New Tactic for antis, sue?

Not a new tactic at all. They've been doing this for more than three decades. Luckily, they have only actually managed to bankrupt a couple of junk gun companies (which re-incorporated and are again producing junk), and these days the lawful commerce in arms act prevents them from filing frivolous lawsuits; they would have to prove that the manufacturer/distributor/retail store/etc. acted knowingly and willfully in a careless/reckless/depravedly indifferent manner.

As a prior poster stated, it's not really a new tactic. NYC filed a number of suits against southeastern gun retailers alleging that they were not taking adequate steps to prevent straw purchasers from buying guns and then smuggling/shipping/selling them into NYC.

New? Anti's haven't had a new tool in the tool box since the British.

Not new at all.


People still remember Smith & Wesson's "sell out" deal with the Clinton Administration and reference it here from time to time. That was the result of a lawsuit.

They haven't tried it in a while because of tort reform that was put into place in 2004, around the time the AWB expired. (They tried to sneak an AWB renewal in as a poison pill on the tort reform bill) If I cared enough, I'd read the suits to see if they found a way around the reforms, or it they're simply ignoring them.

Either way, they're just flinging legal poo.

I've often wondered if the NRA-ILA couldn't try a similar tactic, going after businesses/municipalities (emphasis on the latter) which actively ban firearms from the locations of shootings; makes as much sense as the anti's' tactics, but they did win some of their more meaningful victories this way.

If they won't reform the tort, we might as well take advantage, I say

TCB

not new at all. The ACLU as been making their living this way for decades as have 1,000s of trial lawyers all over the country.

It's called paper terrorism. In this case, harassing business' with frivolous lawsuits and other legal mumbo jumbo.

barnbwt said:

I've often wondered if the NRA-ILA couldn't try a similar tactic, going after businesses/municipalities (emphasis on the latter) which actively ban firearms from the locations of shootings; makes as much sense as the anti's' tactics, but they did win some of their more meaningful victories this way.

If they won't reform the tort, we might as well take advantage, I say

TCB

Click to expand...

I've thought this as well. Might make others think before banning things.

New? Anti's haven't had a new tool in the tool box since the British.

Click to expand...

And we haven't since 1787. There is a very good reason we don't have resolution now. Neither side seems to have the ability to come up with a definitive argument.

I've often wondered if the NRA-ILA couldn't try a similar tactic, going after businesses/municipalities (emphasis on the latter) which actively ban firearms from the locations of shootings; makes as much sense as the anti's' tactics, but they did win some of their more meaningful victories this way.

Click to expand...

And what would the legal justification be for such lawsuits? You do realize that the NRA has some of the best lawyers in the country. There is a very good reason they have not tried going this route. There is virtually no likelihood of winning because of the lack of legal justification.

Sniper66 said:

not new at all. The ACLU as been making their living this way for decades

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Has the ACLU sued gun retailers before?

Double Naught Spy said:

And we haven't since 1787. There is a very good reason we don't have resolution now. Neither side seems to have the ability to come up with a definitive argument.

Click to expand...

What sort of resolution are you looking for? We have two BIG things going for us, at the very least. We have the Second Amendment which guarantees right to keep and bear arms, a right antis are trying to take away. We also have historical and real world statistics that show firearms are used for defensive purposes against criminals and oppressive government. By and large, except for a few notable successes on their part (SAFE Act, AWB Ban etc), we have done very well to keep a controversial right alive and in our favor.

What sort of resolution are you looking for? We have two BIG things going for us, at the very least. We have the Second Amendment which guarantees right to keep and bear arms, a right antis are trying to take away. We also have historical and real world statistics that show firearms are used for defensive purposes against criminals and oppressive government. By and large, except for a few notable successes on their part (SAFE Act, AWB Ban etc), we have done very well to keep a controversial right alive and in our favor.

Click to expand...

I think it's less that we don't have a good argument than we have a lot of people who present a bad argument on our side and a lot of people who use lies, manipulation, and emotional thinking spreading propaganda on the other.

And what would the legal justification be for such lawsuits? You do realize that the NRA has some of the best lawyers in the country. There is a very good reason they have not tried going this route. There is virtually no likelihood of winning because of the lack of legal justification.

Click to expand...

How about that the location failed to enforce their rules, which resulted in death? How about the fact that it's been proven time and time again that these zones do NOT stop guns from being in that location, and they lull people into a false sense of security? How about the fact that banning guns prevented good guys from stopping the shooting, either by disarming them or by the fact that they boycotted the location? How about the fact that "no guns allowed" (especially in a public place) is just as big a violation of our civil rights as if I were to post a sign saying "no blacks allowed"? I could go on.

