How about suing the supporters of Gun Control??

[virginia mountainman]

I wonder, just how successfully a lawsuit would be against businesses and individuals, who ban mear possession of firearms could be??

Say for example.

A CCW holder goes to a store, they are a posted as a "No Guns" zone. The permit holder, being law abiding leaves his sidearm locked in his car, and goes into the store unarmed.

While he (or she) is in the store, a violent felon, enters the store, and robs the place, wounding several folks INCLUDING the unarmed CCW holder in the process.

I would think, that because the store, PROHIBITED the permit holder, the ability to have his (or her) hidden sidearm, and a means of self defence in this situation, deserves much of the blame for the wounded CCW holder.

After all, when they disarmed the CCW holder, they, took on the responsibility of protecting the CCW holder. And they didn't give the protection.

How about suing the ADVOCATES of gun control on the same premises? After all, if they had not lied, and pushed such terribly stupid legislation and rules in the first place, the outcome could have been different?

Thoughts?

[tularetom]

1. CCW permits ARE a form of gun control

So the guy should sue the government for forcing him to apply for one.

[virginia mountainman]

2. One step at a time...one step at a time.... NT

[rpannier]

3. Private establishment

You don't like rules...Don't patronize their business

You were not required to go into the store, gas station, etc

You made an informed decision

[krispos42]

33. Except it has public access

I don't think the owner could, for example, post his story prohibiting "No Blacks".


It's a privately-owned but publicly accessable. It must also have things like handicapped parking spaces and wheelchair ramps. The rules are different for such places of business.

[rpannier]

34. You cannot equate possessing a gun with being black

We're talking gun possession, not a disabled person

The two do not equate.

The Mall of America and other malls have restricted who can come into the malls (teenagers) unattended.
Private businesses are usually given more latitude, especially when there are other places to go to get the same service

[krispos42]

45. I am merely pointing out the restriction between, say, a private home...

...and a private but open to the public business. The laws are different for each one. Once you open your doors to the public you lose some control over who may or may not enter.

As a private homeowner I can certainly make blanket decisions on who enters my house based on ANY criteria I desire; as a private businessman, not so much.

[darkstar3]

4. Wow, there's a lot of BS in that post

1. Possession of a firearm does not equal protection. Never has, never will.
2. "Disarming the CCW holder" does not mean that you then take on the protection duties for that person. The police of that area are the protection entities, and not even a CCW permit allows you to override their authority on that subject.
3. Which gun control advocate "lied"?

I gotta say, as a person who has been on the fence about gun control issues for years, posts like this do nothing to help your cause.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. The police don't have a legal requirement to protect citizens.

[sharesunited]

6. He's not interested in helping his cause, only raising my blood pressure.

And he would be the first to admit it!

[Skittles]

7. it's typical gun nuttery

[Statistical]

10. While the OP has a bad idea.... but you are completely wrong about Police.

The function of the Police (or more accurately law ENFORCEMENT officers) is to arrested suspects, gather evidence, assist DA with successful prosecution. Period. Nothing about protection there.

The Police have no duty to protect you in any situation except if you are in custody (prisoner).

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. So if a cop is standing on the corner, and watches as some asshole

shoots three people then drives away, all he is expected to do is take the license number?

Fuck the court decisions - 'To Protect and Serve' still means something. I don't know a single cop who would agree with you.

[Statistical]

13. While a cop may not agree with it and many cops go BEYOND the call of duty...

there is no legal precedent in that situation that allows a lawsuit if the cop fails to protect. It wasn't a bash against cops. Many will risk injury or death even when NOT ON DUTY to protect others.

The larger issue is ANY government who is under no obligation to protect its citizens loses the moral authority to then disarm those citizens.

The govt can't say "we aren't obligated to protect you and oh btw you can't have the tools to protect yourself.

Lastly while you may find no cops who agree cops certainly allowed citizens to die needlessly in the past we only need to look at the Surpreme Court cases. Those cases don't exist in a vacuum they are instances where either through negligence or simply not giving a shit cops allowed by action or inaction citizens to be killed or injured. Never, not once has the US govt ruled that any citizen (except those in custody) are owed any level of service or protection.

[one-eyed fat man]

35. fact is stranger than fiction...............

In Marin county, two sheriff's deputies did exactly that!!!!!! They watched as two toll workers got killed, failed to intervene, did not give chase, but they did call in a description of the "alleged suspect".

Marin deputies watched while gunman killed two on bridge

I don't know about California, but here in Kentucky, a peace officer is required to make all effort to affect the arrest of someone who commits an felony in his presence. This obligation exists as long as he is anywhere in the Commonwealth, even outside of his normal jurisdiction.

[Statistical]

37. While in KY a Peace Office may be required to respond

Him not doing so could result in disciplinary action or him losing his job that doesn't change the fact that you as an individual have no standing to sue if he doesn't.

