You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why can't mass shooting victims sue when their right to self defense has been removed?
- Thread starter davidsog
- Start date
Strictly speaking, it is not the right to self-defense that a state would remove, but a gun regulation or prohibition might remove the more effective instrument of self-defense.
Who would they sue? As a general matter, states, their subdivisions, and the federal government enjoy sovereign immunity.
Where a private entity is within its rights to grant entry only on the condition that you are unarmed, your injuries at the hand of another individual are not most proximately caused by the condition imposed by the private entity. There is an intervening criminal act of a third party that is the direct cause of injury.
That third party or even his estate might be successfully sued, but in most cases there would be few if any assets to satisfy a judgment.
Who would they sue? As a general matter, states, their subdivisions, and the federal government enjoy sovereign immunity.
Where a private entity is within its rights to grant entry only on the condition that you are unarmed, your injuries at the hand of another individual are not most proximately caused by the condition imposed by the private entity. There is an intervening criminal act of a third party that is the direct cause of injury.
That third party or even his estate might be successfully sued, but in most cases there would be few if any assets to satisfy a judgment.
As a general matter, states, their subdivisions, and the federal government enjoy sovereign immunity.
I know in matters of premature death involving the US Government liability, the typical route is the Judge dismisses the lawsuit under sovereign immunity and then directs the parties into arbitration.
So while the Government cannot be sued, it most certainly can be held accountable and its victims made whole. The end result looks very similar.
Strictly speaking, it is not the right to self-defense that a state would remove, but a gun regulation or prohibition might remove the more effective instrument of self-defense.
True but de facto removal is removal nonetheless.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Sounds like you answered your own question for which you knew the answer before you asked.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Technically, political subdivisions of states (counties and cities) typically enjoy qualified immunity -- sovereign immunity's weaker sibling.....Who would they sue? As a general matter, states, their subdivisions, and the federal government enjoy sovereign immunity....
Just to shed a little more light on this: Intervening cause.Where a private entity is within its rights to grant entry only on the condition that you are unarmed, your injuries at the hand of another individual are not most proximately caused by the condition imposed by the private entity. There is an intervening criminal act of a third party that is the direct cause of injury....
Why can't victims sue when their right to self defense has been removed by the city or state?
Perhaps because, despite personal opinions and rhetoric, the city or the state is NOT responsible???
Can you show us anyone, anywhere that a city or state has removed their right of self defense?? No matter how it seems, prohibiting firearms does NOT remover your right to self defense.
yes, without firearms, it becomes more difficult, but difficult/less efficient is not removal of the right. There is a difference, though it seem to be lost on a lot of people. Simply put, prohibiting the carry of firearms prohibits the carry of firearms, it does not prohibit your right to self defense, by other means.
Next point, is that even in places where firearms are prohibited, the state is not removing your right, because you are voluntarily choosing to comply with their restrictions. You CHOOSE to go there. Other than if you are ordered to appear before a court, its all YOUR CHOICE.
Since you make the choice, the govt is not responsible for you being there. You are.
Again, simply put, the argument for suing is "I went there, and got shot because you didn't let me carry a gun to defend myself with, there for, you own me damages".
The response is going to be, (and should be), "no one made you go there, you chose to, and by choosing to, accepted the risks. We are not responsible."
Ford is not responsible if some drunk in an F-150 runs a stop sign and T-bones your car, fracturing your son's skull. The govt is not responsible because it happened on a public highway. The responsible party is the driver of the truck. Period. In the case of a mass shooting, the responsible party is the person who pulled the trigger. Period.
Spats McGee said:Technically, political subdivisions of states (counties and cities) typically enjoy qualified immunity -- sovereign immunity's weaker sibling.
Indeed.
Lohman446 said:So we are going to make an argument that we should hold accountable someone other than the perpetrator of a violent crime for his or her actions? Isn't basically the entire gun rights argument built around a vastly different premise?
I can see why the question would arise.
If you took the seatbelts and airbags out of my car, and someone ran me off the road as a matter of road rage, I would blame my injuries in part on you because you took the things that might have reduced my level of injury.
