A law for CCW holders that should be instituted. Why is it not?

Status
Not open for further replies.

shotgunner

member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
155
Hello,
I'm about to receive my ccw some time this year. I'm a resident of Michigan and a responsible firearm owner.

If I have to shoot somebody, with justification of course. Whether they are killed or merely injured, they or their family can sue me for either hurting them, or killing them. Why aren't there laws that protect the law obiding citizen in situations like this?

Here is basically what I'm talking about.
There should be a new, federal law, that concerns the protection of CCW holders who've injured or killed somebody in self defense. This law should protect the CCW holder's property, bank accounts, and any other assets that may be taken from them in the case of a civil lawsuit that the attacker's family has initiated on behalf of their injured/deceased (scumbag in most cases) relative. Why should I have to risk losing everything that I own because I had every reason to shoot somebody in order to protect myself, family, or even a stranger in need?

Would somebody please elaborate on this for me and possibly tell me why no such protection for responsible firearm owners exists? If the LEO agencies can't be sued for justifiable shootings then why shouldn't private citizens be protected as well?

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.
 
I think the problem doesn't even go that far. In these litigious times, just defending yourself against the suit can be enough to ruin someone financially. Something along the lines of, "If no charges are filed, no suit can be brought" would go a long way towards alleviating this.
 
But then, vindictive, activist prosecutors might just charge you, even if they know they have no chance of convicting you, just to make sure you get screwed over.
 
Although this is a concern (call your insurance agent, State Farm's liability rider on a renter's or homeowner's policy covers this), I have not yet heard of an instance of such a civil suit. Although it might happen (still, haven't heard of a specific example), I do wonder just how much of a true threat this is.
 
I have heard of suits being brought

against someone who legally defended themselves. From what I have heard they have to go through what I want to call a "findings" court. When it is found out at that time that the shooting was justified, the judge dismisses all charges. Unfortunatley you have probably already put out thousands of dollars for your lawyer and court fees. And of course when you try to get these moneys back in a suit, the family of the perp, don't have any money. They were looking to get some from you, so your stuck with two lawyers bill. :banghead:
 
After shooting 4 bad guys, Bernie Goetz was found guilty of illegal possession of a weapon.

In civil court he was later sued for $42,000,000. Bernie lost.
 
In florida, if they sue and lose, they lose all of their perks in prison. This makes it generally not worthwhile for crackheads to try suing people who shoot them.

Once a judge has made a finding that you acted in self defense or the other party is found to have been committing a felony, everything moves super fast since that is the basic decider of whether any cases can go forward from a particular shooting.

This year they further changed the law so that those findings are even less contestable than before. Anyone in a home is presumed to have violent felonious intent and anytime you engage in a shooting outside the home, you are assumed to have taken sufficient pains to retreat before using deadly force.
 
In civil court he was later sued for $42,000,000. Bernie lost.

I see the problem right there. Stop absurd lawsuits. I cannot see how a $42 million lawsuit agains an individual should even be allowed, unless the guy is a billionaire, or the guy he killed was.

Why isn't something like this covered under cruel and unusual punishment?
 
Even if the shoot is good in Texas, you can be sued in civil court:

Texas Penal Code § 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.
 
Another thing I forgot to mention. Why limit it to CCW holders, why not to any self-defense shooting? Or even to other self-defense methods, such as baseball bats and knives? Make it so that if you were justified in using force, no lawsuit can be brought.
 
There should be a new, federal law, that concerns the protection of CCW holders who've injured or killed somebody in self defense.

Nope. Sorry. I don't want the federal government within five miles of our Second Amendment civil rights.

You can always move to a state that respects the rights of crime victims. Once the federal government gets involved, there's nowhere else left to move to get away from bad laws—and federal law is almost invariably bad law.

You need to change your state laws.
 
In every state self-defense is a valid defense to any civil or criminal action. That's the common law, which means the legal traditions of hundreds of years of British and American courts deciding such questions.

The problem is how to determine who is acting in legitimate self-defense.

The way we determine these things in America is through the courts.
What's the alternative?

Laws such as the Florida are just reminders to prosecutors and injured criminals. The charges or lawsuits can still be filed.

That's the nature of a free society. We have to have some way to determine who's in the right in a shooting. It's unfortunate that sometimes that means good folks have to spend a lot of money on lawyers, but how else are we as a society supposed to determine whether a shooting is good or bad? By social class or race? By possession of a CCW?
 
Such laws exsist. Just have to move to Flordia to enjoy their protections.
Not until Oct 1. I really like the text though. Line 24-28 states that if someone sues you and it's found that you did use the force justifiably, then the court pays you back for all attorney fees, lost wages and any other expenses occured due to being sued for a justifiable shooting... Here's a link to the text.

http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2005/Senate/bills/amendments_Com/pdf/sb0436am191782.pdf

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil
11 action for justifiable use of force.--
12 (1) A person who uses force as described in s.
13 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such
14 force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action
15 for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the
16 term "criminal prosecution" includes wrongfully arresting,
17 detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the
18 defendant.
19 (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard
20 procedures for investigating the use of force as described in
21 subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for
22 using force unless it determines that there is clear and
23 convincing evidence that the force that was used was unlawful.
24 (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees,
25 court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses
26 incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action
27 brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant
28 is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

29 Section 5. This act shall take effect October 1, 2005.
 
"The court shall award" doesn't mean the state's going to pay you. It means that they will issue ajudgement against the plaintif, and if they're broke, you're more or less SOL.
 
Come on guys, don't you know that the guy trying to rob you is only doing it to get tuition money for medical school so he can better himself?

At least that's what the family of the "victim" is going to say...
 
There should be a new, federal law, that concerns the protection of CCW holders who've injured or killed somebody in self defense.

I think you'd be creating a suspect class of citizens then. That's not something we want to do. Remember that whole "all men created equal" thing...
 
A law for CCW holders that should be instituted. Why is it not?

First of all you don't need a CCW (a paid for permit that expires and has restrictions set by the state so you can feel like your exercising your 2nd Amendment Rights) to legitamize defending yourself. Think...............
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top