If a cop is watches you get mugged and the mugger stab you to death, does nothing to prevent it he likely will face some disciplinary action.

That doesn't change the fact that if you family sues the Police Officer, the dept, or the city, the case will be dismissed for lack of standing. The govt owes neither you nor your wife any level of service.

[one-eyed fat man]

62. Peace officers versus police

As you and others have pointed out, there is plenty of Federal case law concerning the government's obligation to protect only those it has in custody and no expectation of individual protection, my point in citing the Marin county incident was to point out that "... if a cop is standing on the corner, and watches as some asshole shoots three people then drives away, all he is expected to do is take the license number?" has already happened.

I mentioned peace officers in passing as here in Kentucky the police are not peace officers. There are subtle but important distinctions under the Kentucky constitution and law. Peace officers are elected officials and include: sheriffs, coroners, constables and jailers. They are obligated by their oath and office. Kentucky law gives them arrest powers at all times, and in the case of felonies, in all places.

Police are hired by various public entities, like Incorporated towns and cities, public universities, airport boards etc. They have no arrest powers outside their respective jurisdictions except that of any ordinary citizen, and indeed, may not even be authorized arrest powers in their home jurisdiction when off duty if that is their city or department policy. A Kentucky sheriff can compel able-bodied men to assist in an arrest or join a posse, a policeman can't.

It would appear that if a peace officer failed to act, thus having committed an impeachable offense, the Commonwealth and county are immune from suit, by virtue of his oath of office he may not be.

[darkstar3]

12. Whatever happened to "serve and protect?"

But I guess I get your point. We could probably go round and round on the problems facing the citizens of this country due to failures in our police structures. But I will say this:

My grandfather was a police officer for almost 3 decades. If you told him to his face that he had no duty to protect citizens, he'd have smacked you in the jaw and said "now don't you wish it was someone's job to protect you from something like that?"

[Statistical]

16. Outstanding individual cops don't change the general lack of duty...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

This recount is rather tame, if you stomach can handle it you can read the transcripts.

What was done to those women was horrific but even worse is that it could all have been avoided if the cop on duty and the dispatcher had done their job.

The Supreme Court found that the women had no standing to sue either the city or the individual officers because "a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

Law Enforcement "protects" the general public by maintaining public order and arresting offenders. They are under no obligation to protect YOU darkstar the individual. If they fail to do so you have no legal recourse because you are owed no level of protection.

If the Poice are not obligated to serve then the Right To Keep and Bear Arms becomes a moral one does it not?

Firearms (with proper training) are an effective means of self defense. Given the govt has denied any responsibility for protecting citizens it is immoral to take the most effective means of self defense away.

[darkstar3]

21. But what IS the most effective means of self-defense?

Some would say that guns are useless, and that martial arts are the only true method of self defense. But let's stick to the gun issue. If carrying a weapon is a means of self-defense, I would say that CONCEALING the weapon makes it less effective. Open carry, on the other hand, would be an effective deterrent to crime as well as a quicker method of pulling the weapon to defend yourself.

But then, we all just end up shooting at each other over stupid arguments like it used to be before citizens stopped carrying guns on their hips...Do you REALLY want to go back to the old west? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we simply challenged that SC precedent rather than arming up?

[Statistical]

23. Please darkstar don't go to that tired canard.

The shooting people over arguments canard, so overplayed. I expected better.

People HAVE been wearing guns "on their hips" for 30 years now in shall issue states. The violent crime rate among CCW holders is SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER then the general population DESPITE having a firearm on their hips. If there was any evidence that CCW increase violence it would be obvious by now. Flordia has revoked less than 1% of CCW for the permit holder being convicted of a felony. Only 1/50th of 1% invovled violent crime with a weapon. 99.98% of CCW in Florida has not been convicted of a violent crime with a weapon. Hell even Law Enforcement doesn't have a record that good.

As far as open vs conceal carry you will start a flame war because both sides are convinced their side is right:
My summary.
Open Carry - less likely to be targeted (greater deterrent) for crime because criminal will choose easier target but once attacked you lose the advantage

Conceal Carry - equally likely to be targeted (no deterrent) because criminal does not know you are armed but once attacked you have the advantage of surprise (attacker not expecting a weapon).

Personally I like states like mine (VA) where BOTH open & conceal carry is legal.

Lastly:
Challenge what SCOTUS precedent? DC v. Heller? Hell no. An individual right exists. Period. To pretend it doesn't in order to infringe that right is the utter height of hypocrisy and any populace that does that doesn't deserve the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights.

If you honestly think the 2nd should be "undone" then take the lawful action provided by the founders and amend the constitution to repeal or modify the 2nd.

[darkstar3]

27. I wasn't referring to DC v Heller, but Warren v DC,

which was referred to in the post above mine.

With regard to my "tired old canard," I wasn't referring to CCW but to open-carry explicitly, which is what conjured the image in my mind of the "old west."

