SAF Sues in New York to Void 'Good Cause' Carry Permit Requirement

[DenaliPark]

whalerman, closure usually results from excessive thread drift off-topic, as exemplified by Posts #2 and #8, here. And yours.

This is the legal forum. Law, not politics or political philosophy of the "I think" and "They oughta" sort.

Sir, if I may, the topic IS POLITICAL, period! Saying its otherwise, or that it may, or may not drift in and out of specific coherence is an awfully narrow "yardstick" by any measure.

 

[Grey_Mana]

How much does it cost (the good guys, not the defendant city) to bankroll a lawsuit like this?

 

[ClarkKentAKASuperman]

How much does it cost (the good guys, not the defendant city) to bankroll a lawsuit like this?

Too much, unfortunately. The amount of $$ spent depends upon too many variables to ballpark (the # of lawyers handling the case, number of hours spent on research, number of plaintiffs, number of appearance dates, # of depositions, etc, etc. But needless to say in most cases it would be a kings' ransom, more or less. This is why class action lawsuits (if possible) are the best way to go, but often are only used when there is money to be won. Sadly in a case like this, even if the plaintiff wins, the judge may not award costs so a win could still wind up being very costly for said plaintiff, hence the reason you don't hear about very many lawsuits of this kind. Not to mention lawyers are hesitant to take on cases which have a high probability of a loss because it reflects on their "competence" as a lawyer in the eyes of the public, and no lawyer wants to be viewed as a having a losing record. Now if judges were more liberal with awarding damages in these types of cases, you would probably see more cases filed. Just my .02

 

[Frank Ettin]

How much does it cost (the good guys, not the defendant city) to bankroll a lawsuit like this?

The bill for Heller, all the way through the Supreme Court, was around $3.5 Million.

 

[4sooth]

In Brown v Board of Education SCOTUS required that its ruling be effected with all due speed--Louisiana did not even attempt to comply for TWELVE years after that. The Supreme Court has NO enforcement arm so compliance with any given decision is largely a matter of good will. The federal government is, in general, anti-firearm so I find it unlikely that any pro gun decision relative to New York would change anything. The city could ignore the ruling based on some nebulous legal theory dredged up by their legal advisors and simply refuse to comply for years as Louisiana did relative to the Brown ruling. I do not see any realistic change for years to come.

 

[TrickyDick]

It just seems the Left loves to destroy any right we have. I would like to re-name the Democratic party to the "Infringement Party", Seeing how they love to misinterpet the US constitution and infringe our natural rights as citizens