PDA

View Full Version : Flood the Court technique


Wildalaska
January 9, 2009, 06:30 PM
Just a thought...

Ya'll worried about possible Federal gun bans? Just the ticket then: The day the legislation becomes effective, each and every member of this Board walks over to the US District Court in your district and files a simple action for a declaratory judgement contesting the constitutionality of the legislation.

What we would need is someone to draft the complaint...bet there are enough brains here to do so. Also would need some motion practice

You pay your own fees and file pro per....once the big boys (NRA) file their action (s) (USDC in DC), everyone then moves to consolidate. Thus, not only does the Court have to deal with NRA vs Governemt, but 100, nay, 1000, nay, 10,000....what if everyone filed one...how about 50,000 plaintiffs..

The point? Show the Courts whats what.

Thoughts?

WildimstressedAlaska ™

crashm1
January 9, 2009, 06:41 PM
I like it and would hope we could get closer to a couple million. That might make some legislators heads explode.

divemedic
January 9, 2009, 06:45 PM
An interesting idea. I wonder if it would get dismissed for lack of standing.

Trapp
January 9, 2009, 08:43 PM
call me pessimistic, but I just don't see the participation levels necessary to accomplish the end goal. how do you propose increased participation?

MeekAndMild
January 9, 2009, 08:53 PM
Ken, I don't remember where but I remember some scuttlebutt floating around that you were a retired lawyer. (Or did you play one on t.v. or did you just talk about knowing one? So many years so many posts!)

If so I'd appreciate you to take a little more time explaining the theory, mechanism and mechanics of this proposition. It sounds vaguely like what they used to do in the 60's to advance civil rights for equal housing, voting and job opportunities, but I'm not sure how it would apply to, say an ugly rifle ban, a ban on shipping ammo via UPS or similar ban. :confused:

orionengnr
January 9, 2009, 08:54 PM
Subscribing.
I'm in, but I'd sure like to see some of the forum's leagle eagles contribute.

gc70
January 9, 2009, 09:31 PM
The point? Show the Courts whats what.

The Courts are political enough to take notice. And Congress would certainly take notice. It is easy to underestimate the seriousness of people only willing to click a mouse on an internet poll, but quite a different story when a substantial number of people actually shell out money to file cases in the federal courts.

Why move to consolidate? I would imagine that 50,000 new cases would effectively cause the court system to grind to a halt. The courts would be clamoring for consolidation.

Wildalaska
January 9, 2009, 11:43 PM
I wonder if it would get dismissed for lack of standing.

OK...lets make it more fun...all you California guys file a suit in federal court alleging that under Heller, the California AWB/waiting period whatever violates your rights.

1000

2000

3000 suits??? LOL

WilditcouldgetinterestingAlaska TM

jesus5150
January 10, 2009, 12:21 AM
I'm in.

Al Norris
January 10, 2009, 12:49 AM
Ken? I'm gonna side with MeekAndMild here.

Give us an outline, give us something substantial to bite into. Give us your reasons for standing.

Wildalaska
January 10, 2009, 01:08 AM
Hmmm standing....

Well its clear, is it not, that in the case of California, their AWB violates the rights of those citizens who seek to own a military firearm, yes? Heller redux?

WildimsocoldicantstanditAlaska TM

PS...awful lot of motions to dismiss would be necessary:D

Just ltigate em to death, like the cities did vs Gun Companies.....Payback is a bee-yatche, neh?

PPS...so and to digress...if there is a recognized 2nd amendment right, wouldnt the way to incorporate be a sec 1983 vs say Mayor Bloomberg and the Brady org?

209
January 10, 2009, 02:44 AM
I like the concept. But as others stated, it'd take a sharp legal mind to write up the motion. And it'd take a lot of organizing to get people involved.

stevelyn
January 10, 2009, 03:20 AM
Do you mean something like what the Brady/VPC camp is doing with NPS carry?

Fremmer
January 10, 2009, 08:51 AM
All it would do would be to tie up the judiciary. It would have little effect on the legislative branch, which is responsible for producing the actual legislation. Regardless, I would expect a judge to issue an order limiting the lawsuits filed each day and consolidating all of the cases if necessary, so it would be more of a pain to clerks and court staff than anything else.

An interesting concept though, and far more creative than I am this morning! :D

AZ Med18
January 11, 2009, 09:40 PM
I would be up for this. DC vs Heller did say commonly used firearms should be protected.

azredhawk44
January 11, 2009, 10:22 PM
What's the cost involved in filing a case?

If it's less than the cost of a new Colt Delta Elite (that seems to never get in stock up there in snowy Alaskaland), I'd go along with this.

AZRedhawkkeepwarmupthere!44

Danzig
January 11, 2009, 10:33 PM
I am on board if someone draws up the proper paperwork.

johnwilliamson062
January 11, 2009, 10:48 PM
I am in. Subscribing. Just give me a PDF to print out and fill out. Maybe someone should drop a line to the NRA.

MeekAndMild
January 11, 2009, 10:52 PM
This sounds like something that might just convince people that the RKBA crowd is a bunch of lunatics. It is like telling people to bake cookies by just putting in some flour and some water and some sugar or maybe salt, after all they look alike, chocolate chips or coffee beans take your pick.

Anybody who's really interested might benefit by enquiring about getting some adult leadership (http://www.nradefensefund.org/).

johnwilliamson062
January 11, 2009, 10:57 PM
I am with meek and mild. Lets bank on the NRA coming through for us like they did in '94. '86? '68? Throw in a few more of our best years.