As for FL's CCW holders, I'd be curious to know what percentage of them had actually used their weapons, but I doubt that is a statistic we can find.

I don't want to repeal the 2nd, and I never said I did. In fact, I'm mostly in favor of an armed citizenry, but the reason I'm on the fence about this whole issue can be found in the following paraphrased quote from The West Wing:

"They bought the guns, they bought the ammo, they loaded the guns and drove them across state lines, they walked with the guns into an open building and found a window overlooking the President's exit, and until they actually PULLED THE TRIGGER they had yet to commit a crime!"

I don't want to take people's rights. I just want to make it harder for them to kill people. Punishing gun criminals won't bring back the people they kill and it certainly hasn't proven to be an effective deterrent, so we need to find a way to stop them from murdering people before they get there.

[Statistical]

31. It is available for Florida (one out of 10,000 permits).

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

167 permits revoked for utilizing a firearm in a crime vs 1,565,251 permits issued.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. That is one of the great problems of a free society.

so we need to find a way to stop them from murdering people before they get there.

Crime prevention will almost always mean that free people have to surrender some of their freedom for security. Where the line is drawn and which line to draw is always a point of controversy.
Since criminals don't bother to obey laws, most preventive laws have little actual effect, and many make the problem worse.

[darkstar3]

53. I agree that it IS one of the great problems of our society,

and one of the most difficult and controversial to solve. However, I think we can all agree that, given his track record, Scott Roeder should never, EVER have been allowed to get his hands on a gun. He's not the only person, but just the latest in a string of examples of people who should have been taken care of already by the system but fell through the cracks and loopholes.

I think we can all agree that banning guns is NOT a solution to violent crime. I also think it's easy to agree that SOME people should never be allowed near a firearm.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. Really?

Some would say that guns are useless, and that martial arts are the only true method of self defense.
Martial arts as an answer assumes that the defender is physically fit. I am a Senior Citizen with some infirmities, and my wife also has some infirmities. Do you seriously expect us to be able to take on a young male? For that matter, a 5' 0" 98 lbs woman, even if she know martial arts, is not match for a 6'0" 190lbs muscular male. That is just reality.

But let's stick to the gun issue. If carrying a weapon is a means of self-defense, I would say that CONCEALING the weapon makes it less effective. Open carry, on the other hand, would be an effective deterrent to crime as well as a quicker method of pulling the weapon to defend yourself.I would prefer open carry, but it makes too many people nervous, and is illegal in my state. By carrying a revolver in my trousers pocket, I can be just as fast at getting the gun into action as if it were on my hip. In fact, because putting my hand in my pocket is not a threatening move, I can have the gun already in hand when the decision to draw is reached.

Concealed carry make the criminal have to guess if his intended victims is armed or not. Some will decide to give up mugging for safer crimes.

But then, we all just end up shooting at each other over stupid arguments like it used to be before citizens stopped carrying guns on their hips...Do you REALLY want to go back to the old west?
The Wild Wild West was a creation of the dime novels of the period. While lots of folks did carry guns, the street crime rate was far lower than modern days. The homicide rates were quite low. Further, the prediction of "It will be a return to the Old West." and "Blood will run in the streets." has been made over and over. In the last 20 years many states have enacted "shall-issue" CCW laws, and the predictions didn't come true. The rate of criminals getting shot by armed citizens has seen an uptick.

Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we simply challenged that SC precedent rather than arming up? Unilateral disarmament will mean trusting in the good will of the street criminals and drug gangs. I don't think that will work. I will continue to wear my guns when I am out and about, and hope that it remains unnecessary.

[darkstar3]

30. Whatever lets you sleep at night, but remember this:

That young male you're so afraid to face in hand-to-hand combat probably has a full half-second on you in reaction time. If he's the one pointing the gun in your face, you'll never get a shot off before you're injured or killed.

Of course, you could always give him your wallet and shoot him while he runs away, but something tells me that won't hold up in court.

Obviously, what you're most afraid of is being mugged. I wish I had some statistics at hand, but it's late, and I have to sleep. If anyone gets a chance, I'd love to see the following stats on any metro city, say like New York:

# of people mugged who complied with the mugger, and the percentage who got shot.
vs.
# of people mugged who tried to shoot the mugger, and the percentage who got shot.

If I had to guess, I'd say the percentage in the second category is higher. CCW is not a deterrent, and in a situation where you may actually have a chance to use the weapon, you actually increase your chances of bringing injury to yourself.

So what are we talking about here? Survival, or simply refusing to be a victim even if it means going down in a blaze of glory?

[GreenStormCloud]

36. My Response

That young male you're so afraid to face in hand-to-hand combat probably has a full half-second on you in reaction time. If he's the one pointing the gun in your face, you'll never get a shot off before you're injured or killed.
If I let him gain total surprise, and if he is armed, that can be a result. There is a current thread here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=251158&mesg_id=251158 of a person who was confronted by two teens with guns, drew his own and survived. Fortunately, almost all muggers are grossly incompetent with firearms.

