National A New Lawsuit Argues That Customizable Rifles Are Illegal

[User 1234]

I've advocated for years for a simple reform to the legal system that would prevent almost all frivolous lawsuits.

If we treated law licenses like they do driver's licenses in many states and assigned "points" against them for unethical behavior, lawyers would simply refuse to take cases like this for fear of losing their livelyhood.

We just need a process to collect and adjudicate accusations of bad faith/abuse of the system/misconduct. Of course it will never happen, since lawyers, judges (former lawyers), and lawmakers (mostly lawyers) would have to be the ones to make it happen.

That system already exists. All lawyers in America must belong to the state bar association which is the disciplinary arm of the state Supreme Court. It has the ability to consider prior conduct in handing down suspensions and disbarment.

 

[Talos32]

That system already exists. All lawyers in America must belong to the state bar association which is the disciplinary arm of the state Supreme Court. It has the ability to consider prior conduct in handing down suspensions and disbarment.

Sure, but I'm talking about something more formalized, more expansive in what's determined to be misconduct, and more prescriptive in punishment. And certainly not run by the other lawyers in the state.

Self policing is largely ineffective. I once googled my name and found a lawyer in another state with the same name when had temporarily been barred from practising law for something like a year. It took a lot of egregious conduct in my opinion to get a relatively minor sanction. I've seen the same when I read about state discipline for medical complaints.

If I file a complaint to the state bar seeking sanction for an attorney that filed a frivolous lawsuit against me it's entirely up to them if and what sanction they hand down, if that's even considered misconduct.

In the system I see the determination is made by an independent body- no self governance. Any behavior designed simple to frustrate the other side is misconduct. File a BS-sounding lawsuit, file 1,000 motions, deliver a truckload of unrelated crap in response to discovery, send a BS cease and desist letter, etc. and you better be able to convince this independent body it was done in good faith.

If you cant, you get some points according to a table. Enough points and you lose your license, at a certain threshold, for life.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Self policing is largely ineffective.

So the answer is more government agents in the form of police officers and the like?

Do gun owners need more policing by which agencies?

Have these agencies proven effective in terms of "policing" gun violence?

What pray tell, would you consider "effective policing" in terms of gun rights, as well as in terms of individual liberties and rights, and in terms of occupational rules and regulations?

 

[bentoncity]

Hmm. The comments got me to thinking about filing charges with the bar against Ferguson & the supreme court for not upholding the rcw's wherein they allowed 1639 to proceed when it clearly violated them.

Dan

 

[300Pete]

.

 

[Talos32]

So the answer is more government agents in the form of police officers and the like?

Do gun owners need more policing by which agencies?

Have these agencies proven effective in terms of "policing" gun violence?

What pray tell, would you consider "effective policing" in terms of gun rights, as well as in terms of individual liberties and rights, and in terms of occupational rules and regulations?

I fail to see what my belief the lawyers don't self-regulate themselves effectively has to do with gun rights. Why don't you explain how the two are related very clearly point-by-point so I can see where you're coming from?

And no, self-regulation doesn't work. That's why we have a government, that's why we have laws, and that's why we have instruments to enforce them. If people behaved without a threat of punishment hanging over their head, we wouldn't need any of those things. With regards to guns, everything you can do with them and hurt other people is already illegal. That's why I don't support restrictions on guns themselves.

As part of their professional licensing, lawyers are considered officers of the court. That brings with it an expectation of fair play and dignified conduct. If the current disciplinary system allows unscrupulous attorneys to clog the courts and waste defendants time and money with frivolous lawsuits/tactics (as I believe it does) then I think it needs to change.

Are you contending that you don't see a problem with everyone that these freaks are suing having to dip into their pockets over and over again? This became such a problem that the federal government had to pass a law barring it. Remember, the people having to spend their money fighting the sort of crap are the gun manufacturers, distributors, and owners that you seem to be so angrily defending.

 

[Talos32]

Hmm. The comments got me to thinking about filing charges with the bar against Ferguson & the supreme court for not upholding the rcw's wherein they allowed 1639 to proceed when it clearly violated them.

Dan

I absolutely support that. While you're at it, how about his extremely aggressive pursuit of Tim Eyman in comparison to the hand slap that those local Democratic party organizations got for their campaign finance violations?

Of course, I think it will prove my point when they do nothing at all to him.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Are lawyers themselves, not human beings?

Are human beings themselves infallible?

United States was founded on the belief of "self governance".

You posit that no person can ever be effective with self-governing, self-regulating, self-rule; if they are lawyers. But I posit that it goes further, that it goes all the way to the very basic human being; At the lowest common denominator; you posit they are not fit to rule themselves, to regulate themselves, to control themselves?

I posit that it has nothing to do with their chosen professions, and everything to do with a lack of morality and ethics

On the other hand; the laws as we have, are penalty based, not rewards based; so of course it is supposed to punish those who do evil; but when evil is seen as a relative truth, that throws out any and all pretenses of morality and ethics.

As to how it relates to gun rights? Oh so very much...

Your position seems to say that no person can be trusted to control themselves; even with arms.

it seems to imply that what people need are rulers and kings and bosses; but not that they can rule themselves, be kings of their own domains, and be their own bosses.

it all ties into itself. Guns are an expression of power to be sure; but also independence and freedom, and of tools to use for self defense, for protection, for hunting, and for making war upon ones enemy.