Also everyone apply for a C+R. It puts some number on a verifiable list and you are going to really get your moneys worth.

Shane Tuttle
January 12, 2009, 12:07 AM
I may be a dingbat here due to being uneducated in the judicial system. But in a simplistic view, I see more harm than good done.

There's other cases on file that wouldn't ever be heard if we stuff the court room with more than they could handle. It would be a gridlock, sure. It may make them take heed to our intentions.

However, what about the other important cases that are brought to the courts? We could do more harm than good by flinging feces at the problem.

Just my thoughts. I don't have a formed opinion on the matter. But I don't see how it would be beneficial in the long run.

Tuttletheremustbeotheravenues8

Wildalaska
January 12, 2009, 12:24 AM
Massive litigation can win simply by being....massive.

WildaskthetobaccocompaniesAlaska TM

PS...the NRA is gonna do its gig.....the flood of lawsuits wont affect that...and in fact, will help. See g70s post. Folks will take notice.

donkee
January 12, 2009, 06:00 AM
I'm on board for this.

Watching for something to work with...........

divemedic
January 12, 2009, 08:19 AM
I am with meek and mild. Lets bank on the NRA coming through for us like they did in '94. '86? '68?

or like they did with the Heller case. They were against it before they were for it. Funny how the NRA fought so hard to derail Heller, and then neatly stepped in to try and take credit when it worked.


(I am a life member of the NRA, and I am sometimes convinced that it should be the NHA instead of the NRA, because the 2A is about hunting and not rifles.)

Mike Irwin
January 12, 2009, 03:35 PM
NRA was hesitant on the Heller case for a number of logical reasons.

However, that changed, and NRA came to support the case.

NRA did not attempt to "take credit" other than credit that was due to them for supporting Heller's efforts.

azredhawk44
January 12, 2009, 04:13 PM
NRA was hesitant on the Heller case for a number of logical reasons.

However, that changed, and NRA came to support the case.

NRA did not attempt to "take credit" other than credit that was due to them for supporting Heller's efforts.

Yeah, mike, but what about the NRA/Orrin Hatch attempt to deliberately derail the case by rescinding the DC law in question prior to the case being heard?

NRA doesn't have a lot of room to crow in regards to their support of Heller, IMO.

But Cato Institute? Absolutely.

Mike Irwin
January 12, 2009, 04:49 PM
"Yeah, mike, but what about the NRA/Orrin Hatch attempt to deliberately derail the case by rescinding the DC law in question prior to the case being heard?"

You have to understand NRA's reticence.

NRA has been looking for the "perfect" case to present to the "perfect" court for a long time.

Heller wasn't seen to be the perfect case, and this court was seen to be a good one, but not a great one. The final tally certainly supports that.

Absolutely the worst possible thing that could be done would be to get behind a case that ends up going down in defeat.

Were that to have happened, it would be nothing but a long, loud, "WHY DID NRA LET THAT HAPPEN??? THEY SCREWED US!!!" for a long time.

NRA has no choice but to look at the big picture pros and cons. We don't really have to do that, and in my experience a lot of people refuse to do that.

divemedic
January 12, 2009, 04:59 PM
NRA has no choice but to look at the big picture pros and cons.

Actually, my own feeling is that the NRA is first and foremost a revenue generating engine which stands to lose quite a bit of money, should the issue of RKBA ever get settled.

Hence all of the, "ZOMG!!! The Dems are coming to get your guns, send us money now!!" mailings I get.

And for the record, the NRA was quick to jump on the bandwagon in June with:

Supreme Court Declares That the Second Amendment
Guarantees an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
-- June 26, 2008 (http://www.nraila.org/heller/)

of course, they are forgetting to mention (http://www.reason.com/news/show/129991.html):

The Supreme Court (which still had Sandra Day O’Conner back then) would not reliably deliver a victory, they argued, and an authoritative statement from the Supremes that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right could prove devastating to the long-term cause.

This was an intellectually respectable objection, the Levy team thought, but ultimately too fearful. If no one would fight for the Second Amendment qua Second Amendment in a relevant case, then its supposed paladins were as complicit in its irrelevance as were the most rabid partisans for the idea that the Second Amendment only applied to militias and is thus a dead letter.

“The second problem the NRA had with our case was territorial,” Gura says. “They didn’t want something like this going on that they didn’t have their hands in.” In fact, in April 2003, less than two months from Parker’s filing in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a new lawsuit challenging D.C.’s gun laws, Seegars v. Ashcroft, was filed with the backing of the NRA and its longtime Second Amendment legal eagle Stephen Halbrook in charge.

As per then-standard NRA practice, Halbrook offered the court a menu of options to choose from to overthrow D.C. gun laws, hoping one of them might work even if a direct Second Amendment challenge did not. Among them were claims that Congress had only empowered D.C. to create for itself regulations that were “usual and reasonable,” and that D.C.’s gun laws, being the most severe ones in the nation, were therefore unusual and unreasonable.

Unlike the Levy team, Halbrook and the NRA chose to sue not only Washington, D.C., but the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ is a significantly more formidable opponent than the District of Columbia. To add insult to injury, because of their unease with Levy and his comparatively inexperienced crew, the NRA team used Seegars as an excuse to try to scuttle Parker altogether by taking over the case, through the legal gambit of “consolidation.” That’s when two cases that are asking courts to decide on essentially the same matter can be combined, whether or not one of the parties really wants it—a hostile takeover of the litigation, as it were. The consolidation request, made to the court in April 2003, was denied.