Most street criminals will telegraph their intentions. Most of the time, they actually dress like the street hoods they are. Some areas are more dangerous than others. Inside an upscale shopping mall is very safe. Leaving work alone at 11PM in a bad part of town would be less safe. The first line of defense is to be alert to our surrounding and attempt to avoid a possible confrontation. If the suspicious person alters his course to approach you after you have alter course to avoid him, that is a danger signal.

Of course, you could always give him your wallet and shoot him while he runs away, but something tells me that won't hold up in court.
Nor would I shoot him as my life would no longer be in danger.

Obviously, what you're most afraid of is being mugged. I wish I had some statistics at hand, but it's late, and I have to sleep. If anyone gets a chance, I'd love to see the following stats on any metro city, say like New York:

# of people mugged who complied with the mugger, and the percentage who got shot.
vs.
# of people mugged who tried to shoot the mugger, and the percentage who got shot.

If I had to guess, I'd say the percentage in the second category is higher. CCW is not a deterrent, and in a situation where you may actually have a chance to use the weapon, you actually increase your chances of bringing injury to yourself.
New York City would be a bad choice, as there are very few CCWs issued. The citizens are largely disarmed and easy pickings for muggers. Dallas or other major city in a shall-issue state would be a better choice.

The fact is that people who resist (Running away is also resisting)are less likely to be injured. The highest injury rates are suffered by those who meekly comply. That is because less than 10% of criminals account for over 80% of violent crime. Psychopaths love to hurt people

Here is a good book of the reality of street crime: Strong on Defense_, by Sanford Strong, Pocket Books 1996, 246 pp "Survival Rules to Protect You and Your Family From Crime".

This link is to the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. http://www.leaa.org/crimeavoid.html This is copied directly from their web site. Research shows that active resistance with a firearm is the most effective way to defend against a violent criminal attack.

what are we talking about here? Survival, or simply refusing to be a victim even if it means going down in a blaze of glory? It is impossible to precisely know in advance what the criminal's intentions are. Sometimes all he wants is the money. Sometimes he is a psychopath and wants to hurt someone.

[darkstar3]

52. I agree partly with what you're saying...

Everyone should have the right to defend themselves, regardless of age or infirmity, but I have a real problem with your second paragraph. That's the one that begins with "Most street criminals will telegraph their intentions."

Do you not see what's going on here? You're actually engaging in a form of urban warfare. You are actively seeking a target in a civilian environment in an overall attempt to protect your precious cargo, which in this case is your life. You might as well be on dignitary escort duty in Kabul.

I know that last sentence is a little hyperbolic, but I want to get my point across: There has to be a better way to protect ourselves than by arming up and declaring war on our fellow citizens. Obviously I haven't found the answer for everyone yet, but if guns are that answer, I have even less faith in humanity than I did when I started this discussion.

And for the record, since I've put myself squarely on the side of the fence favoring gun control in this debate, I want to clarify my fence sitting statement from my first post. Gun control as it stands in this country frustrates the **** out of me. The laws we have on the books are either ineffective or outright dangerous. But just because I think all our attempts at gun control thus far have been abysmally ineffective, that doesn't mean I think everyone should have a gun. There are members of my own family whom I wouldn't trust with a pellet gun, but since they have no criminal history thus far, they would be able to apply for CCW in my state. The bottom line for me is that NOT everyone should be allowed to have a gun.

Edit: spelling

[GreenStormCloud]

55. You are engaging in honest discussion. That's good.

I understand your problem with my statement about street hoods. Yes, it does offend much of what we believe as progressives. We believe that people are individuals and should not be prejudged. I believe those same things yet experience has forced me to modify that somewhat. Street hoods actually do have what amounts to a street hood uniform, concentrate in certain areas. And they don't think like us. Allow me to recommend a good book on the subject. Beggars And Thieves: Lives Of Urban Street Criminals Street criminals are predatory and you and I are their prey. Just like a lion with a zebra or a cat with a mouse, they must select their prey, approach to within attack range, then strike. The approach phase, which I call "the stalk", is when they will telegraph their intentions. That is when you have a chance to evade, or if you can't evade to prepare for combat. I prefer evasion, for the obvious reasons. My preparation, if I have to, is to simply slip my hand into my trouser pocket and grasp the .38 revolver. My move is non-threatening to the average person, but street criminals know what has just happened. Then I attempt to evade again. So far, I have never had to actually draw the gun.

Yes, it does bear a resemblance to a war. But that has always been part of humanity. Thieves and robbers have been written about since the beginning of writing. However, I am not actively seeking a "target", rather I am on the lookout for a threat.

