Very Interesting Federal Lawsuit In California

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems to me that the Chief had better hope to hell he knows them well because if one of the persons to whom he has issued a permit on a basis as arbitrary as a "feel comfortable" uses his weapon to commit a crime the Chief is in very deep doodoo.

why? state law specifically exempts him from any liability regarding issuance of CCW permits. doesn't matter at all what the circumstances are of the issuance. as I recall it, he is still covered by the liability exemption even if he issues to someone who is specifically prohibited.

it is only relevant as an equal protection issue.
 
So now the taxpayers of that town have to pay to fend off his lawsuit?

As it should be they hired or elected them, then they are responsible for what they do.

I hope it cost them alot on their property taxes as this may wake them up!!!! This is bad how???
 
It is a good thing for taxpayers to fund lawsuits against their local governments for abusing people. There is no need for them to demand that the abuses stop as long as they are willing to pay the bills. Has anyone ever heard of taxpayers demanding the removal or impeachment of their public officials because the lawsuits cost too much?
 
The chief stated:

I feel strongly about people and their personal protection,” he said, but added that the liability to the city trumps his 'pro-Second Amendment' beliefs.

Very Low Road throughts right about now. Seriously questioning where his head is, because he surely can't see the light of day.

:rolleyes:
 
How can the sheriff be liable if a licensee does something wrong? He should have qualified immunity for anything he does as part of his duties, and issuing licenses is part of his job.

Kind of goes along the same legal theory that Glock or S&W should be held liable for a criminal deed committed with a gun they manufacture. The legal system in America is dead set on upending society and creating one where the state gets to decide whether to charge a person for a crime, an inanimate object for a crime or both the person and the object. We already see the groundwork for this theory being laid by the rulings where siezed money is charged with a crime and thus forfeited but the owner of said money is not charged and left with no recourse. Hell has a special level for the shysters that come up with these evil wicked permutations of language they use to rape, pillage and destroy with, all under the guise of "the legal system".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top