Class action suit against the NRA? Need some legal minds here.

[trof]

I think most will agree that the gun situation in the U.S has gotten WAY out of hand. I lay a lion's share of the blame at the feet of the NRA.
Evidently they control a large bloc of voters and many (most?) politicians fear them.
Of course they promote gun ownership and use, and they are well financed.

At this time, it seems we can't count on our elected officials to do anything constructive.

If relatives of victims, especially mass shooting victims, got together and sued the NRA would they:

1. Have 'standing'?
2. Be able to make a case?

If memory serves, this is the way that the KKK was pretty much cut down.

I know we have some good legal minds on this forum.
Attorneys, law professors, even judges.
I'd like to hear from you.

Thank you.
trof

[KamaAina]

1. Standing would be the key

They'd have to prove a direct connection between the NRA and the mass shooting, much more difficult than tying the Klan to a lynching.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer; I don't even play one on TV.

[KamaAina]

2. Turns out there were laws specifically aimed at the Klan

that were the basis for those suits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Resistance_2

As 20th-century Supreme Court rulings extended federal enforcement of citizens' civil rights, the government revived the Force Acts and the Klan Act from Reconstruction days. Federal prosecutors used these laws as the basis for investigations and indictments in the 1964 murders of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner; and the 1965 murder of Viola Liuzzo.

[trof]

10. OK, let's go that way.

Is it not a 'civil right' not to be gunned down by someone who should not have access to guns in the first place?

Hasn't this happened?
And has it happened because of lax gun laws promoted and even written by the NRA?
Am I wrong?

[KamaAina]

11. Good luck with that.

As you pointed out in the OP, they own nearly all repuke pols and a fair number of Dems as well.

[trof]

12. Well, I never said this would be easy.

But I think it's worth exploring?
I dunno.
Maybe I'm tilting at windmills?

But dammit, we need to do SOMETHING.
WHAT?

[KamaAina]

15. Give every man, woman and child in the country a bulletproof vest?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. If someone who isn't allowed to have gun acquires a gun that isn't the NRA's fault.

You might as well sue the American Automotive Association for drunk drivers driving on a revoked license.

Keeping NICS up to date is the responsibility of law enforcement. However, law enforcement is not obligated to enforce laws. If you call them to report someone violating a restraining order they are not obligated to intercede so I doubt they can be obligated to keep NICS up to date.

[trof]

3. Yes, that's my take too.

Could you tie 'damages' directly to the NRA?
I'm thinking a smart litigator could make a decent case.

Even if you lost, how would the national (negative?) publicity affect the NRA and their members?

I'm hoping some smart litigators will weigh in here.

[KamaAina]

6. Another analogue might be the tobacco lawsuit

but the analogous plaintiffs would be the gun manufacturers. Then again, bankrupting them might prove worthwhile.

[hifiguy]

9. The tobacco lawsuit here in MN was interesting.

The state sued to recover monies it expended to treat tobacco-related medical problems. The connection between the state and the expenses was direct - as in the state paid the medical bills. Which made it an unusual lawsuit.

The state also went out and hired Mike Ciresi - a David Boies-level plaintiff's attorney from right here in Minneapolis, and Ciresi and his crakerjack team basically brought Big Tobacco - who also had very high-powered legal talent - to its knees.

[jberryhill]

19. Tobacco, used as intended, kills the person who uses it

[KamaAina]

43. And the intended use of a semiautomatic is?

[beevul]

48. To accurately propel a projectile at a target of the users choice...

To accurately propel a projectile at a target of the users choice, as all non-nfa firearms are designed to do.

[yeoman6987]

54. Smoking is not a right. Guns are

Huge difference.

[hack89]

61. You would have to show decades of deceptive and fraudulent practices by the gun manufacturers

that would be hard to do since everyone understands that guns are lethal. Another obstacle is that gun manufacturers don't sell directly to consumers - they sell to licensed gun dealers who in turn sell to consumers.

The biggest obstacle is that unlike tobacco, the death toll from guns fell steadily for 20 years even as gun ownership increased. That fact would be hard to hand wave away in a lawsuit - it certainly would be impossible to show that they engaged in practices designed to increase gun violence.

[KamaAina]

62. The gun manufacturers circumvented Chicago's gun control laws

by shipping many, many more guns to neighboring Cicero than Cicero residents could possibly need.

Hey, it's a start.

[hack89]

63. Chicago also experienced 20 years of declining gun deaths

so it would be hard to demonstrate an actual harm.

[branford]

70. More than the residents "need?"

I don't recall when we instituted regional quotas on firearms or the Second Amendment became part of the "Bill of Needs."

