So... Why can't WE sue???


May 15, 2003, 02:41 PM
So it seems that it is perfectly acceptable for groups to sue the firearms industry for what amount to nuisance claims, and defending yourself in court isn't exactly cheap... All that money is passed on to us as extra expense in each and every firearm we buy...

So, why couldn't we, as firearms purchasers sue the MMM, VPC, NAACP, BCPHV, and other members of the Axis of Evil for their abuse of the legal system, thereby driving up costs for law abiding gun owners <or whatever> ?

Surely, we have some sort of claim here ??? Even if it's thrown out, they still have to defend themselves... :scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about "So... Why can't WE sue???" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
May 15, 2003, 03:13 PM
I'm up for it, and it makes sense in the current environment.

But then, denied the tools of self protection, you'll note that you cannot sue your "protectors" for failure to defend.

There is a reason that it's called a revolution, and a reason for our honoring the price paid.

I also suspect that it's about time.

May 15, 2003, 03:51 PM
This has been my plan for a while. :)

Apply (submit an absolutely perfect application), get rejected, sue for discrimination (or something else).

I just can't seem to get my crap together, though.

May 15, 2003, 04:41 PM
I totally agree. Since no-one else has picked up the fight, it has toup to us as pissed off and concerned consumers. Why don't these :cuss: so-called consumer rights activists ever protest these frivolus law suits on behalf of gun owners?????

On the same side of the token, anyone that incurs higher healthcare costs as a result of Healthcare companies having to shell out millions upon millions of dollars on bogus lawsuits ought to have the right to sue the plaintiff, or at least be entitled to some of the award.

Jim March
May 15, 2003, 06:43 PM
Well if somebody wants to fund it, I've got the perfect set of facts.

Back in 1998, the legislature was wrangling over AB2022, a set of modest CCW reforms. One clause said that the state Attorney General was supposed to work out a new CCW application form. In the original version proposed by pro-gun Assemblyman Rod Wright, the advisory committee for the forms would include some "top cops", plus a rep from the NRA.

HCI lobbied hard against that provision. I have the memos between the HCI western regional director and Police Chief Larry Todd of Los Gatos, who was at that time the head of the California Police Chiefs Association and a rabid anti-gunner. HCI lobbied him, and then he lobbied the legislature to get the NRA's advisory role dropped.

Then in 1999, Todd was included among the advisors on the forms creation process. All of the documents between the AG's office and the advisors (3 sheriffs, 2 chiefs) were stamped "confidential" but Todd shared them with HCI.

The forms that resulted were utterly and blatantly illegal, and violated a California Supreme Court ruling. See also:

This totally illegal clusterF has HCI's fingerprints all over it. :scrutiny:


You may be wondering how I have this whole paper trail.

Sometime in 2000, NRA attorney Chuck Michel filed a Public Records Act Request with Todd for the CCW records in Los Gatos. Todd deliberately attempted to drive Chuck's copying fees through the roof by grabbing every piece of paper in the office with the word "gun" on it and sending it down. I visited Chuck's office to go over the "haul" from all these PRARs and I discovered this crap.

I now have my own copy of that whole massive file and MY MY MY are there some gems in there!


May 15, 2003, 06:53 PM
SAF filed sue against the mayors and it was dismissed. I think thier claim was that these suits were a restraint of trade.


Mark Tyson
May 15, 2003, 07:19 PM
Why not sue for denial of civil rights?

I just finished a paper on the constitution and if you look at the congressional debates surrounding the 14 amendment the right to bear arms was a major element. Republicans at the time were outraged that Southern states were trying to deny newly freed blacks their arms. The original Freedman's Bureau act (1866 I think) specifically mentioned the right to arms.

The beauty of it is that membership in a militia or any organized body was hardly ever mentioned; it was clearly an individual right. As a matter of fact, when the feds moved to disband certain local militias in the South, they allowed the individual militia members to keep their arms - many of whom were FORMER CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS! That should shoot down that "collective rights" claptrap once and for all.

Bottom line: the RKBA is one of the privilages and immunities of citizenship mentioned by the 14th Amd.

