support of not just the gun crowd, but the people that have lived to see the effects of an anti-gun policy.
 
You can sue but you won't win.

The police have no obligation to protect you.

Not sure if has been referenced yet, but check out Warren v. District of Columbia.
 
mikem317 said:
The police have no obligation to protect you.
Click to expand...

Another true statement. The police are just there to investigate the crime after the fact. What percentage of crimes do they actually stop in progress. Yet people look at me like I have 3 heads when I say the only person that's going to protect you is you. The police can't help you [rolleyes]
 
sorry to hijack this thread but if you get a LTC in one town and move to another from the same state, could they take your LTC away?
 
I would think in civil court you could win, but only if you were at the same time able to prove you were denied in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner.

In other words, only if you could provide a preponderance of evidence that the refusal of your LTC was in violation of state law.
 
btnh6668 said:
sorry to hijack this thread but if you get a LTC in one town and move to another from the same state, could they take your LTC away?
Click to expand...

Had an ALP in Belchertown for years then moved to Springfield and got a restricted on renewal, moved to West Springfield got my ALP back
 
I always wondered if a law suite could be brought, saying your civil rights were violated because your were not treated equally because of your address.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Uvalde families sue FedEx and UPS also
2
Replies
38
Views
796
42!
42!
Next comes if you fart, you lose your gun rights.
Replies
10
Views
412
rewster
rewster
State to State
Replies
2
Views
174
50wt
50wt
LTC class for first timer, before July?
Replies
14
Views
290
paul73
paul73
hope this this belongs here....don't look if you get offended easily
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
frenchman
frenchman
Back
Top Bottom