Legal Rights Question ...

[DuneHopper]

I saw on the news a group in Oregon was suing the Trump Administration over climate change.
Claiming Constitutional Rights they have.
( THIS THREAD IS NOT TO DISCUSS CLIMATE CHANGES DO NOT CARE HOW SILLY ETC THAT IS OR NOT)
This case is being heard by Oregon Courts to see if it proceeds.

IF, this is passed thru and allowed to proceed, could not local citizens and groups sue people
like the Democrats in Oregon, California etc. Based on this same idea? Could not our 2nd Amendment Rights being violated by these law makers allow us that option as it sets a precedence. I mena if one can sue the Prez, why not Prozanski, and all Cals anti-gun law makers.

Read More

 

[Snoopy23]

This is an interesting topic. However, I would be hard pressed to believe any private law suit against a government entity, whether that be a singular person or a party such as the democrats, would have any validity in a court of law.

With that being said and without knowing any further information other than provided in the OP, this lawsuit will certainly set the precedent for future civil action. I am a strong supporter of not just the second amendment, but all unalienable rights guaranteed to the people. Providing there is any traction whatsoever, if the grieving party could in fact claim infringement on personal liberty, there might be legal precedent likely centered around public safety. Just the same though, anti gun advocates could sue based off the same reasoning. Regrettably, mass shootings have become normalacy in this current world. Could a person sue another based off the alleged perpensity to commit violence by someone else? Maybe yes, maybe no. Time will be the determination of that decision.

This would also open the door to private parties suing public schools for failing to properly educate students. Would this be of benefit to the student?

This is an interesting topic, as it revolves around accountability of governmental sources. I'll be curious to know the outcome and other views of forumites here.

 

[DuneHopper]

This is an interesting topic. However, I would be hard pressed to believe any private law suit against a government entity, whether that be a singular person or a party such as the democrats, would have any validity in a court of law.

With that being said and without knowing any further information other than provided in the OP, this lawsuit will certainly set the precedent for future civil action. I am a strong supporter of not just the second amendment, but all unalienable rights guaranteed to the people. Providing there is any traction whatsoever, if the grieving party could in fact claim infringement on personal liberty, there might be legal precedent likely centered around public safety. Just the same though, anti gun advocates could sue based off the same reasoning. Regrettably, mass shootings have become normalacy in this current world. Could a person sue another based off the alleged perpensity to commit violence by someone else? Maybe yes, maybe no. Time will be the determination of that decision.

This would also open the door to private parties suing public schools for failing to properly educate students. Would this be of benefit to the student?

This is an interesting topic, as it revolves around accountability of governmental sources. I'll be curious to know the outcome and other views of forumites here.

I think there are allot of things happening that I many do not recognize the repercussion. In Oregon Gov Brown is looking for us to be a POTUS majority, not electoral. Dangerous move as in our nations politics every single state have flipped party lines once or twice, or more. I am for all civil rights regardless how I may view them personally.
I do think suing why a option, should not be the only option. But law makers have placed themselves in a protective bubble making accountability near impossibly. If we placed on the 1st Amendment the same regulations we do on the seconds or any other right, there would be a outcry. But there is not even though all these criminals get voted in. Nothing happens. Perhaps if this does go thru it will put law makers on notice. Guess we will see.

 

[titsonritz]

I saw on the news a group in Oregon was suing the Trump Administration over climate change.
Claiming Constitutional Rights they have.
( THIS THREAD IS NOT TO DISCUSS CLIMATE CHANGES DO NOT CARE HOW SILLY ETC THAT IS OR NOT)
This case is being heard by Oregon Courts to see if it proceeds.

IF, this is passed thru and allowed to proceed, could not local citizens and groups sue people
like the Democrats in Oregon, California etc. Based on this same idea? Could not our 2nd Amendment Rights being violated by these law makers allow us that option as it sets a precedence. I mena if one can sue the Prez, why not Prozanski, and all Cals anti-gun law makers.

One of these things is in the Constitution, one is not. One can "claim" all they want but no where in the Constitution is "climate change" mentioned, nor is abortion, free health care or most of the other BS "they" claim. So when it is thrown out based on that fact, where does it go from there? The 2A on the other hand IS in there and when the government goes to wipe it out via the courts and legislation that is when the shooting starts (per the Constitution and it's authors).

 

[DuneHopper]

One of these things is in the Constitution, one is not. One can "claim" all they want but no where in the Constitution is "climate change" mentioned, nor is abortion, free health care or most of the other BS "they" claim. So when it is thrown out based on that fact, where does it go from there? The 2A on the other hand IS in there and when the government goes to wipe it out that is when the shooting starts (per the Constitution and it's authors).

Yes, but oddly enough the Oregon courts are considering it statements made by the judges is intersting, they already had the option to throw it out, and didn't, so even if it doesn't make it to POTUS, but makes it out of Oregon that still may leave us a leg to stand. You know and I know what a Constitutional Right is, but many judges are idiots who actually think the law is what they think it is. In Oregon laws have passed violating Oregons Constitution. id say nothing is off the possibility in this country. The home of Advertised Gun Free Zones, that are often passed by those whom say they know the law. This thing doesn't have to be lawful, it just needs to have enough teeth to make other access viable to make a claim.

 

[DB is Here]

Moving to Off Topic as it isn't firearm related. It can stay here as long at it doesn't get political, thank you.

 

[clearconscience]

Well I have have a question concerning new laws in OR that may be firearms related.

They just passed (I believe it passed) a law about people being able to sue because someone called the police on them claiming they looked suspicious.
Anyone hear this?

so if thats the case should we all start open carrying and when the snowflakes call the LEOs on us law abiding folks, just sue them for the same thing?

 

[AMT]

I saw on the news a group in Oregon was suing the Trump Administration over climate change.
Claiming Constitutional Rights they have.
( THIS THREAD IS NOT TO DISCUSS CLIMATE CHANGES DO NOT CARE HOW SILLY ETC THAT IS OR NOT)
This case is being heard by Oregon Courts to see if it proceeds.

IF, this is passed thru and allowed to proceed, could not local citizens and groups sue people
like the Democrats in Oregon, California etc. Based on this same idea? Could not our 2nd Amendment Rights being violated by these law makers allow us that option as it sets a precedence. I mena if one can sue the Prez, why not Prozanski, and all Cals anti-gun law makers.

When I heard about this on the local news this morning, I was thinking this exact same thing.

If this truly passes, think of the possibilities.

If it passes in OR, think of the mentality of the judges, then think of all the possibilities.

 

[BDA.45]

Well I have have a question concerning new laws in OR that may be firearms related.

They just passed (I believe it passed) a law about people being able to sue because someone called the police on them claiming they looked suspicious.
Anyone hear this?

so if thats the case should we all start open carrying and when the snowflakes call the LEOs on us law abiding folks, just sue them for the same thing?

Larson was talking about that the last few days, never occurred to me to think about it from THAT position. Maybe I'll give a call into him tomorrow or just stay silent and use their laws against them. Good catch man!!! I could always use some extra cash!!!