How come more victims don't sue the State or businesses?

[thaddeus]

Since law suits are en vogue, I am wondering why more victims of crimes don't sue the State or businesses for not protecting them, or for not allowing them to protect themselves.
For instance, the woman in Texas (forgot her name) who filed suit against Texas for not letting her carry her gun into the Luby's, and therefore she had to watch her parents die.
If every victim of violent crime, or even %10 of them, started suing the State for not allowing them to protect themselves, then I think that would be very formidable. Same with businesses that do not let you carry a gun into them, but fail to protect you.
If the State, and businesses, are going to disarm us and refuse to let us protect ourselves, it should become their resposibility to protect us.
I realize that the Supreme court has decided that the Police are not responsible to protect us, but it seems that if you sue the State (not the Police) for the gun laws that castrate people and make them vicitms, that it might fly. The same would be to sue a business that disarms you , but then does not do enough to keep the bad guys out and keep you safe.
And...if that didn't work, how about the fact that the State is too easy on criminals and %80 of crime is by repeat offenders. Victims should start suing the State when they are attacked by a repeat offender. What this would accomplish is that the State would start being much more careful who they set free, and they would eventually get tougher on crime.
If all else fails, hit them in the pocketbook to get them to take some action. They ARE responsible when they disarm the public, and then let criminals out of jail early to prey on the defensless populace. THEY are creating this situation.

whaddya think?
thaddeus

 

[DC]

Most State and municipal gov'ts have clauses that protect them against lawsuits...i.e you can't sue them. Many times you are able to sue a gov't dept or agency for property damage...say a city vehicle jumps the curb and smashes into your house; or if you can prove that due to negligence on the part of the city, state you were injured or damaged (say after repeated contact they still haven't fixed the road sign).



------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

 

[RepublicThunderbolt]

The federal and state governments have generally been held to have no responsibility to "protect and defend" their citizens. This would be okay if they were not always so busy trying to seize any and every restriction and control they possibily can.

Case in point, a news story a few days ago here. Police officer makes a traffic stop. Civilian takes out tape recorder and informs officer that for his safety, he's going to record the proceeding. Officer yanks civilian out of car and arrests him for attempting to tape the stop. Civilian argues that police record and videotape stops without the other parties consent. Doesn't matter, gets hauled off to jail. Police later say they're not going to prosecute, but the law was somehow violated. Civilian is now attempting to sue.

Which brings up point two. The government has what amounts to limitless resources for legal delay. With "special powers" to do things like those that hide or dismiss evidence, our courts don't really act much different than those of despotic nations.

 

[Jim March]

Thad, first off this bit...

"For instance, the woman in Texas (forgot her name) who filed suit against Texas for not letting her carry her gun into the Luby's, and therefore she had to watch her parents die."

...is 100% *incorrect*.

#1, she was NOT disarmed by the business. She was disarmed by TEXAS - this was before the new shall-issue CCW system of '96. And Luby's at present *welcomes* CCW holders, or at least it did last I heard.

Second, she didn't SUE anybody. She gave numerous speeches, you can see a transcript of one to Congress here:

http://www.ghg.net/mav/suzan.html

I've heard her speak myself, she testified in California in favor of the last shall-issue attempt.

She also got elected to the TX state legislature and was a key player in the 1996 CCW bill.

Now, as to actually suing:

You can't sue the state for failure to protect you. You can't even sue for their efforts to disarm you, unless those attempts are clearly illegal or unconstitutional. And in the 9th Federal Judicial Circuit where both you and I live, the 2nd Amendment has been declared to be about the states forming organized militias.

Yes, I KNOW that's a male bovine product but that's life. Keep your eye on that TX case that reaffirmed the 2nd as an individual right, that sweet baby could GO places, if it goes to the Supremes and wins we're in better shape.

What you CAN sue them over is illegal procedures and violations of equal protection; us Californians have a really cool bit of state constitution to work with:

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."

That means when your Sheriff hands out permits as political favors he IS violating your civil right to treatment EQUAL TO his friggin' cronies. Massachusets has a state constitutional provision just as good, if worded a bit archaic. Some other do too. The Federal 14th and 5th amendments have been stretched the same way by the courts but I've been told you need to be REAL careful with those if you're not one of the "protected minorities". As a Californian I've ignored Fed equal protection constitutional case law and focused on the state constitution with is broader and simpler.

Then there's case law: if you haven't been to my site and read the 2-page appeals court decision in Salute vs. Pitchess, DO SO. 95% of all California Chiefs and Sheriffs are NOT "evaluating the needs and merits of each applicant on an individual basis" like Salute says they gotta.

You CAN FIGHT THESE BASTARDS IN COURT, but you've got to take an indirect approach and be crafty about it. Straight-through-blast (2nd Amendment) won't work. Not yet anyhow.

Jim March
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw

 

[thaddeus]

Jim, I appreciate your correction, but you took me out of context. I said that she filed suit (did not "sue") against the State (not Luby's as you seem to think I said). It has been a number of years, but I recall reading that she was attempting to sue the State. I did not say she was successful. I read that she was planning to sue the State because State law at the time read that she could have a gun in her car but had to leave it there. He gun was therefore only xx yards away and out of reach. She blamed the State for having a law that prevented her from having her gun in reach and therefore lead to the death of her parents.

[This message has been edited by thaddeus (edited July 16, 1999).]

 

[David Schmidbauer]

I'll tell ya what. If I walk into a place that has a "No Firearms Allowed" and have to be in there for what ever reason I am sure as hell going to make it known to the Manager/Owner/Whoever, that seeing as how they will not ALLOW my RIGHT, LICENCED by the STATE, to defend myself that they are in fact taking the posision to ENSURE MY SAFETY, and if I am harmed in ANYWAY (mentally or physically) they will be hearing from my ATTORNEY!


(however, most of the time I just disreguard the sigh )




------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"

 

[Mikey]

AMEN David,

The company I work for was recently purchased by another firm and one of the recent changes was a new policy on weapons. Used to be "none in the workplace" and many of us with permits just left them locked in our trucks (or cars) - at least we were protected after mounting our vehicles!

New policy: None at all - even on company property or while traveling on company business! Keeping in mind that we are asked to travel quite regularly, and many places we go will honor our permit, and when we travel we are not working 24 hours a day...

Several of us have told HR that we want a waiver on that policy or we will hold the company responsible for our personal safety and well being at all times when prevented from protecting ourselves. If robbed, mugged, assaulted, etc. we will sue and if killed we have instructed our spouses to sue.

No word yet on the waiver.

Mikey

 

[boing]

As for suing a business, I think you would lose. It would be said that no-one made you patronize that particular business, so you took the risk of going somewhere without the ability to protect yourself.

-boing

 

[2nd_amendment]

As for the original post why dont we sue. I think there is only one reason, Money Do you think that a state court is going to rule against itself, I am no expert on the legal system or civil lawsuits etc... But think about it it makes to much sense.

As far as business' I sur rewould sue a business that posted a sign that "disarmed" prior to entering. Here in Texas, if a business wants to be CCW free they most post a sign written in English and Spanish and there is specific wording that must be followed. I fa business just has a picture of a gun with a circle and a slash through it I walk on in.
2nd
I'm the NRA