|
Gentlemen, .... The way a court case would work would be to find a victim of say the 3 day waiting period, whose rights were obviously infringed. Then, rather than sueing the locals, you sue HCI because they conspired to enact legislation that deprive this Citizen of the "enjoyment" of their Rights. This would be potentially 'onced removed' , but it is similar to the convoluted way that other successfull suits have been won.....
A potential poster woman might be the Congresswoman from Texas who lost her parents in that resaurant massacre , while her gun was locked in the glove box of her car...her parents Rights were certainly lost.
It is allowed that the estate or heirs may sue on behalf of the deceased.................. Also free speech is limited by such things as slander and libel , and enciting to riot, as well as discourse that brings about an action of others , i.e. to taunt others into bulling or beating another ... by this constant ranting about gun control, hci and company have caused our loss of enjoyment of rights , covered in the aforementioned T18,C-13,sec 241.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The other main part about a suit of this nature is that it may be a prime focusing instument about legislation, for the only legal means of gun control, is to amend the Constitution. HCI and others who would limit the RKBA do have the free speech to promote that , and we could make a big deal about promoting that in the case , and if recognized in the ruling , would set the precident against any legislation on gun control.-------------------------------------------------------
Also I read in another forum that a group called Americans for Civil Responsibility are actively looking into this venue in support of our rights!
------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
|