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.

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

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!

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.

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

Quote:

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.

January 9, 2009, 06:30 PM	#1
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	Flood the Court technique 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 ™

January 9, 2009, 06:41 PM	#2
crashm1 Senior Member Join Date: July 21, 2007 Location: Western,WI Posts: 243	I like it and would hope we could get closer to a couple million. That might make some legislators heads explode. __________________ Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. - George Washington 1911s and V-twin sport bikes make me happy.

January 9, 2009, 06:45 PM	#3
divemedic Senior Member Join Date: August 12, 2006 Posts: 1,310	An interesting idea. I wonder if it would get dismissed for lack of standing. __________________ Caveat Emperor

January 9, 2009, 08:43 PM	#4
Trapp Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2004 Location: KTN Posts: 1,221	call me pessimistic, but I just don't see the participation levels necessary to accomplish the end goal. how do you propose increased participation? __________________ HDR Ban!? It's a shame all of my guns sank with my boat last week... Time to catch up.....like mayonnaise

January 9, 2009, 08:53 PM	#5
MeekAndMild Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2001 Posts: 4,988	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. __________________ In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.

January 9, 2009, 08:54 PM	#6
orionengnr Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2004 Posts: 5,176	Subscribing. I'm in, but I'd sure like to see some of the forum's leagle eagles contribute.

January 10, 2009, 12:21 AM	#9
jesus5150 Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2009 Location: Bismark Posts: 332	I'm in.

January 10, 2009, 12:49 AM	#10
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	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.

January 10, 2009, 01:08 AM	#11
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	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 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?

January 10, 2009, 02:44 AM	#12
209 Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2006 Location: Connecticut Posts: 269	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.

January 10, 2009, 03:20 AM	#13
stevelyn Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell Posts: 2,655	Do you mean something like what the Brady/VPC camp is doing with NPS carry? __________________ Stop Allowing Our Schools To Be Soft Targets! http://fastersaveslives.org/ East Moose. Wear Wolf.

January 10, 2009, 08:51 AM	#14
Fremmer Senior Member Join Date: June 19, 2005 Location: Nebraska Posts: 3,482	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!

January 11, 2009, 09:40 PM	#15
AZ Med18 Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2008 Location: Arizona Posts: 337	I would be up for this. DC vs Heller did say commonly used firearms should be protected. __________________ XD 9mm service Ruger LCP Colt Python .357 magnum AK-47 Mossberg 500 12 gauge

January 11, 2009, 10:22 PM	#16
azredhawk44 Junior member Join Date: September 28, 2005 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 6,465	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

January 11, 2009, 10:33 PM	#17
Danzig Senior Member Join Date: June 30, 2005 Location: Fort Carson, Colorado Posts: 896	I am on board if someone draws up the proper paperwork. __________________ Fide et Fortitudine - My family motto "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" - Thomas Jefferson

January 11, 2009, 10:48 PM	#18
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	I am in. Subscribing. Just give me a PDF to print out and fill out. Maybe someone should drop a line to the NRA.

January 11, 2009, 10:52 PM	#19
MeekAndMild Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2001 Posts: 4,988	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. __________________ In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.

January 11, 2009, 10:57 PM	#20
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	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.

January 12, 2009, 12:07 AM	#21
Shane Tuttle Staff Join Date: November 28, 2005 Location: Montana Posts: 9,443	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 __________________ If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language. Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting

January 12, 2009, 12:24 AM	#22
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	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.

January 12, 2009, 06:00 AM	#23
donkee Junior member Join Date: November 7, 2004 Location: Mid-Michigan Posts: 449	I'm on board for this. Watching for something to work with...........

January 12, 2009, 03:35 PM	#25
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,383	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.