If the gun manufacturers sell to legal dealers, the amount sold is entirely irrelevant unless you can, at a minimum, actually prove that the manufacturers and dealers knowingly colluded in an real criminal enterprise to intentionally facilitate straw purchases. The fact that some dealers, knowingly or unknowingly, sold to straw purchasers, and that's unsurprising, wouldn't even begin to meet the necessary evidentiary threshold. Of course, even with such evidence, the NRA would still be free of liability.

[KamaAina]

71. Okay, many times more than were sold in similarly-sized cities in Illinois

or even in the Chicago area, but not immediately adjacent to the city.

[Straw Man]

74. Geographical location is irrelevant ...

... since a licensed dealer can sell to anyone in any state as long as a licensed dealer in the buyer's state receives the firearm and conducts the NICS background check before the buyer takes physical possession of the firearm.

[branford]

84. Again, that fact is entirely irrelevant.

Any distributor, dealer or individual can buy as many weapons as they want if they otherwise pass any required background checks and comply with applicable law. You're essentially arguing for de facto regional firearm quotas as a basis prima facie civil liability or imputed knowledge of criminality. That certainly doesn't represent the current relevant jurisprudence.

I would also note that state residents can purchase anywhere in their state, not just their home county or city, and local dealers can export firearms out of state so long as they destined for proper FFL's.

[TipTok]

14. Likely fill their coffers and the NRA would thank you...

[hifiguy]

5. Yep. Usually standing is a pretty easy hurdle to jump.

In a case like this, the opposite is true. I am a lawyer, and your analysis is correct in its essence.

Suing the local Klan when a couple of Ku Klux Klowns assault someone is easy because the individual KKKlowns are usually pretty up front about their involvement with the Klan - and that tells you just how smart they are.

It's worth a try but standing is gonna be hard to establish. The link between the NRA and any individual massacre is going to be very, very hard to establish.

[trof]

8. Thank you.

[branford]

20. As another attorney, I cannot even fathom what causes of action can be alleged.

There's no such thing as negligent lobbying or maliciously challenging unconstitutional legislation, no less being too successful in court, elections and with the public opinion!

They also don't manufacture or sell weapons, did not provide any weapons or assistance to murderers, are not part of an actual criminal enterprise, do not call for violence against anyone, etc.

The NRA is actually the largest and most respected gun safety and training organization in the country. The NRA-ILA, the real target of the OP, is a nothing more than a lobbying group, many just don't like what they lobby for.

I assume the OP also wants to sue the drug legalization lobbying groups for all the overdoses and crime relating to drugs in this country?

Rather than complain endlessly about the NRA or seeking to silence ideological opposition, learn from them. and try to actually convince the people and elected representatives of the purported validity and value of gun control.

[Duckhunter935]

27. This ^^^^^

[Statistical]

56. Exactly.

From a legal standpoint the NRA-ILA like any lobbying group is influencing politicians to enact or repeal laws as it sees best.

A lobbying group can be stupid, pointless, and downright reactionary but it doesn't make it illegal. The right to petition the government is protected even if that right is being used to petition for things you dislike.

[branford]

59. You can exercise a fundamental right, yet still be exposed to civil liability (e.g., defamation),

but these instances are rather clear and limited.

However, besides issues like standing, proximate cause and provable damages, an actual recognized tort or statutory violation must be alleged. You cannot sue someone for intentionally or negligently advocating for stuff you don't like.

[ryan_cats]

91. A reasoned analysis

A reasoned analysis

The NRA is actually the largest and most respected gun safety and training organization in the country. The NRA-ILA, the real target of the OP, is a nothing more than a lobbying group, many just don't like what they lobby for.

I assume the OP also wants to sue the drug legalization lobbying groups for all the overdoses and crime relating to drugs in this country?

A very reasoned analysis. We can't have that, Burn the witch.

[Hoyt]

94. That right wing lobbying group is controlled by the NRA. Look at the NRA Board of Directors.

NRA Board is almost entirely comprised of right wing racists, right wing ideologues, and those who profit from more gunz. They keep a tight reign on the lobbying arm. Anyone who thinks the ILA is separate from the mother organization is naive.

[branford]

95. Sigh, groups can share officers and employees and be sympathetic and communicate with one another,

but as long as legal formalities are properly observed, they are indeed separate organizations. It's no different that any other corporation or NGO who maintains an official lobbying arm. Your opinion concerning the Board members is irrelevant.

Regardless, the NRA and NRA-ILA Boards could be comprised of the mythical Princes of Hell who actively lobby for laws mandating the sacrificing of orphans and windows to foster the End of Days (which based on your comments, you probably believe is actually the case), and their actions would still unquestionably be constitutionally protected without any civil liability for exercising such rights.

