DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,846
I have a question for the legal beagles that haunt this place:
If Heller's been struck down, and Chicago's ban likely willl be as well, could a citizen 'injured' by one of those bans seek redress from the government that passes the unconstitutional law?
For instance: say I'd lived in Chicago, had suffered a home invasion and then had a family member hurt or killed-thankfully hypothetical, I'll add-and was a demonstrated expert with handguns, but did not have one because of the ban.
It seems to my tiny little mind that the person who proposed the unconstitutional law, as well as those who passed it, could be liable (or 'should' be liable, in a common-sense view) for the injury they've inflicted on my by unlawfully stripping me of my rights.
I realize this is simplistic, but I find it hard to believe that a person or body who violates the constitution in a systematic way has no liability for the consequences of their actions.
I would appreciate your thoughts-
Larry
If Heller's been struck down, and Chicago's ban likely willl be as well, could a citizen 'injured' by one of those bans seek redress from the government that passes the unconstitutional law?
For instance: say I'd lived in Chicago, had suffered a home invasion and then had a family member hurt or killed-thankfully hypothetical, I'll add-and was a demonstrated expert with handguns, but did not have one because of the ban.
It seems to my tiny little mind that the person who proposed the unconstitutional law, as well as those who passed it, could be liable (or 'should' be liable, in a common-sense view) for the injury they've inflicted on my by unlawfully stripping me of my rights.
I realize this is simplistic, but I find it hard to believe that a person or body who violates the constitution in a systematic way has no liability for the consequences of their actions.
I would appreciate your thoughts-
Larry