If you took my fire extinguishers and my home were the target of arson, I would blame you for taking from me the means to extinguish the fire.
In neither case did you injury me (someone else did that), but you made my life worse by removing the sensible steps I had taken to protect myself. Having generally made someone's life worse isn't specific enough for most suits, divorce excepted.
If you took the seatbelts and airbags out of my car, and someone ran me off the road as a matter of road rage, I would blame my injuries in part on you because you took the things that might have reduced my level of injury.
WHAT IF you're driving a classic 1960 DeSoto (or a Corvette?) which has neither seatbelts nor airbags. Are you going to blame Chrysler or GM? anyone but the guy who ran you off the road??
Everyone is free to blame anyone they feel like. Being legally responsible, is, however, a much different matter.
Suppose I took your fire extinguishers, because they were all out of date by 15 years, and then YOU failed to install new ones, and THEN your house is the victim of arson. Am I to blame for that? I don't think so.
If I swapped tickets with you, because you were in a hurry and I could wait for the next ship, and you got on the Titanic, I'm not responsible for you being there, you are, and neither of us is responsible for the ship sinking...
Having safety equipment is not a guarantee that it will WORK and save your butt. It might, it might not. If what you consider the necessary safety equipment is denied to you, and you accept the risks anyway, and then get harmed by the actions of a 3rd party, aren't YOU actually the one responsible??
Personally, I think the 3rd party, the one who actually causes the harm is the responsible party.
Can you show us anyone, anywhere that a city or state has removed their right of self defense?? No matter how it seems, prohibiting firearms does NOT remover your right to self defense.
Obviously it does make self defense so impossible as to remove the right when you are unarmed facing a criminal shooter.
WHAT IF you're driving a classic 1960 DeSoto (or a Corvette?) which has neither seatbelts nor airbags. Are you going to blame anyone but the guy who ran you off the road??
Everyone is free to blame anyone they feel like. Being legally responsible, is, however, a much different matter.
Suppose I took your fire extinguishers, because they were all out of date by 15 years, and then YOU failed to install new ones, and THEN your house is the victim of arson. Am I to blame for that? I don't think so.
What if a frog had wings?
Would it still bump its behind on the ground? What if frogs had pockets? Would they carry pistols and shoot snakes?
None of that is relevant to what the man asked and pointed out.
If you took the seatbelts and airbags out of my car, and someone ran me off the road as a matter of road rage, I would blame my injuries in part on you because you took the things that might have reduced my level of injury.
Which is exactly what these municipalities and states are doing that do not support the 2A for law abiding citizens.
44AMP said:Having safety equipment is not a guarantee that it will WORK and save your butt.
True, yet not having it is a guaranty that it will not work to save my butt. Having a floatation device for every person on a boat is not a guaranty that everyone will survive a boating accident, but that doesn't render floatation devices in a boat insignificant.
44AMP said:If what you consider the necessary safety equipment is denied to you, and you accept the risks anyway, and then get harmed by the actions of a 3rd party, aren't YOU actually the one responsible??
No, as several of us have noted that third party is the one responsible. That doesn't mean that no one else can have contributed to presenting the harm. Where the governing structure of a church knowingly exposes children to predators, does it bear any responsibility for the ensuing harm? We all would agree that the predator caused the harm, yet the people who created the circumstance in which the harm occurs will bear part of the blame.
Where sexual harassment in the workplace is the harm, the harasser is the one responsible, but the employer who creates the condition in which that harm is more likely to occur will bear part of the blame in a real, legal and expensive sense.
If firearms restrictions create the condition in which predation more commonly occurs, the predator causes the harm, yet the people who create the circumstance in which that harm occurs can bear part of the blame in a coherent but not legally actionable sense.
A person may be said to accept the risk of being in a Walmart unarmed by entering one unarmed. We don't consent to the risks of bad government; we create and endure them.
davidsog said:Which is exactly what these municipalities and states are doing that do not support the 2A for law abiding citizens.If you took the seatbelts and airbags out of my car, and someone ran me off the road as a matter of road rage, I would blame my injuries in part on you because you took the things that might have reduced my level of injury.