There are no exceptions in corporate, non-profit, election, constitutional and other laws and jurisprudence for groups and people you find offensive, even if it involves firearms.

[Hoyt]

97. Legal formalties don't change the facts. When Grover Norquist tells the ILA to run anti-Obama ads,

they do. Have you ever worked for one of the these "separate" political action committees? They aren't separate at all except in the eyes of those trying to toe the line on the legalities.

As to the lawsuit, I agree there is no basis. As to the ILA (aka, PAC) being a lobbying arm of the NRA, there is little doubt on that. That's just how they work. Rather than fighting them, you have to start a PAC in opposition if you plan on getting anywhere.

[ColesCountyDem]

30. I agree, and I don't see how anyone could establish proximate cause, either. n/t

[jberryhill]

4. No, and that's not happened with the KKK

The simple answer is no. It's not even a 'close' question.

[trof]

7. Thank you. Could I have the more complex answer?

Which OP question are you answering?
Thanks.

[H2O Man]

72. The NRA, unlike the KKK,

does not promote illegal actions that put others at risk -- much less target others, as did the KKK. The NRA -- and I'm definitely no fan -- engages in constitutionally-protected activities; the KKK used to hide under the cover of being a social club, but had direct association with hate crimes.

There are a dozen reasons that the case could not win. I can't think of a single reason it could win, even initially.

[trof]

75. OK. Understand. The lawsuit was a dumb idea.

I see that now.

[steve2470]

13. KKK was cut down in the 19th Century by Grant and Enforcement Act of 1871

http://bit.ly/1JOp0Oi = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_Act_of_1871_(third_act)

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

[NutmegYankee]

16. I think it would be impossble, and not just because of standing.

The NRA would no doubt argue a first amendment free speech case, and it would be extremely difficult to overcome it. Unlike the KKK acts of violence, lobbying is not an illegal act. In the end, it would be seen as a case based on their message, and therefore firmly protected by the First Amendment.

[X_Digger]

17. No more than you could sue the National Automakers Association because a drunk plowed into you. n/t

[ileus]

18. No and No.

While the NRA makes great target for us here, it's basically mostly emotion based and few facts.

The NRA doesn't sell firearms, the NRA doesn't hire criminals to shoot people. What little the NRA does it through the court system. So you'd have to sue the courts and folks that support whatever laws they may have sponsored.

[Hekate]

23. The NRA is the front man for the arms sellers. I'm sure they are paid handsomely.

I also think there must be something in the racketeering laws that would apply to them.

Don't BS us about "emotion."

[beevul]

25. Who is BSing who here? We haven't forgotten about the anti-gun talking point manual...

Who is BSing who here? We haven't forgotten about the anti-gun talking point manual that was made public. There have been a few actually.

How about you don't BS us about emotion:

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665

Its right there in the manual.

[ileus]

31. You're confusing the NRA with Uncle Sam military contractors.

You forgot your NRA sells guns link.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. "I'm sure they are paid handsomely."

1. it would be easy enough to find out through their corporate filings

2. which of your pet political causes are well funded? Does that delegitimize them?

3. you've already made up your mind completely absent of any evidence so why would evidence matter after the fact? You can't be reasoned out of what you were never reasoned in to.

[hardluck]

21. So you'll sue them for petitioning the government

Would result in an anti-SLAPP motion and you'd end up paying the NRA's attorney's fees. Not to mention standing, what causes of actions?, speculative damages... Oh and their membership would go through the roof.

[Hekate]

22. Kicking. It's even happened in my little town next to Santa Barbara. The U.S. Post Office sorting...

....station got shot up. A student went berserk near UCSB. One of the dead students father made the same vow the father of the person who was just murdered on air did: I will devote my life... I will see an end to this madness....I will bring down the NRA.

It is absolutely insane.

I like the idea of a class action lawsuit. WHY NOT? Why ever not....

[Mr.Squirreleo]

24. How would it be the fault of the NRA?

Look I get it, the NRA advocates for gun rights. However I see not link between them advocating for the rights of legal gun owners and the legal use of them. The word legal there is key, they promote buying and owning guns for collecting/hunting/competition not murder.

I personally do not see what is so wrong with the NRA. They are a group representing a majority of gun owners in an issue that they feel strongly about. I fail to see any difference between this and a group such as PETA or environmental group advocating and lobbying for legislature that furthers their cause. If you disagree with what they stand for I find no problem with that, but I do have a problem with people advocating for suing or getting rid of group that represents a mass of people simply because they disagree with them.

[Turbineguy]

26. Maybe try and show change in their reason for existing.

From promoting knowledge and safety to sales.