If a person cannot be trusted to control themselves, or to self-regulate, no matter their profession; then of course there is a reason that "gun control" appeals to so many in power


Who was it that once said...

We are not a nation of men, but a nation of laws. The moment we become ruled by emotions and men, is the moment we have lost the nation, and lost rule of law. [/b] ?

To say that lawyers, by their very profession, cannot be trusted with the safekeeping of this nation's laws; is to say that we are not capable of keeping this nation safe from anyone at all.

Yes there are many bad lawyers, the profession is simply overwhelmed with egoistical jerks, who gets results.

Are you aware the percentage of Congress that practiced law? I think it stands at 41 percent for the 113th Congress.

if you are saying we can't trust lawyers to self-police, maybe we can't trust Congress to self-police

 

[revjen45]

One answer: Lawyers are officers of the court, and allowing them to be legislators at the same time is a violation of separation of powers. Lawyers should not be allowed to both practice and make law at the same time. If they want be in the legislature, they should cease to be an officer of the court during their time as a legislator. Lawyers are the only profession that can create a demand for their own services by making laws that do just that.

 

[Caveman Jim]

.

View attachment 597832

Yep, just wait till the gun haters come for the Fudds "SNIPER RIFLE".....

 

[Slobray]

Yep, just wait till the gun haters come for the Fudds "SNIPER RIFLE".....

Yeah, cuz nobody needs "weapons of war to hunt deer"....................


*edited to add picture



Ray

 

[Andy54Hawken]

One thing is for sure...
Any firearm or accessory will be on someone's "You can't own this " list.
And Damn , I am tired of one dumbazz lawsuit , law , ban , restriction etc...following one after another...right after one is passed.
Wait , that's two things that are for sure...
Damn I am tired of people who can't count ...
Andy

 

[P7M13]

I am not a fan of Personal Injury suits. Nor am I a fan of Agency Law.

Ignorance breeds assumptions. Like the theory that in a 5mph rear-end collision, the entire force of the collision is transferred to the driver of the front vehicle. An attorney once suggested that it was a sophisticated argument, and I retorted that it was a case of two parties who knew absolutely nothing about physics.

That system already exists. All lawyers in America must belong to the state bar association which is the disciplinary arm of the state Supreme Court. It has the ability to consider prior conduct in handing down suspensions and disbarment.

Sure, but I'm talking about something more formalized, more expansive in what's determined to be misconduct, and more prescriptive in punishment. And certainly not run by the other lawyers in the state.
Self policing is largely ineffective.
If I file a complaint to the state bar seeking sanction for an attorney that filed a frivolous lawsuit against me it's entirely up to them if and what sanction they hand down, if that's even considered misconduct.

Rule 11 Sanction. I once sought one against a frivolous lawsuit, but the bar for validity is extremely low. Hence, your downwind neighbor can sue you because you love liver and onions, and your farts are particularly noisome.
The bar has its own disciplinary arm. If you consider that 1/3 of the attorneys have addiction or dependency problems, they have their hands full. Then you get into a large portion of the discipline - mismanagement of the client trust fund.
Some discipline is straight forward. Other is personally or politically motivated.
I know one attorney in Oregon who instructed his client he had a conflict of interest, client insisted he still represent him, and so filed the proper forms with the bar and client. Client was disgruntled with the outcome of the case, brought suit against the attorney for that same conflict. End result, he was disbarred for a year.
Another close friend on the Virginia bar recognized a pattern of unfavorable rulings by the judge in a PI case. Looking deeper, he found the judge had financial ties (secondary) to the defendant. Friend brought this evidence to court and asked the judge recuse himself. A big row ensued, and friend was disbarred for a year. I read all the proceedings on that, and it was evident that it was an unfair result. Friend got the last laugh - he brought suit against the VA bar for an attorney who was disbarred for similar reasons, prevailed, and the client was awarded $14M in damages.

 

[coltemp]

Story does a good job covering both sides and the silliness around this lawsuit.
Definitely time for Tort reform. These people should have to pay when they lose for filing a frivolous lawsuit. The LAwyers who brought should also have to pay as well. Imagine what would happen if they had to pay for bringing the lawsuit.

 

[Diamondback]

Are lawyers themselves, not human beings?

There are a few exceptions, but most have a long climb UP the evolutionary ladder before they can be considered "human" in anything beyond "genetically."

 

[Mark W.]

Yeah, cuz nobody needs "weapons of war to hunt deer"....................



Ray

For almost 100 years I would argue onesome of the most popular deer/elk/coyote/etc hunting rifles in this country was a sporterized Springfield 1903 or 03-A3 or Mauser 98 all weapons of war.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Lets not forget that the so-called "Kentucky Longrifle"...you know the rifle that helped win our Freedom in the American Revolution and War of 1812...
Has been and still is used as a hunting rifle since the 1750's....
Andy
Edit to add :
I dislike the term Weapon of war almost as much as I dislike the term Assault Rifle / Weapon...both are highly misleading and subjective to misuse.

 

[Mister Bisley]

They've got it all wrong...it's the infringement that's illegal.

 

[Boboclown]

Is it still considered modular if I attach stuff to the gun using spongebob themed bandaids?

 

[revjen45]

I prefer duct tape for attaching modular accessories myself.