It's just like the woman (can't remember her name) who told lawmakers that if she was allowed constitutional carry, then she would have been able to put down the mass shooter that killed her parents. She went to testify against the laws because the laws resulted in her family dying.

What sort of resolution are you looking for? We have two BIG things going for us, at the very least. We have the Second Amendment which guarantees right to keep and bear arms, a right antis are trying to take away.

Click to expand...

You can spout "Contsitutional this and Constitutional that" but if it was that simple, then the NRA would have handled it, don't you think?

We also have historical and real world statistics that show firearms are used for defensive purposes against criminals and oppressive government. By and large, except for a few notable successes on their part (SAFE Act, AWB Ban etc), we have done very well to keep a controversial right alive and in our favor.

Click to expand...

So you are going to sue on the basis of statistics about events at other times and places? Come on.

How about that the location failed to enforce their rules, which resulted in death?

Click to expand...

Businesses only have to make reasonable attempts at security. You can sue all you want, but if they have made anything resembling reasonable attempts, such as posting signs and enforcing said rules when they are known to be violated (if they could), then they have done their part.

How about the fact that it's been proven time and time again that these zones do NOT stop guns from being in that location, and they lull people into a false sense of security? How about the fact that banning guns prevented good guys from stopping the shooting, either by disarming them or by the fact that they boycotted the location?

Click to expand...

Go ahead, and try to sue on those "facts." Keep in mind that the counter argument will be just as good, that the allowance of guns hasn't proven to do anything either. Businesses still get robbed and mass shootings still happen even in places where guns are allowed.

How about the fact that "no guns allowed" (especially in a public place) is just as big a violation of our civil rights as if I were to post a sign saying "no blacks allowed"? I could go on.

Click to expand...

How about the fact that this line of argument has yet to work in court? Contact the ACLU and tell them that you are a member of the gun race and that you demand protection like other races and see how far that gets you. The behavior of carrying is not legally recognized on the same level as genetic affinities. Seriously, if you think it is a civil rights issue and it means that much to you as a civil rights issue, then become a civil rights activist and make something happen. This notion of "We should sue..." seems to always involve somebody else doing the work. If you think YOUR civil rights are being violated, then YOU should file a lawsuit. Lots of people talk big about lawsuits on this issue, but just never seem to get around to actually filing one. Why is that?

It's just like the woman (can't remember her name) who told lawmakers that if she was allowed constitutional carry, then she would have been able to put down the mass shooter that killed her parents. She went to testify against the laws because the laws resulted in her family dying.

Click to expand...

No, it really isn't just like Suzanna Hupp (Luby's shooting, Texas) who argued for CONCEALED CARRY, not Constitutional carry. She didn't sue either, BTW. I don't recall her arguing that she could have put down the shooter, but that she didn't have the opportunity to try because she had decided to stop (illegally) carrying her pistol in her purse.

However, you can follow her lead and work with lawmakers to change laws, but this notion of suing businesses because you can't carry an extremely weak position from a legal standpoint. Nobody has won one yet that I know of, though people like to talk about it quite a lot.

We have the ability to sue another for almost any reason. That's old news. However, I've always felt that if the sueing party loses, they should be responsible for the attorney fees, court costs and lost time from work incurred by the party defending itself. I believe this would stop a lot of the sue happy people out there, which has crossed into the ridiculous phase. Hey, you can sue anyone for anything but if you lose, you pick up the tab. Simple and easy to enforce. We need to stop frivilous lawsuits that put people in the right into bankruptcy court for no reason.

Double Naught Spy already made every point that I would have made. I will simply note that any time you have a "Say! Why didn"t anybody ever think of this before?" moment on this topic, the chances are very good that somebody did think of it, especially if it is something simplistic.

I've always felt that if the sueing party loses, they should be responsible for the attorney fees, court costs and lost time from work incurred by the party defending itself. I believe this would stop a lot of the sue happy people out there, which has crossed into the ridiculous phase. Hey, you can sue anyone for anything but if you lose, you pick up the tab. Simple and easy to enforce. We need to stop frivilous lawsuits that put people in the right into bankruptcy court for no reason.

Click to expand...

That happens frequently, but it's up to the judge. Often, too, the defendant who emerged victorious will countersue for court costs, lawyer fees and lost wages.

It's called "Lawfare" and it's part and parcel of the anti-gun zealots game plan. They've tried to destroy the gun industry with nusance lawsuits for decades now.