[Scuba]

29. I like the idea of mandating gun insurance, then letting those two lobbying groups fight it out.

[oneshooter]

32. What would the insurence cover?

Criminal misuse of the firearm?

Pay for medical costs of victims of crime?

Pay for loss of life due to illegal action?

Please give us more detail.

[branford]

37. I assume you read the recent Guardian article

from the author who knows nothing about insurance or the NRA?

Simply, mandatory insurance is a feel-good measure, little more than solution looking for a problem, and would not in any way cause some rift between insurance companies and any part of the gun rights lobby.

First, you cannot insure against your own intentional criminal acts. Insurance also wouldn't cover the effects of violence unconnected to the owner's firearms. Personal liability insurance is not a some general crime victim recovery fund funded by legal gun owners (which would have its own myriad of constitutional problems). For instance, even if the recent shooter of the reporters in Virginia has liability insurance, the victims' families would not collect a dime from the policy.

Second, since the incidence of firearm negligence among lawful gun owners is minuscule, despite the occasional graphic news story (recall that the USA has about 100+ million legal gun owners and over 300+ million firearms), the cost for such policies would be (and are) negligible. If the government attempted to artificially raise the costs of such insurance above what actuarial standards required, it would become a tax or penalty on gun ownership, and no longer "insurance" (again, with significant constitutional problems).

Third, most homeowners and renters policies already cover accidents involving firearms.

Fourth, if the intent and design of the policy is to discourage the exercise of a constitutional right by simply making it more burdensome or expensive, it would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the same manner the courts struck-down poll taxes and literacy tests for voting.

Fifth, the vast majority of crime involving guns does not involve legal firearm owners or guns, and therefore this policy would have little to no effect on crime rates as such firearms would still not be insured even if mandatory. "Mass shootings" are also an extremely small percentage of gun crime.

Sixth, firearm accident insurance and policy riders are already very cheap and readily available, and the NRA is one of its largest proponents. If specific firearm insurance became mandatory, it would be a huge financial windfall for the NRA not only as a provider and vendor (similar to how AARP is a vendor for health and life insurance), but also as an endorser as they are the largest firearms safety organization in the country. T

Seventh, there is no data to suggest that the country actually has a problem with uncompensated losses resulting from accidents involving legal firearms. What problem does the mandatory insurance proposal actually address?

Eighth, the lack of liability insurance does not prevent accident victims from suing someone for their negligence or criminal acts.

[Scuba]

38. Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed everyone understands satire and parody.

[branford]

42. If you were being sarcastic, I apologize.

It's just that the mandatory firearm insurance argument has unusually been raised quite frequently in recent weeks, and the Guardian editorial did not help matters. Among the many gun control suggestions discussed in recent years, mandatory insurance is just the one of the very worst as a matter of law and policy, and I've become a little reactive.

[Scuba]

44. Just curious; why do you think it's bad policy?

[branford]

46. As I indicated in detail in my prior post,

it doesn't address any actual problem.

Even as a gun rights proponent (although I don't own any firearms), I don't deny too many people die of firearms-related incidents. However, about two-thirds of those incidents are suicides, and the vast majority of the remainder involve illegal gun used in crime by people who cannot own firearms under current legislation. I am more than willing to consider in good faith policies designed to address the people and situations that are the actual problem, without punishing the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners.

Simply, we do not have a statistically significant problem with uncompensated losses resulting from firearms accidents involving lawful gun owners, the only circumstances and people that real "insurance" would implicate. Note also that most firearms accidents are already covered by the majority of homeowner's and renter's policies.

The "insurance" proposals are usually just means to raise the cost and burden of legal firearm ownership in order to reduce "gun culture," and as such is no more constitutionally acceptable than poll taxes and literacy tests. Those who seek government intervention to make insurance premiums punitive as a means of broad gun control should simply admit they want a tax or penalty on lawful firearm ownership, rather than actual "insurance," and be brave enough to deal with the legal and electoral consequences of such a policy.

Additionally, despite the erroneous claims in the Guardian and elsewhere, the NRA and insurance companies already have a profitable symbiotic relationship concerning firearms insurance, the NRA only objects to mandatory insurance, and if the insurance proposals actually became law, the NRA would reap a financial windfall. Any proposed mandatory insurance legislation might as well be entitled, "The Feel Good But Does Nothing NRA Fundraising and Membership Drive Act."

[Hoyt]

33. The way to change things is to expose guns and their fanciers/promoters for what they

really are. When society tires of these yahoos and their sick needs/hobby, things will get done and gun worshippers will STFU and hide.

[TeddyR]

34. So what are they "really"?

And what do you plan on exposing?

