could you sue state for damages if denied LTC and attacked

[Bob P]

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...

I would LOVE for someon to file a suite like that demanding punative damages - and win. THAT would get ride of 'gun free zones' pretty damned fast. The theory - you've created a 'gun free zone' and have failed to enforce it. Due to your gross negiligence in denying the plaintiffs the basic human right of self defense and in promising them a 'gun free' environment in compensation you have assumed the duty of their safety. In failing in that duty you're not only liable for the deaths, but subject to punative damages.

What the hell, it's not all that different from the Bradies suing Colt or S&W for wrongful death. Sauce for the goose and all that.

 

[seanc]

Gun free zone= Open season, no bag limit.

 

[gene]

Once you find the contract that the police and government have an obligation to protect you as an individual, it can probably be used to show they did not live up to their contractual obligations.

 

[RKG]

The subject of sovereign immunity in Massachusetts is addressed by statute: G. L. (2006 ed.) ch. 258.

For a whole bunch of reasons, the hypothesized action would fail; indeed, it might well be determined to be frivolous, subjecting the plaintiff to damages and penalties.

 

[WayneWong]

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...

I'd have no problem choosing sides if the other 49 waged war on Massachusetts for being the largest peck of a**h***s ever assembled on God's Green Earth (present company excepted). We weren't always like this. What happened?

Defend the state? If the US could take a dump, it would flush Massachusetts into the Atlantic.

Defend the state? In case of invasion, I'd run like a crying little pansy. North to New Hampshire where I'd fight like a man.

Defend the state? I wouldn't piss on the state if it were on fire.


Here's the most pertinent information about a right denied and the resulting massacre which led to Texas becoming a Shall Issue State. (Luby's Massacre)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard

 

[MasterShinken]

Here's the most pertinent information about a right denied and the resulting massacre which led to Texas becoming a Shall Issue State. (Luby's Massacre)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard

That's an interesting read, it's a wonder how the coincidental shall issue status has not happened in more places, especially schools after the VA tech incident.

 

[Skald]

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.

The thing I am learning about the court and cases is it all depends on how you approach said argument. "He denied my rights" may not cut it at all. But if you ask the lawyer to argue that your inalienable right to life has been denied and that Warren v. District of Columbia states that the police are not responsible for my life, then who is? That in many SCOTUS cases the Government has a Compelling State Interest to protect the life of their citizens (which is currently supported by more than a few SCOTUS decisions).

 

[MasterShinken]

what do you think could be granted by arguing this (thinking large scale for legislative change rather than monetary gain).

 

[LT1MCSS]

I think it could be done but it would need to be done by someone with good lawyers. Notice I said "lawyers," very deep pockets, time, and the ambition to see it all the way through.

I still don't think someone would win.

The other problem is with the mentality of the people in this state. They'll sue the hell out of you for any little reason they can find.

Also, when gun crimes happen, rather than say "Hey if I had a gun I might have been able to protect myself" people just cry for more gun bans.