[–] Rawrination 1 points 34 points (+35|-1) ago 

I'm sure people are suing over them. But its about as effective as the Colonials trying to sue the British for their freedom. Its absurd to think that tyrants that want you disarmed and subjugated are going to be upholding one set of laws in your favor while at the same time pissing all over the constitution that is supposed to be the foundation of all laws.

Soap box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, ( <--We are here. Rapidly heading towards here. --> ) Ammo Box.

[–] eronburr 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

I'm sure people are suing over them.

Ultimately only class action suits seem to work. Gun manufacturers and their employees need to get this started. NRA only cares about revenue and I think changes in lobbying tied their hands.

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Gun manufacturers wouldn’t have standing themselves and financing suits over these laws (as opposed to laws which restrict their ability to manufacture and sell their wares) doesn’t really seem like that great business decision for them, to be honest. It really needs to be civil rights organizations (SAF, GOA, etc) with named plaintiffs who are gun owners at risk of having their guns confiscated.

[–] NoRoyalty 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

NRA doesn't bring legal challenges. The Second Amendment Foundation is their legal arm. They have all sorts of lawsuits going but they rely on donations.

[–] captainstrange 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Ballot Box

I'll agree. They're locking down the soap box and nothing is really being done about it. Soap box is broken.

Ballot box is all but stolen in a bunch of places and is on it's way out.

We'll skip the jury box in the next election or two, maybe six years tops (1 or 2 major elections) because things like jury nullification have been subverted and the jury system is broken.

My best estimate, sometime between next year and 2025 whole country will resort to the ammo box. Maybe in fits and starts. Maybe in response to (intentional) destruction of jobs, the economy and standards of living, or maybe just as brush-fire self-defense incidents following on from massive riots by the left. Doesn't matter. Fits and starts, or all at once, I give it six years at most before the overton window shifts hard in that direction. If you fly a lot, you spend a lot of time in terminals talking to people, people from all walks of life. You know what a lot of people are talking about? "If xyz happens, damn the law. Tired of being pushed around by the government and politicians." where xyz is gun control, laws against protest, laws against free speech, laws against self defense, laws against small businesses, laws against turning down vaccines, two standards of law, one for all us regular people, and no laws at all for anyone who's ever been in office. People are sick of it. People are sick of the double standard. People are sick of voting for a fix and then their leaders shrugging "ah nothing could be done!' while the fix was always in. People are tired of being fucked with, being finger wagged about how it's all perfectly legal, being moralized to by a group of uniformed bureaucrats and their thugs, gangsters who never had any principles to begin with . Theres a lot of people talking like this, people on the right, on the left, and in between. Lot of people just don't give a shit anymore. America is about done with the federal government. It's bad when you're between presidential elections and the country is not rapidly, but steadily and predictably transforming from a tinderbox into a powder keg. What happens when you already have those conditions and then add a high stakes election or two on top? When both sides are 'radicalizing' and hardening their positions, as a observation from history, and as a rule, things don't get better, no--they get worse, until they boil over.

You know what slow boils? Frogs. Frogs and nations. And who else is being 'slow boiled' in our 'melting pot' society? A bunch of politicians who are in hot water, whos frothing-at-the-mouth base want more extremism from them, not less, in an already volatile political climate. What direction can this go but towards a flash point?

Only real thing that would maybe prevent it is a large scale international war, and even that might just be buying time.

We don't want this, we never wanted this. Most of us just wanted to take care of our family, live our lives, and be left alone. But the communist left, along with their neocon stooges couldn't leave well enough alone. Just like the bolsheviks of the past, only a damn fool would suggest their plain intent isn't to murder millions of white christians just like they did in europe and russia. The communists never stopped, and neither did the bankers, they want a war, and they want genocide. Make no bones about it. The communists, the bankers, and a big chunk of jews want your whole family dead or in gulags to be raped and starved to death.

These people are fanatics whos driving motives are gluttonous destructive envy,, black-hearted malice against christians, maniacal blood lust, and the the degenerate desires to murder, fuck, lie, steal, cheat, distort, destroy, intimidate, swindle, gaslight, race-mix, immigrate, and annihilate whites out of existence, every last one of us, men, women, the young, the old, the unborn, the veteran, the volunteer, the scientists and the artist alike. They're a cursed people, the jews and the jesuits, they're artless caricatures of their father, the fucking devil himself, full of vain pride and napoleon complexes, made only for provoking madness and the wholesale destruction of nations, amalgamating the worst human impulses organized by thinly veiled ethnic hatred for whites and christians everywhere.

They've been our enemies since the catholics massacred christians during the crusades. They've been our enemy since the day they opened the gates to invaders--and they've been opening the gates ever since.

No more catholics. No more jews.

IF YOU DON'T NAME THEM, WE ALL ARE GONNA LOSE.

[–] Rawrination 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You got that right.