[Hoyt]

35. George Zimmermans, militia types, paranoids, anti-social, compensators, sick, racists, and worse.

A few exceptions, maybe.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. 80 million plus? All potentially dangerous?

[Hoyt]

45. You gotta have issues to strap on a gun to go to Chuck E Cheese,

Last edited Thu Sep 3, 2015, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

or keep a closet full of lethal weapons.

[beevul]

47. No.

You gotta have issues to think that the people that aren't committing gun violence are the problem.

[Hoyt]

49. Gun polluters are a problem. I bet some gun fanciers right here have sold a gun to

a criminal, had one stolen, introduced a bad kid to guns, maybe even committed an improper act if only using a gun for intimidation, or worse. Sorry, Beevul, you are contributing to the problem and promoting proliferation of guns in more places. While gunz are worse, it is sort of like driving a a gas-guzzling, road hogging Hummer and saying it's OK because you pay for your gas, so what's the problem.

Gunners need to leave their guns at home and stop thinking about the next one, and contributing to the next generation of gun nuts. Sorry.

[beevul]

50. Thank you for making clear...

Thank you for making clear, that you think its the guns rather than the people that misuse them, which are the problem.

Beliefs like yours are the reason I do not support many so called 'gun violence prevention' measures.

You and the rest of the anti-gun folks are uninterested in correctly or accurately identifying the problem (the people that misuse firearms resulting in gun violence).

I am uninterested in solutions that are based on that false premise.

[Hoyt]

51. I get it, you are scared to death of losing your gunz, and you don't care about anyone else.

You guys are the ultimate solution, but you are stuck on your gunz above all else.

[beevul]

52. Projection.

You guys are the ones that refuse to focus on the misusers, and insist on focusing on the guns. Your previous post makes that abundantly clear, but I get that you'd rather not have any light shone on that.

This isn't about guns, its about you folks that insist on focusing on them, and who refuse to differentiate between the less than .1 percent that misuse them, and the 99.9x percent that don't. You've made it very clear that you are one of those folks, for all to see.

...but you are stuck on your gunz above all else.

I haven't bought a gun in almost 12 years now, any other poo you'd care to fling in a vain attempt to get it to stick?

[ryan_cats]

93. Gun polluters are a problem. I bet some gun fanciers right here have sold a gun to a criminal, had

Gun polluters are a problem. I bet some gun fanciers right here have sold a gun to a criminal, had one stolen, introduced a bad kid to guns, maybe even committed an improper act if only using a gun for intimidation, or worse. Sorry, Beevul, you are contributing to the problem and promoting proliferation of guns in more places. While gunz are worse, it is sort of like driving a a gas-guzzling, road hogging Hummer and saying it's OK because you pay for your gas, so what's the problem.

Hell that all happened to me before breakfast.

it is sort of like driving a a gas-guzzling, road hogging Hummer and saying it's OK because you pay for your gas, so what's the problem.

Well problem number one is this purity test. People love to impose their views at the point of an evil gun on other people and then howling when the exact thing is done to them. Problem two is using the wrong punctuation to end a sentence. Problem three is using a z instead of an s to indicate plural. Almost as bad as using num3ers in words.

Will a catalytic converter cut down on gun pollution?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. 80+ million people go to Chuck E Cheese with guns?

And when was the last time there was an incident at Chuck E Cheese?

[Hoyt]

65. Kid pops a balloon and sends 20 gun fanciers diving for cover.

You seem to think that since Cliven Bundy's armed militia didn't shoot anyone, everything is OK until they do. I don't.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. I'm sure lots of balloons pop at Chuck E Cheese. How come we haven't heard of mass shoot outs?

[Hoyt]

67. We do know poor influences on kids are standing there with guns tucked in their pants.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. You're having fantasies about things being tucked into 80M people's pants at Chuck E Cheese?

[Hoyt]

73. Gunners talking about fantasies. LMAO

[beevul]

78. Wasn't it you that claimed you could field strip a 45 under water? N/T

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. Well, we can't all miraculously neutralize threats with cans of beans.

[Hoyt]

82. There's that fantasy of "neutralizing threats." Jeeezus

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. Tell us again how you once defended yourself with a can of beans.

[Hoyt]

86. Believe it or not, you can defend yourself without strapping a gun on to run to the store or

ride a bicycle. I know that's a stretch for you gunners.

[Hoyt]

86. Believe it or not, you can defend yourself without strapping a gun on to run to the store or

ride a bicycle. I know that's a stretch for you gunners.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. Go ahead Hoyt. Tell us how you did it so we can all learn from your example.

[Hoyt]

89. First, Unicorn, you have to grow up when it comes to guns. It's kind of like

trying to explain to someone who doesn't want to quite another bad habit -- smoking -- that they should.