Certainly there are people who have no business having guns. I have two relatives that dearly need to be disarmed for their sake and everybody else's sake, but they are legal to own. But in a free society, we can't deny someone their rights on a preventive basis. We can't put someone in jail because his DNA says that he has violent schizophrenic homicidal tendencies. (I know. DNA can't say that yet. I am just using an example. It won't be long until it can say that.) But there are also people who are idiot drivers too. Freedom means that we will suffer casualties from accidents, stupidity, and from criminals.

My compliments to you for engaging in honest discussion. I gain much enjoyment from civil discourse of issues, and from other viewpoints.

[darkstar3]

58. Honest discussion is the only way to go,

whether we're talking about the weather or a very controversial subject. You may find some artful dodgers and shit-starters on this board, but I try very hard not to be one of them.

I appreciate your viewpoint, and it's given me some stuff to think about with regard to CCW, but I'm not ready to give up on proper enforcement yet. You say "we can't deny someone their rights on a preventive basis," but we already do. I can't yell fire in a crowded theater without being charged with public endangerment, and yet that law infringes on my right to free speech. That's just one example where the government felt justified in clarifying the Bill of Rights, and I still think there must be some way to clarify the Second Amendment in order to keep people like your relatives and mine disarmed.

But then, if I knew how to write something like that, I'd be either powerful, rich, or both, wouldn't I?
:hi:

[wtmusic]

26. You're playing semantic games.

Police do have an obligation to protect citizens by enforcing laws.

Law Enforcement "protects" the general public by maintaining public order and arresting offenders. The "general public" is made up of individual citizens.

Your argument is silly.

[Statistical]

29. My arguments...well thanks for the compliment but I assure you I have never served on Supreme Court

Did you even read Warren v. DC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

The women were harmed due to negligence and dereliction of duty by the DC Police. The courts ruled they had no grounds to sue because there is no expectation or obligation of the govt or it's actors (in this case the Police) to provide any service to individual citizens.

So while yes the Police generally speaking protect the public they didn't protect these individuals and despite that they had no recourse.

Ready for some more.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

In some ways an even worse case due to the utter apathy of the Police.

Mrs Gonzalez had a restraining order against her husband with a history of violence. He came and took their children in violation of the restraining order. She went to the Police multiple times. She told them exactly where the children were and informed them of his violation of the restraining order. The govt had issued the restraining order and the Police were clearly aware he was in violation of it. That would be a crime in progress. They did nothing.

Despite multiple attempts to get the Police to save her children they did absolutely nothing. The next day Gonzalez executed his children and afterwards got into a gunfight with Police (in which he was killed). The Police found the bodies of the children packed in the car trunk.

Now in this instance the Police did NOTHING despite knowing a crime was in progress, knowing the location of the perp, and knowing he had a history of violence. Despite Warren v. DC, Mrs. Gonzalez believed she had a legitimate case because of the restraining order. She believed it gave rise to a "special relationship" between her and the Police.

The Supreme Court yet again (this is just one about 20 similar cases) ruled the Police have no duty to protect an individual. Ironically the Police also failed the general public but you can't sue for a harm to the public in general so there is no recourse for that either.

Failing to protect general public - no standing to sue, no individual harm
Failing to protect you as an individual - no standing to sue, Police have no duty to protect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

Here is one that doesn't involve the Police. Child Protective Services left a child in a home where they absolutely knew he was being abused. The child died after months of abuse. The Supreme Court again ruled that there exists NO DUTY TO PROTECT an individual even though in this case the individual was a child and thus unable to protect himself.

"The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty - which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means."

So despite the State knowing your situation they can allow it to happen either through negligence or malice and you have no standing to sue. Only those deprived of liberty by the state are owed protection.

Ironically this means that if the child had been under arrest and thus the govt "restrained the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf" then the state would have a duty to protect.

[msongs]

22. lol the primary function of the police is to generate income for the government nt

[GreenStormCloud]

20. Actually...

1. Possession of a firearm does not equal protection. Never has, never will.
My guns that I carry give me a much better chance of defending myself than being unarmed does. Protection requires that I be alert and competent in the use of those guns. They are tools only, and do not have a life of their own.

2. "Disarming the CCW holder" does not mean that you then take on the protection duties for that person. The police of that area are the protection entities, and not even a CCW permit allows you to override their authority on that subject.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect any citizen, unless in custody.
You may wish to check out these cases:
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES

"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

"What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."

Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

3. Which gun control advocate "lied"?
That is eazy. Violence Prevention Center, previously called Handgun Control Inc. They have been caught is some really big lies. Kellerman distorted data to create a false impression in his studies. In fact, all of the major gun control organizations have been caught being dishonest.

I gotta say, as a person who has been on the fence about gun control issues for years, posts like this do nothing to help your cause.
Each side has its loose cannons. Stick around on this forum and you will also see a number of us that present solid information. Examples would be Euromutt, benEzra, Stastical, and others. I am new, but I aspire to be a solid contributor to the forum.

If you have real questions, please feel free to ask. Most of us welcome dialogue.