So, there are two important distinctions where a government has a role in creating the condition in which harm will result. First, while we don't consent to the risks of being governed, we are governed nonetheless. That condition is not closely analogous to walking into a Walmart. Second, when policy is bad and we are harmed, government doesn't occupy the same position as a private entity and we don't have the same remedies against it.
For what it's worth, that's not the only difference in litigation with government.
Ah, but they do sue. They sue all the time.
The Federal Tort Claims Act will not allow a suit at the Federal Level.
At the State and local level Schools get sued all the time. There are currently over 100 lawsuits in process over the Parkland shooting. Most states won't allow a lswsuit unless there is proof of a harm. Otherwise they will be tied up with endless frivilous suits.
At the local Level Schools have been suing and been sued for years to allow teachers and staff to carry. I know this sounds unpossible but it is true. Occasionally they win one. It seldom makes national news.
https://www.fox19.com/2019/02/28/madison-schools-wins-lawsuit-over-arming-staff/
In my state the Governor (a former school teacher) signed a law allowing schools to arm teachers and staff.
The Federal Tort Claims Act will not allow a suit at the Federal Level.
At the State and local level Schools get sued all the time. There are currently over 100 lawsuits in process over the Parkland shooting. Most states won't allow a lswsuit unless there is proof of a harm. Otherwise they will be tied up with endless frivilous suits.
At the local Level Schools have been suing and been sued for years to allow teachers and staff to carry. I know this sounds unpossible but it is true. Occasionally they win one. It seldom makes national news.
https://www.fox19.com/2019/02/28/madison-schools-wins-lawsuit-over-arming-staff/
In my state the Governor (a former school teacher) signed a law allowing schools to arm teachers and staff.
The Supreme Court is set to hear NYSRPA vs NYC on December 3rd. That case deals with right to carry outside the home. The left has threatened SCOTUS over this case which is likely to annoy the justices and lead to a strong ruling.
After this case is decided it might be worth revisiting this topic.
After this case is decided it might be worth revisiting this topic.
Obviously it does make self defense so impossible as to remove the right when you are unarmed facing a criminal shooter.
But is it really so obvious? TO us it may seem so, but other people "obviously" have other opinions.
The point is that while you or I might consider prohibition of personal firearms enough to make self defense a practical impossibility, someone else could argue that it doesn't make it impossible, just more difficult, and since you can still attempt it, the right is not "denied". You can still defend yourself, use your martial arts skills, just like the guys on tv. Pincushion the bad guy with your ninja stars (unless they are banned, too) or throw rocks or something, you still have the right to defend yourself. Just not the ability to be easily effective.
This is the logic applied by all who claim that gun control is not a denial of our rights.
After this case is decided it might be worth revisiting this topic.
I think you are right. It will be interesting.
This is the logic applied by all who claim that gun control is not a denial of our rights.
Same logic as Eugenics and just as easily debunked.
Same logic as Eugenics and just as easily debunked.
I am not familiar with the arguments about Eugenics, but if the argument for gun control is so easily debunked, why do we have it and why do they keep trying to give us more of it?
Pincushion the bad guy with your ninja stars (unless they are banned, too)
Pretty much anything sharp and pointy is banned from a school these days. I used to carry a pocket knife to school every day. That is likely to get you arrested these days.
I am not familiar with the arguments about Eugenics, but if the argument for gun control is so easily debunked, why do we have it and why do they keep trying to give us more of it?
THE argument for gun control was never presented. AN argument for gun control was and is one that is easily debunked.
Don Fischer
New member
I think most mass shooting victims gave up their right to self defense by not trying to get a permit to carry in the first place. Then there may be other's that have to permit but for whatever reason on that day chose not to carry and got shot! So who do they sue for knowingly giving up their right by choosing not to arm them selves in the first place? The guy that has the permit and choose's not to carry on that day, who does he sue? I have the license to carry and carry 24/7. If I get shot in some mass shooting it won't be because I didn't have the means to protect myself!