You need to surround yourself with the 95+% of population who would never dream of strapping on a gun or two to walk down the street. That's really important. You've got to get away from the gun culture's bad influences. That includes leaving the Gungeon. You'll be a better person for it.

If necessary, admit your weakness to the 95+%ers and ask them how they are able to walk out the door everyday without a gun in their pants. They can help you. Walk with one, or two of them, while leaving your gun at home. See how much freer you feel.

Once you've done those things, we'll move on to the next steps.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. You make up lot of tal tales and wild assumptions Hoyt. Fantasies, even.

Once you've done those things, we'll move on to the next steps.

Wait.

You want someone to give up guns but not give them a can of beans instead?

You spend so much time making personal insults and being condescending that, frankly, you're too much of a jerk to make an appeal on personality. Even if I were to return to my pro-gun control roots I still wouldn't want to be associated with you because you're such a putz.

But even then self-defense is still a genuine and serious concern, particularly for women of petite stature who cannot afford to allow an attacker to get within arm's reach. So, maybe if you started with instruction on how to properly employ a can of beans in a self-defense situation people would learn from your personal example and realize the superiority of beans over guns in a tactical situation thus making it easier for them to make the transition to beans.

[Hoyt]

92. Are you a petite woman? And how do you know someone is an attacker. They usually don't advertise

it unless you have some radar that can spot one.

That's what gets me by the whole self-defense toting thing. Robbers don't walk up to you from a distance, advertising the fact they are going to rob/mug you. They get up on you first. I know some of the right wing gunners have a way of spotting "potential" trouble at a distance. But, presumably our Gungeoneers don't profile.

Fact is, most robbers are going to grab you or stick a gun to your head before you even know what happens. They'll likely settle for your wallet, but if you go to pull your gun, they will shoot you.

But the real crux of the matter is, there is almost no chance you'll need a gun with a little situational awareness.

Anyone who thinks differently, ought to seek professional help, not a gun.

[beevul]

98. Good grief hoyt, you take projection to ridiculous levels. Whats more, its provable.

Robbers don't walk up to you from a distance, advertising the fact they are going to rob/mug you. They get up on you first.

I direct the astute readers attention to this:

As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police. hoyt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

I feel like this needs to be thrown in for good measure:

Poster to hoyt: You never did show us how to field strip a 1911 under water.

hoyt: That was many years ago, but I could still do it. Set up place with clean water -- and provide cash.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=40358

Tell us more about gunner fantasies.


And on down the line:

I know some of the right wing gunners have a way of spotting "potential" trouble at a distance.

Says the poster who claimed this in response to being asked how he knows who is walking around carrying a gun:

Actually I'd have you identified at 100 yards...

http://election.democraticunderground.com/117262494#post4

And this:

I will still bet I can spot a toter in my neighborhood.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/117262494#post8

Moving right along:

Fact is, most robbers are going to grab you or stick a gun to your head before you even know what happens. They'll likely settle for your wallet, but if you go to pull your gun, they will shoot you.

The voice of experience, however I doubt it speaks for all robbers, and would guess it speaks only for your own experience in that arena.

Anyone who thinks differently, ought to seek professional help, not a gun.

Somehow, I doubt you are qualified to determine who needs professional help, and you've already disqualified yourself from being credible when it comes to fisking the morals of others.

[Hoyt]

99. What a sick obsession. Let's take the first one, where you gunners were talking about

how you'd blast away -- even if it endangered innocent bystanders -- if robbers locked the doors. It was in response to a news article that got you gun guys all excited and bragging about how you would have ended it right then. I merely pointed out -- with a comment I expected gunners to perceive as humor -- that robbers lock doors to control the situation so they don't have to shoot away. You and others were too dense to get it. Fact is, your gunner cowboy buddy who pulled his gun to save the day, shot an innocent clerk.

As to a 1911 field strip -- After almost 50 years, it's still a simple process. Not a real challenge to grownups, but to a pre-teen with a blindfold or in a pool, it seemed an accomplishment.

Anyway, if you need to do it, here's a quick summary: After making sure it's unloaded, magazine out, chamber empty, checked again and again, etc., you depress the spring cap under the muzzle. Remove that lock ring (whatever it's called, not really into gun nomenclature these days). Remove the big spring; remove that pin about half way down the slide; and pull it all apart. It's not a difficult thing to do, but totally useless if you are not in a militia or need to carry one daily to compensate for fear. Haven't had one in my hand in darn near 50 years, and hope I never do again. Seen a few carried by yahoos that think it impresses people, but that's a different issue.