[darkstar3]

25. Your post was informative, lacked hyperbole, was mostly free of condescension,

and most of all was contributory to the discussion at hand. You've done this before, haven't you? :)

I'd like to answer point-by-point, and out of order, if I may.

2: I was unaware until reading this very thread about these SC cases. As you can see from my post count I'm pretty new here too, and VERY new to the gun debate. Apparently I have some reading to do, but I must say that these decisions sicken me, and we should most definitely be working to overturn them somehow.

3: Your point here is somewhat general, but again it gives me a chance to do some more reading on the subject. I will say though, that if the bar for "lying" is set down to "being dishonest," there are a whole lot of people on both sides of this debate that have some apologies to make.

1: I am not convinced at this point that a firearm is the best tool for self-defense, regardless of training, competence, or vigilance. Firearms were originally designed for target elimination at distance and speed, and I'm not planning on shooting anyone while they're running away. As far as I am concerned at this moment, the most effective method of self defense is training in hand-to-hand combat. Muggers, armed robbers, rapists, kidnappers, and many other violent criminals can't do a thing to you if they can't get close enough to touch you, and if they're far enough away you can certainly run like hell.

The bottom line for me is that the number of people in the US, hell in my hometown, who have been shot while carrying a gun is too high. If this were an effective form of protection, that number would be much lower. CCW, open-carry, banning guns...none of these will make that number lower. What we need is truly effective gun control, meaning a way to keep guns out of the hands of lowlifes and psychopaths. I'm sure there's a way, we just need a populace willing to try.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. Thanks for the compliment.

I used to be a teacher; I'm retired now. After a long time of lurking I decided to join. I have a low post count too.

The SC decisions are a result of a real world problems. Cops are spread too thin to be of much help in protecting individual citizens. Even if there is an excellent response time, and one is able to call 911 immediately, you are still on your own until they get there. The first few seconds of an assault are the most critical, and they are yours alone. Most cops will do the best, but they can't be everywhere.

In some cases the gun control organizations outright lie, in others they are simply dishonest. Consider the use of "child" in their propaganda. At one time, they included anyone 24 years old and down as a child. I have read that they got called down so much over that and ridiculed that they have dropped child down to under 21. (Maybe under 18.)Of course in common English we normally use child to mean pre-puberty. Perhaps it may be more correct to accuse them of missrepresentation than of lieing. The cash value is pretty much the same. Any information from Violence Prevention Center and similar organizations is highly suspect.

I am not convinced at this point that a firearm is the best tool for self-defense, regardless of training, competence, or vigilance.
But you are open to reasonable discussion, and that is admirable.

Firearms were originally designed for target elimination at distance and speed, and I'm not planning on shooting anyone while they're running away.
I am highly unlikely to shoot someone as they are running away either. (There are certain legal exceptions. For example, if one has just witnessed a murder, then one can shoot the murder as he flees.) Over half of all self-defense shooting occur at ranges of less than three feet. My Bond Arms "Snake Slayer" is designed to be devastating at that range, and next to useless at 30 feet.

As far as I am concerned at this moment, the most effective method of self defense is training in hand-to-hand combat.
At my age and infirmities, I can now long do that.

Muggers, armed robbers, rapists, kidnappers, and many other violent criminals can't do a thing to you if they can't get close enough to touch you, and if they're far enough away you can certainly run like hell.

Avoidance is certainly the first and best defense. My guns are for when/if avoidance fails. I can't outrun anybody anymore.

Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is impossible. Even in Europe they are getting guns. Gun crime is on the rise in Britain. In Mexico, which has extremely tight gun control, they are getting genuine AK-47s and RPG-7s. Those aren't coming for the US. Contrary to propaganda, you can't buy genuine AKs or rockets at gun shows. Gun laws effect only the law-abidding and we are not the ones that other law-abidding folks need to fear.

[Statistical]

46. Shooting a fleeing suspect.

I would be very careful with this one:

"There are certain legal exceptions. For example, if one has just witnessed a murder, then one can shoot the murder as he flees."

You can use lethal force to prevent death or bodily injury. Very few states allow you to fire at someone not an imminent threat even after the just murdered someone.

Not saying you are wrong state laws do vary considerably but everyone should be aware of the statutes, case laws, and attorney general opinions for that state.

[GreenStormCloud]

48. Definately varies from state to state. N/T

[PavePusher]

49. In item one, you missed a few points.

a. "As far as I am concerned at this moment, the most effective method of self defense is training in hand-to-hand combat."

This still means nothing to the infirm, smaller, weaker or outnumbered. It also requires a considerable amount of expensive training and practice, years in most cases. Also, I have no moral or legal obligation to allow a criminal within grappleing distance of me. A swung fist, foot, elbow or knee can cripple or kill as well as a bullet. My goal is to avoid such threat to myself entirely.


b. "Muggers, armed robbers, rapists, kidnappers, and many other violent criminals can't do a thing to you if they can't get close enough to touch you..."