Now how do we wisely use the time we have to meet in person and form groups and communities that could weather the oncoming civil war?

[–] Ina_Pickle 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

Someone has to be affected first before they can sue the state, and even then it will take some time to find a lawyer, get the paperwork filed, and get the case on the docket.

The only time I had to seek redress through the courts, it took several months just for the initial hearing. I wasn't suing the state...

[–] Rawrination 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

There have already been over a hundred people effected. At least one person has been murdered by the police over this issue.

[–] My-Name-is-Mud 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

~50 in oregon alone.

[–] totes_magotes [S] 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

But we are affected. If only by the virtue that my rights are violated just by the existence of this law and that states tend to follow each other in "hot point" legislation.

[–] Ina_Pickle 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

sure, but it would be easier to prove your rights were violated, if the actual violation took place.

[–] bob3333 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You are not affected in any way that a court will recognize. To have standing, you must have suffered an injury. That means you suffered concrete, real, demonstrable damage. That maybe your rights will be violated in the future is not an injury. You would have to wait until you were subject to some sort of government action under one of these laws, THEN you have standing.

[–] thelma 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Ordinarily this is true but there is an exception.

If a constitutional right is alleged to be violated then a litigant can file w/o being subject to the penalties.

That's why you see cases filed without a person being arrested first, the federal courts will allow a case to proceed without being criminally charged in such limited cases.

[–] MaximilianAldorfer 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I am no lawyer, but I would think special interest groups, even the White House could challenge the constitutionality of these laws.

Shit is highly illegal, it needs to go in front of the SCOTUS

[–] totes_magotes [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Don't we need a lawsuit for that though? The point I'm making is that lawsuits against this nonsense seem to be lacking.

[–] bob3333 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Any old person or organization cannot just challenge a law. A plaintiff has to have standing.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing

[–] thelma 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

People do have standing if a fed constitutional issue is at play.

So, if you allege that a law violates a fed. constitution provision then, yes, any old man has the standing to sue.

[–] thelma 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

All gun laws are void. The gov't does not have the authority or jurisdiction to make laws that infringe on your gun rights.

Rights are not granted by the gov't. The 2nd amendment is just a law that recognizes your RKBA. That law can be erased if they want.

So, am I going to file a case? No. Why? Well, they don't have jurisdiction to decide such matters; the law is void already and I don't need the gov't to tell me that. And to file a case implies that you agree that the gov't can decide such matters.

Even if you win, you lose. You file a case, admitting that the gov't can hear and decide such matters via their courts, win the case and then they change the law or make new laws that do worse than what you complained about.

No. Rights are not protected that way. Rights are protected (and infringed upon) via violence.

Now if you are on a jury for a murder and the guy did it, let the guy go, nullify it and let the gov't know your reason: that they are trying to infringe on your gun rights. If every gun owner did this then there would be no gun laws and all would be repealed. I've done this in a grand theft case and the judge and prosecutor went ballistic..the jury case ended up being a mistrial (I held out and said not guilty ~ oh, the guy was 100% guilty). After listening to the gov't guys bitching and yelling at me I told him that this is what happens when the gov't starts fucking with my gun rights. From what I understand, the guy took a plea with no jail time and has been clean since to my knowledge.

[–] avgwhtguy1 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This juror will set you free everytime

[–] Veridic 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You have to have legal standing, which means only people who get hurt under this law can sue. Then you need about 100k USD to fund a lawsuit which will take about 6 years. Lastly the specific circumstances greatly affect the ruling so the test case has to be perfect.

[–] riffwraff 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

There are plenty of lawsuits against these filed by the NRA and numerous other advocacy groups as well as individuals. A quick search will find the court papers. However, very few of these cases are winnable unless they appeal all the way to the supreme court. This is because previously, the Supreme court's small government "conservative judges" ruled in favour of state's rights on gun regulation with the onlu caveat being citizens have a path to owning them. Apparently states right apply to guns, but not fag marriage.

[–] WhiteSocks88 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

should definitely be the other way around. fags arent protected under the constitution, arms are. states rights are supposed to cover that which is not covered by federal documents.

[–] riffwraff 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Tell it to John Roberts and the cuckservative holdouts. Even Reagan's token coon is more right wing than that closeted faggot. The supreme court has consistently ruled against the 2nd amendment since the AWB. Small government conservatives are always lying hypocrites and controlled opposition.

[–] NoisyCricket 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The left has corrupted our courts. Everyone knows this. The result is that it has created legal paralysis because people fear an unconstitutional ruling will establish a precedent, forever cementing tyranny upon the land.

Hell, we need a Bastille Day of our own just for judges in this country. This is why Trump has been replacing judges all across this country as quickly as he can. This is why replacing SCOTUS Justices is so vital to the survival of this country.

[–] CapinBoredface 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I dont have enough time or money to sue a state.

load more comments ▼ (9 remaining)