Not going to respond to the rest of your sick cyber stalking. Too busy right now to go back three years to respond to all my posts you have collected. Are they hanging on the wall, or something?

In any event, you need to leave your gunz at home. Society will appreciate it, and you might feel a little better about yourself.

[beevul]

104. Having a good memory isn't a sick obsession. Serial-projecting your biases is.

I merely pointed out -- with a comment I expected gunners to perceive as humor...

Sure you did.

Not going to respond to the rest of your sick cyber stalking.

Quoting you and the things you've said in discussion here on DU isn't 'cyber stalking'.

If you have a problem with it, maybe you should consider the things you say openly, and move more of them into the 'stupid, don't say it' category. But that's your problem, not mine.

Too busy right now to go back three years to respond to all my posts you have collected.

But your not too busy to harp about guns right? And, I haven't collected anything. The DU servers have. I'm just proficient at the search function, and remembering the 'dumb to assinine' things posters sometimes say.

Are they hanging on the wall, or something?

Nope. They're 'hanging' on a hard drive of some sort, on the DU server.

Is that bad ol server stalking you? If you apply the same logic the same way you do with guns, the answer is yes.

In any event, you need to ...

No. You need to stop with your presumptuous arrogance in thinking that you have any business, let alone that you're qualified, to determining anyones needs but your own.

[Hoyt]

110. Glad you remember my posts. Jeezus.

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. Any evidence that this "gunner cowboy" was a "buddy" of Beevuls?

If so, please produce it...

[Snobblevitch]

120. Whom did you rob and why?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. Yes, I'm a petite woman and I'm not the only one. As for the MO of robbers --

Though you apparently identified yourself as one of these violent criminals the fact remains defensive gun use does occur. Moreover, not every scenario plays out as you describe.

People are free to choose to defend themselves and that seems to be what upsets you the most. I doubt it's a matter of "public safety" because I'm willing to bet you would giggle with delight at the thought of gun owners being violently disarmed.

[Hoyt]

112. In the case I referred to, and you misinterpreted, the gunner cowboy shot the innocent store clerk.

He should have left his gun at home.

[friendly_iconoclast]

113. He's advocated vigilantism against gun owners before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471849#471995

I know those who carry in public think the police are just supposed to wink at those who might have a weapon. But, this shows why police need to stop and check out anyone toting in public.

Further, every citizen should report anyone carrying a gun in public -- Maybe even hold them until police arrive. You just never know when the gunner is a criminal, has bad intentions, or just walked off their compound with a plan to harm innocent people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x472307#472351

[branford]

96. I don't believe the Constitution protects "assault legumes" and high capacity cans,

and carrying cans of beans, concealed or open, is only permitted by state sponsored and controlled culinary regiments.

I will oppose such rampant and unregulated use of beans, as I have no intention of seeing our streets run red with chili!

[Hoyt]

100. Typical gunner view of life -- believe it or not, gunz don't make you a man.

[branford]

101. I own no firearms, never did, and have no current desire to do so.

I'm a very politically active litigation attorney who lives and works in NYC, and although I can easily procure a permit, have no desire to do so because I feel perfectly safe in my home and work environments. However, I consider myself very fortunate, and would not deny the most effective and versatile self-defense tool to others. I also do not have an irrational fear of inanimate objects, believe they control minds or turn people into psychopaths, and make no exception to the Second Amendment in my appreciation for the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional protections.

[Hoyt]

102. Yet you post in the Gungeon more than anywhere. Come on. I guess you are

trying to drum up business if one of the gunners pulls a Zimmerman. Or you are just an admirer of those who carry guns and have a closet full of the dang things. Sorry, don't believe it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. "Yet you post in the Gungeon more than anywhere." So does a host of GCRA:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1262

So what's your point?

[beevul]

106. Ouch

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. The level of doctrinal rigidity in a persons' political worldview...

...is usually in reverse proportion to their intelligence. I've observed very few (if any)
exceptions in gun control advocacy circles.

[Hoyt]

111. Except the the GCRA host ain't promoting gunz when he posts in Gungeon.

[beevul]

114. 'Promoting' generally requires comment.

So you're kinda right.

[Eleanors38]

121. ^^^. Visit, DUers, and know the meaning of Beevul's comment.

[Duckhunter935]

115. He does not really post

All he can do is cut and paste from the Google, lol

[Hoyt]

116. The point is clear in these cut/paste posts. I get you don't like the point.

[beevul]

117. We recognize the point...

We recognize the point:

"Gunz bad".

We also recognize that the premise that its the guns which are bad rather than the misusers, is a false one.

[Duckhunter935]

119. The point is clear he has no respect

For the host or the group by posting near a thousand cut and pasted Google posts and refuses to discuss them per the group SOP. Funny for a host that is so scared to debate he blocked a person for a self deleted post.