Many criminals are ARMED, with guns, knives, clubs. Again, they don't actually have to be able to touch you to be a threat.


c. "and if they're far enough away you can certainly run like hell."

Again, the infirm, weak or slow are allowed to be at risk? Are you really O.K. with that? I don't believe for a second that you would be, but you certainly haven't thought completely through your premise. And sometimes one is in a location or situation were "running like hell" isn't an option. No parent should have to chose between fleeing, or staying to defend their children, for instance. A person trapped in a blind alley or dead-end canyon can't effectively run away.


No-one has claimed that a firearm is a panacea. But in a wide range of appropriate circumstances they are highly effective, easy to use tools with an excellent record in succesful defense of citizens. Please do not make the common mistake of thinking that your personal circumstances are representative of the general population.

For the record, I am a 40-year old, 5' 9", 195 lb. athletic male. I can bench press over 250 lbs and run 1.5 miles in under 10 minutes if pressed. I have a black belt in a form of Okinawan Karate. I've been in the USAF for 19 years and have a fair amount of (mostly privately obtained) firearms training. I've put over 3500 rounds through my 1911 at the range this year. I can probably defend myself by hand against one or two unarmed attackers, depending upon their size and training. If they are bigger/faster than me, or three or more, or have weapons, I'm toast. Hand-to-hand combat ain't like the movies.

[virginia mountainman]

28. All I am doing, is thinking out side the box.

Kicking a few things around , for us, to discuss.

As for WHICH gun control advocate lied, well, it would be easier to tell you names of the ones that don't, and I can't think of any that don't right off hand...

Reading thru many of the older threads down here, will show you many many examples of such delusions.

Here is a quick video, of some gun control advocates, telling whoppers, to a news crew..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

Heat Seeking bullets... ROFLMAO!!!

[Statistical]

8. The CCW wasn't forced to disarm...he/she could go to another store.

Personal responsibility.

If the CCW accepts the increased risk by disarming then their is no liability.

[virginia mountainman]

17. OK....True.. How about this.

How about we change the scenario a little..

Instead of a store, lets say it is the local SSI office, or IRS office...Or it could be a court house.

A place he or she, could be REQUIRED to be.

[Statistical]

18. That does change it a little and you are free to sue but I don't think you have much of a case.

The govt passes a lot of restrictions that improve the "public good" but harm the individual.

Take seatbelts for example. The law requires I wear one but there are some accidents in which a seatbelt can result in your death (fire & water). If I die while wearing a seatbelt because the law requires it can my family sue the govt AND WIN? Unlikely. The public good of wearing a seatbelt outweighs the individual risk.

So where am I going?

In Heller the opinion indicates the govt can use a "compelling govt interest" to restrict firearms in sensitive places. If the restriction is Constitutional (see "strict scrutiny") then the public interest outweighs any individual harm you may incur (like the seatbelt case above).

To win likely you would need to be
1) a victim of crime as result of being disarmed
2) show the restriction doesn't meet strict scrutiny
3) that your harm was caused by negligence on the part of the state

That is an incredibly tall order even for a best case scenario it is extremely improbably but you could at least try.

An example would be the ban on firearms in public housing. That IMHO doesn't pass Constitutional test of "strict scrutiny" so since the govt over reached its authority it created a negligent situation. I think a victim of violent crime in pubic housing who was disarmed by the negligent actions of the govt could win a lawsuit in that situation.

However against optional private property absolutely not.

[virginia mountainman]

19. I see your point.

And you are probably correct.

[The River]

9. Epic Fail

[GreenStormCloud]

14. Usually I ignore such signs

In Texas, such sign have no legal authority. If the store does realize that I am carrying the a)I have failed to conceal my gun. b)The store can ask me to leave. That's all they can do, is ask me to leave.

Here, for the sign to have authority it must be a sign exactly as described and shown in 30.06 of the Texas Code. Simply showing a gun with a barred circle, or a "No Guns" sign means absolutely nothing. Nada. Zip. And the stores know that. They put the signs up knowing that CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders will continue to carry, but it makes other customers feel good.

Many stores put up a sign that warns that possession of an unlicensed on the premises is a felony. Of course, I have a CHL so my guns are legal in the store. Such signs are a way for a business to gain the possible help of an armed citizen in a crisis, and make others feel like the business doesn't allow guns.

If a place has a 30.06 sign up, then I obey it. It has the force of law behind it.

[tularetom]

38. So then you are in favor of SOME gun control?

Concealed handgun licenses are a foot in the door.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Some? Yes. No right is unfettered.

I would prefer to see the an unfettered for law abidding citizens to carry open or concealed. But I have to live in society as it is now.

[Old Codger]

15. no way

You don't like the rules do not enter, I will not patronize a store that tells me I cannot carry inside. Real easy to do... Lots of places that I can enter while carrying..