Any lawyers out there? I think you guys are on to something.

May 15, 2003, 07:26 PM
I have often wondered if it hasn't been done before. Has no one ever tried to get a case pushed to the supreme court? Does anyone know much about this. If not WHY??? I hear class action!!!

Standing Wolf
May 15, 2003, 09:13 PM
If I were a firearms manufacturer and those leftist extremists had tried to bankrupt my business with a frivolous law suit, you can bet your last nickel I'd have filed a counter-suit.

May 16, 2003, 07:19 AM
I think maybe an illegal restraint of trade action might work. Against the organizations AND THEIR LAWYERS who brought these actions. The key is that most of these actions can be tied to one or two groups and their lawyers.

May 16, 2003, 08:11 AM

For the good planners and thinkers out there how do we get this thing rolling? I know precious little about this kind of law. Others here know considerabley more.

In some states this will be thrown out of court by the first judge that sees it. In others thsi kind of thing would move forward.

Where do we pick our battles?
How do we get the word out?
Do we pick a weak enemy first and go with incrementalism or do we go for a big one? Incrementalism has always worked for the other side.
Where do we find lawyers more with the bit in their teeth and less looking for billable hours?
How do we fund this? I believe this could be the easy part.
Will groups like GOA etc get on board?
Would we want them on board?

Come on thinkers?

The longest journey begins with just one step.
Smurfslayers question.

May 16, 2003, 02:17 PM
Suing the government is a non starter - they're not liable and protected by sovereign immunity. I specifically meant the groups targetting US -- NAACP, MMM, VPC, Brady's etc... Their judicial abuse & support for blatantly unconstitutional legislation is costing us money, and interfering with "free trade" ;) Seriously, how much money are the named mfgr's going to have to shell out to the lawyers to defend themselves against the NAACP lawsuit? 50 thousand ? 100 thousand? half a million ?

Where does all that money come from? - The corporate coffers, meaning it's an expense, amortized through the products they sell. Realistically, don't we as customers of the gun manufacturers, have a claim against NAACP for the amortized increased cost of firearms that we wish to purchase?

Standing Wolf
May 16, 2003, 10:13 PM
R.I.C.O. comes to mind.

May 17, 2003, 05:09 AM
Why not sue for denial of civil rights?

Yeah, maybe you could get the ACLU to represent you?

Hahahha, I crack me up. :evil:

May 17, 2003, 01:06 PM
What should happen is that when a crime is committed using a firearm, the manufacturers should be notified so that they can sue the person using their product unlawfully and irresponsibly. It would be easy for them to have done legally as well (hypothetically speaking of course). They could put a caveat in the manuals for the initial purchase of the firearm that transfers from posessor to posessor regardless of their knowledge of such and sue them when a crime is committed with their product. Also include a notation that says suing organizations will be sued for negligence and frivilous law suits

By doing this you would have a suit/counter suit automatically in place when idiots try to sue manufacturers for unknown persons actions. I could see it now; the NAALCP tries to sue the manufacturers and the manufacturers sue the NAALCP for negligence and the perps for criminal activity with their product. If this were only the real world though ;)

Take care,


May 19, 2003, 03:08 PM
"What should happen is that when a crime is committed using a firearm, the manufacturers should be notified so that they can sue the person using their product unlawfully and irresponsibly."

[SS] To what end? You can't get blood from a turnip. We don't want the mfgr's wasting money on the little guy....

We need to go after the deep pockets - AGS, VPC, BCPHV, NAACP, etc... They actually HAVE money, and let's not forget the cities that sued the manufacturers... These were abusive lawsuits with little or no chance of succeeding that have cost all of US money. Ok, the cities might get off on Sovereign immunity, but the other organizations may make no such claims... Let's also not forget some of the really hard nose antis - some of the mayors that refused to drop suits despite being rebuffed.