[branford]

118. Indeed I do post in the gun forums.

I'm hardly ashamed of my forum selection choices, and I've discussed my professional and political background (commercial and general civil litigation attorney in NYC and worked at the NIJ at the DOJ as well as the NLRB, Region 29) on numerous occasions concerning a myriad of issues on different sub-forums. To anyone who's paying attention or remotely cares, it's obvious that I particularly and unsurprisingly like to discuss various legal, criminal justice, labor and union, and civil rights issues, with gun rights belonging to multiple categories. Luckily, unlike what you've described about yourself, my experience with the criminal justice system has been academic or in a wholly professional capacity. It's no wonder we might have far different perspectives.

I opine on gun rights because it's an area that I tend to disagree, in whole or in part, with many of my liberal peers, and it provides an actual opportunity for genuine discussion, the very point of engaging in a Democratic online forum.

Nevertheless, you are free to continue making assumptions about and immaturely insulting people with whom you do not agree and not addressing the substantive issues at play. I believe the current state of gun rights jurisprudence, legislative and electoral successes, and polling trends, speak volumes about the success of such an attitude and strategy.

[friendly_iconoclast]

122. Please continue posting- it's like watching Georgia Tech v. Alcorn State...

Last edited Fri Sep 4, 2015, 11:41 PM - Edit history (1)

[TeddyR]

55. So Gabby Gifford

Gun owner, would be on your list. And the 30% or so of Democrats that own guns are "militia types, paranoids, anti-social, sick, racists and worse"? Good to know where you stand on this issue.

[Hoyt]

60. Might be a few exceptions, but not many. Do you need a gun in your pants to venture out?

If Giffords had her gun in her hand, it wouldn't have helped her. If Loughner had not had a gun, she would not have been hurt.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. And they're all hanging out at Chuck E Cheese, appantly.

[Lee-Lee]

36. You have more chance at standing suing the BATF and FBI

You won't have standing at all against the NRA.

You would probably be better able to show standing against the BATFE for failing to properly inspect and shut down a bad dealer if they sold a gun improperly, or against the FBI for not keeping the NICS system in good order, and against both for not following up on tens of thousands of denials every year- between 75,000 and 100,000 people are denied by NICS every year, that means unless the system wrongfully denied them they committed felony perjury on the form 4473 trying to illegally buy a gun. Less than 100 of those people are prosecuted per year typically. It's a less than 1% prosecution rate for illegally attempting to buy a gun- leaving 99% of those denied to walk out and try illegal means to get one.

That refusal to prosecute known illegal attempts to buy guns probably creates more of chance at standing to sue than any lobbying the NRA does- especially since the NRA is on record saying they want those cases prosecuted.

But, of course, sovereign immunity probably stops that before it gets off the ground. I am not familiar enough with it on a federal level to say for sure.

[ripcord]

76. Not that it matters to this discussion but.......

The ATF was successfully sued by the National Association of Rocketry and the Tripoli Rocketry Association in 2000 and forced to remove ammonium perchlorate composite propellant from the list of items they control in 2009. It took almost 10 years and a lot of money but it can be done.

[Amishman]

39. even if you won, it wouldn't change anything

The NRA is just a figurehead and if it were to be shut down tomorrow, all that would happen is some other gun lobbying group would pickup of a couple million very pissed off new members. The NRA isn't your problem, its the millions of people who agree with its actions.

Railing against the NRA doesn't make a difference, try instead focusing on something that might actually be possible and might help; like opening up the background check system to individuals or safe storage incentives.

[Eleanors38]

53. Good points. Folks should see how deep the bench is.

[branford]

85. People often forget it was the Second Amendment Foundation, and not the NRA,

that was responsible for the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions, two of the most important gun rights events in generations.

[Statistical]

58. No but you may be able to sue ...

... the state and federal agencies which failed to comply with existing laws or fulfil their duties.

Even that would be a longshot as government makes the barrier for suit against the state nearly impossible. Mere negligence would not be enough they would need to be criminally negligent or wilfully non-compliant.

[Eric J in MN]

79. I wouldn't want such a lawsuit against the NRA to succeed.

If such a lawsuit succeeded, it could be applied to other organizations.

Suppose a killer is acquitted because the ACLU successfully argued that a search was illegal. He kills, again. If the NRA could be sued for their positions, then so could the ACLU.

The ACLU has the Free Speech to take positions I usually agree with, and the NRA has the Free Speech to take positions I usually disagree with.

[Lurks Often]

80. You seem to be one of the few here who recognize this

Setting legal precedent can often have unintended and unwelcome results.