[Chris Rhines]

This is mostly a question for the black-hearted, tile-crawling ambulance-chasers ;) in the house, but everyone should feel free to jump in.

If you were going to defend a pro-2nd Amendment court case, what would you like it to be? What charges, what defendant, what court? What combination of circumstances do you think would give you the best chances of sucess?

I'm very curious about this. Anyone?

- Chris

[telewinz]

I would locate a law abiding victim of a fatal, horrendous crime who had applied for a handgun permit but was refused permission. Using this circumstance of wrongful death as a violation of basic human rights I would seek a class action lawsuit against the offending civil authority and ENCOURAGE an appeal to the US Supreme Court. A stay against the enforcement all gun laws effecting law abiding citizens would be sought until the "issue" was resolved.

[Graystar]

The Dixon case in New York City would have been perfect because Dixon was cleared of the shooting but charged with possession of a firearm. New York State has a very simple and straightforward ban on firearms possession.

[Jeeper]

That Dixon case is pretty good if I remember correctly. Basically defending against a serious attack with an illegal gun after you applied for a permit and were denied.

[tyme]

I would locate a law abiding victim of a fatal, horrendous crime who had applied for a handgun permit but was refused permission.
Grave desecration is illegal most places. I'm not sure the dead have standing to sue, anyway. ;)

[Dorian]

I think a case involving someone who was shot while eating at a restaurant that he couldn't bring his handgun into because of state laws concerning carrying in an establishment that alcohol is served and consumed.

Or a bank...

Or anywhere that his carry was restricted.

[telewinz]

Grave desecration is illegal most places. I'm not sure the dead have standing to sue, anyway.

Very often they (the dead) have the best case, easy to prove damages. How else could you sue for wrongful death?:confused:

[ctdonath]

WHEREAS: The plaintiff is between ages 17 and 45, male, a citizen of the USA, and is able-bodied.

WHEREAS: Per USA Code Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 311, the plaintiff is a member of the USA militia.

WHEREAS: Per the same law, the plaintiff is a member of the unorganized militia, wherein militia members are not equipped by the USA federal government but instead are left to equip themselves.

WHEREAS: Per the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, "a well-regulated [i.e.: well-equipped] militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", indicating militia members are free to aquire moderns arms suitable for modern warfare.

WHEREAS: The standard equipment for a modern standard USA soldier includes an M-16 rifle.

WHEREAS: A 1986 amendment to the NFA regulations prohibit members of the unorganized militia from obtaining an M-16 rifle.

WHEREAS: The plantiff is prohibited by law and duress from reasonably fulfilling his right and duty as a militia member.

THE PLANTIFF PLEADS that the court relieve him from the prohibition which clearly contradicts the letter and spirit of the Constitution.


...or something like that. Anyone have the exact reference banning machine guns?