May 20, 2003, 12:21 PM
Hello Smurfslayer,

I agree with you 100% (or rather I agree with Me 100%) If you read my second paragraph it says exactly what you've said, but I said it first :) (said jokingly only; not meant as a dig against you)

I always recall a Bloom County cartoon that said it best. The cartoon was of a law suit against against a rabid Sean Penn filed by Steve Dallas for Penns drunken assault on Dallas. They didn't sue the bar for over serving Penn because bars typically have insurrance against this sort of thing and insurrance companies have deep pockets. They didn't sue Sean Penn because if it went to court celebrities typically gain sympathy from the masses long before the trial ever takes place making it difficult to get impartiality in the court room. So they decided to sue Minolta (the camera manufacturer) for not putting a warning label on the camera stating that "Bodily injury may occur while photographing a drunken, rabid Sean Penn." :)

Although done to be funny it is the nature of the law suit. Go after the guy with the money. The NAALCP has the money to go after the gun manufacturers so the natural order of things should be manufacturers going after those actually filing the frivilous suits. Our legal system has gotten so out of control it's not funny. I hope that Bush gets his confirmation hearing and packs the benches with conservative judges to counter all of the liberal judges that now sit on the bench. Would I want a bench of nothing but conservatives? It would be nice in my mind but not feasible in practicle application since you need opposition to keep absolute power at bay.

Take care,


May 20, 2003, 04:23 PM
Re counter suits against those attacking the firearms industry, that thought had crossed my mind also. I spoke to a couple of attorneys I know about this possibility, and as I recall, got the following.

In order to win, the industry would have to prove that the suits were known to be without basis, were miliciously instituted and so on. The necessary proofs were, I was told, very difficult to accomplish.

Of course, they could be wrong, or my memory could be incorrect, but that is it, as I recall.

May 20, 2003, 04:44 PM
I keep waiting for the first firearms manufacturer to grow a set of balls and countersue these clowns. It hasn't happened yet but we can dream ...

May 20, 2003, 06:04 PM
Hey Alan,

Good points and the lawyers you spoke with are correct, however...the parties involved in this scenario have pretty deep pockets so the manufacturers can afford to hire the same types of lawyers these civil rights groups can.

Proof is soley dependent upon how many resources a person has available (read=how much money one can afford to pay to gain access) Filing against these groups under one premise would be foolish so the best route to go with would be the one you could garner the most support for i.e. defamation of character, slander, frivolous suits, perhaps even throw in an anti-trust suit for posterity and constitutionality (if you have really deep pockets ;)

Again all these things require many resources and that equates to money. The sad fact of law is that if you have money the resources are at your disposal (look at O.J. ;) Access is what wins court cases not representation in and of itself. "How much access can my money buy me today?" Clinton is another good example. His "friends" have a lot of money and a lot of access so he stays out of court and will continue to do so. The same can be said for Bill Gates and Microsoft. In the anti-trust suit against Microsoft they have enough money to keep the suit tied up in court indefinitely (or until a settlement is reached) so they aren't worried.

It can be done but it takes time and money. All it would take would be one win in a counter suit of this nature and you'd see the "groups" back off in a hurry. The one thing they can't afford is bad press and a loss from a direct suit against them would give them just that.

Take care,


May 20, 2003, 06:18 PM
If the firearms industry got together, I suspect that money would not really be all that much of a problem. As another poster asked, do they have the balls?

May 20, 2003, 08:08 PM
As far as getting gun rights groups on board, I think that the NRA should NOT be involved. Too many people hate the NRA and will immediately dismiss anything that they are a part of as "bad." GOA doesn't get the same reaction because they aren't as well known as the NRA. I know practically nothing about law, so I have no input there.

May 21, 2003, 10:23 AM
Hello Alan,

First let me clarify that in the anti-trust suit I should have been more specific and said restraint of trade.

Second do the manufacturers have the cojones to do any thing about it? Well, at present since they are very active in the political world rocking the boat isn't something they're ready to jump in and do. However; once you've been backed into a corner you have to come out fighting if you want to survive or win. I believe these frivilous law suits will eventually cost the manufacturers more money than if they simply counter sued. Once that time comes the manufacturers (I believe) will counter sue.

There's just something about politics that imasculates so manycompanies and good people. I guess Rush is right about the feminization of America ;)

Take care and I'll keep my fingers crossed if you will.


If you enjoyed reading about "So... Why can't WE sue???" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!