[proteus_lives]

32. Ha!

Sign me up!

[sinkingfeeling]

41. You need counseling!

[Tim01]

42. I have always thought we should focus all of our attention on N.Y. city.

I'm sure there are people there who are well known for wanting to be able to have a self defense gun, who have been injured or killed by criminals.

Pick that particular case, then bring the force of lawyers and money from gun owners all over the country to help that one individual to ruthlessly sue the city of N.Y.
Then pick another similar case in N.Y. and do it all over again.

We have been playing too nice with people who would sue gun manufacturers and harass gun stores in other states.

[Statistical]

47. That might be a better avenue.

Since NYC is may issue there likely are people in that excact situation.

1) applied for firearm permit.
2) was rejected.
3) was injured or kill as a result of violent crime.
4) lived in an area with high violent crime thus the state had to be aware of the risk they placed the individual in.

The liability could bring down the entire "may issue" system.

Suing a private property owner is a non-starter because the property owner has no control over your life. Suing the state who does have power over you is a different issue.

Of course getting a good incorporation case (McDonald v. Chicago) first is likely necessary to have standing.

The other advantage is that the courts have found the 2nd to be a civil right and lawyers can collected "reasonable fees" when they win from the government that violates civil rights.

[yost69]

43. What store do you "have" to go in that is a no-gun zone?

You can always find a store that is firearm friendly and shop there. If you go to a no-gun zone it is your choice to go unarmed.

[PavePusher]

50. Depends on distance/transportation.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to travel long distances if they need to.

[yost69]

54. I understand that but

I live on the outside of a small town, about 1000 people. We have a rite-aid, foodlion, ace hardware. None of them have a no-go sign for firearm carriers, in fact the owner of the ace hardware just sponsored an nra event last month.

Those are the three major corps in my town. We do not have a walmart but as I understand it they don't have any signs either. Those are just a few that most towns have.

I don't see a need to shop in a store that doesn't want you there when there are so many options.

[GreenStormCloud]

56. Wal-Mart usually has a different kind of sign.

All the ones I have seen say something to the effect: "Possession of an unlicensed gun on these premises is a felony." Since a CCW is licensed, and a street criminal will carry anyway, it means nothing. But it makes some customers feel like WM is stopping guns from being carried.

[LAGC]

51. A friend of mine got fired for using a gun to stop a robbery once.

It was a convenience store, he was the clerk. Two punks came in and brandished a knife, demanded cash. He responded by pulling out his concealed-carry 1911 clone. The robbers fled and he called police. Once the store owners found out, they gave him an ultimatum: either the gun goes, or he goes. He decided not to come back to work in that environment if he couldn't carry. Guess the store owners would rather the place be robbed than risk a law-suit if a would-be perp happened to get shot in the act. Their loss.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. The store had to do that.

I once worked, to supplement my retirement, as a C-store clerk - night shift - alone. I had a Kel-Tec P3AT in my pocket. I would have preferred my .38 S&W 642, but the KT is smaller and less detectable. A concealed firearm that will not be noticed in a casual encounter will eventually be noticed if you are around the same people all the time. The KT is super-conceable, so it got the nod.

I knew that if I ever used it, I would be instantly fired. I had decided that I would use it only if I thought I was in danger, but not to protect their money.

Sadly, the store has to do that. If they don't, they are giving permission for all employees to be armed and the store would be sued if one idiot employee misuses their gun. Even if they are carrying illegally, the store would be sued. By firing that employee the store is trying to avoid ruinous lawsuits by distancing themselves from gun use.

[LAGC]

59. He had a crotch holster.

One of these:

http://www.smartcarry.com/

They allow you to hide even larger handguns like the 1911 right where no one would expect.

I know I've argued with him before that taking a human life isn't worth just a few hundred dollars thats in the till -- the store's money, not his own -- but its a dignity thing with him. He feels PERSONALLY affronted when robbed, and I can't really blame him. I don't see the big deal about just brandishing to scare off a robber, but there's always the chance they won't back down and you'll actually have to use it some day, in which case you end up in hot water with the company, so I can understand their position also. Its a tragedy all the way around...

[Statistical]

60. The store DOESN'T HAVE to do that. The store chose to do that.

By that logic nobody anywhere would be allowed to have firearms at work. Hell even security guard, and armored car drivers could shoot a bystander or misuse their gun.

Given the extremely low rate that CCW use their firearms the cost for a $10 million liability insurance limited to CCW carrying at work would be neglible and would protect the company in the extremely unlikely scenario that they were sued.
So the company chose not to for the same reasons company chose a lot of stupid crap. $$$$.

By firing that employee the store is trying to avoid ruinous lawsuits by distancing themselves from gun use.
Someone would still sue even if it is the company has a no gun at work policy. The policy is feel good, do nothing.

[paulsby]

61. these would be stupid lawsuits. but no more stupid than the ones suing gun manufacturers nt