The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights > Legal and Political

 
 
Thread Tools
Old May 12, 1999, 11:14 PM   #1
DC
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 30, 1998
Location: Calif
Posts: 4,229
I'm serious...let's check this out.

Also, consider these points:
1) Cities sue gun manufacturers even though its "legal new ground" without precident. Its tobacco all over again, the initial suits won't win but the tactical move of draining and distracting cause fear and mispent resources in your enemy.
2) This would scare the crap out of ALL politicos and media celebrities...it encroaches on the 1st A...they started this war on the Constitution so how about expanding it?

Thoughts?
DC is offline  
Old May 12, 1999, 11:58 PM   #2
striker3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Location: So Cal
Posts: 148
Could someone point me to a site that has an overview or the actual text of this law?
striker3 is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 12:08 AM   #3
DC
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 30, 1998
Location: Calif
Posts: 4,229
Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any
person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two
or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with
intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so
secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years,
or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an
attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.

www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/18/241.html


Source notes: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/241.notes.html
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"



[This message has been edited by DC (edited May 13, 1999).]
DC is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 12:33 AM   #4
striker3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Location: So Cal
Posts: 148
Cool thanks. I was at the cornell site but was looking under the federal code. Title 18 had to do with water and natural gas
striker3 is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 05:55 AM   #5
John/az2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,729
Who would be exempt from this section? Mayors? Senators? Town councils?

Seriously, who would be considered the best first targets? HCI?

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com
John/az2 is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 07:36 AM   #6
Ed Brunner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1998
Location: Natchez, MS, USA
Posts: 2,562
It wouldnt matter that the politicians are exempt(if they are)because the Organizations (read conspirators) who give them money and pull their strings should be the target.
The problem that I see is that they will make it a First Amendment issue which would be alright. They are free to express their ideas they just cant do anythind about this particular idea without violating this law.



------------------
Better days to be,

Ed


Ed Brunner is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 08:22 AM   #7
DC
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 30, 1998
Location: Calif
Posts: 4,229
Ed suggested I contact Mark Levin of the Landmark Legal Foundation.

"Landmark Legal Foundation is a national public interest
law firm headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri with offices
in Washington, D.C. Landmark's mission is to use the law to
advance conservative principles and policies through the
judicial system, government and public forums. "


I just fired off a letter to him

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

DC is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 08:36 AM   #8
DC
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 30, 1998
Location: Calif
Posts: 4,229
Oh yeah...
Such an approach may spook them on the 1st Amendment, but we already can't scream fire in a crowded building.

At the very least, perhaps it would prevent them from lies and distortion. My thoughts are that lying goes to motive and intent...if HCI, et al can't and won't defend their beliefs and position with truth and facts, and instead lie and spread distortions then they are guilty of conspiracy with intent.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

DC is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 10:24 AM   #9
Mike Spight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 1999
Location: Leavenworth, KS USA
Posts: 606
DC: This is an interesting concept that certainly calls for serious study and consideration. Please let us know the tener of Landmark's response, if possible. My vote for a lead attorney in our cause would be Jerry Spence. He has spoken and written eloquently on the rights of citizens. As far as I know, he is a champion of the entire Bill of Rights.
Mike Spight is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 11:35 AM   #10
BAB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 1999
Location: Midwest
Posts: 459
Oooooooooo, yeah...I like this, I like this a lot. Keep us up on in, and let us know how we can do our part.

BAB
BAB is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 12:35 PM   #11
Spectre
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: October 23, 1998
Location: DC
Posts: 3,274
Banzai, banzai, banzai!

I hate playing defense.
Spectre is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 01:05 PM   #12
bookkie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 1999
Location: Arbuckle, CA, usa
Posts: 1,269
Had a thought on the title 18 suit. Before you can sue under this title one must be deprived of their rights. Since the lower federal courts do not recognize the 2nd as an individual right (except for 5th district of Texas) we would not be able to bring suit in those districts.... but since we do have such a ruling (individual) in the 5th district of Texas, we can bring the title 18 suit there......

This may also give the SC another reason to hear Emerson. Just a thought.

Richard
bookkie is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 01:08 PM   #13
DC
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 30, 1998
Location: Calif
Posts: 4,229
Ok guys..

I spent on hour talking to GOC (the Calif wing of GOA). We covered a lot of stuff, much pertenent to Calif but also general stuff, so check this out:

The GOC rep said that we (gunowners) don't have the money and legal resources that HCI et al have...they have lots of pro-bono attorneys. Thats why they (pro-gun orgs) seem to be so slow pursuing legal methods...they want to have solid airtight cases cuz they will have blown all their money, and a loss would likely result in a tailored defense.

We addressed this before but it merits further investigation. Check your local courts and find out filing fees for various types of law suits...as the GOC rep said many are as low as $40.

Lets approach this methodically; suits filed in a zillion jurisdictions have no defense. As much as I'd love to come on like a crazed rampaging bull, if just being a frenzied bee in a hive works...winning is whats important. You all know we can't continue as things have been, we are being picked apart.

Right now you can do something constructive by just gathering info...its free, you'll learn something and it furthers the cause.


------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

DC is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 01:23 PM   #14
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,361
Let's look for pro Second Amendment attorneys, too. The conspiracy angle would not violate the First Amendment, in my opinion, for conspiracy is not just speech-it takes at least one action to prove conspiracy. Perhaps we could shove Jim March's approach in with this and present it as unequal treatment by the government, lack of due process, etc.

I thought there was a group of lawyers supporting the Second Amendment but couldn't find it in my latest search.
Byron Quick is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 01:47 PM   #15
Elker_43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 1999
Location: Idaho
Posts: 489
Hey guys, I was wondering if the pro-gun organizations (NRA,GOA,State Org's, etc.) had ever really talked together about convening a "2nd Amendment Summit". I know there are differences, but everyone is included the same war, just different battles. Convening a summit of "allin the pro-gun arena", to clearly focus on a particular subject, much like "Conspiracy against rights" makes sense to me. Didn't the Klintonites just convened a "violence on the family" summit and then not invite the NRA. Many and I mean many of the people I run into say the same thing to me. "Why can't all of the pro-gun organizations get together and stop this anti-second amendment movement. Together (the $ would be there), they would be a lot more effective".
I don't know, is it just pro-gun politics (each group wanting their own stand as king of the mountain?) or are should we move to gather the groups together and fight these battles together until we win the war?
Thanks for hearing me out, but I may not have the big picture.
Elker_43 is offline  
Old May 13, 1999, 11:20 PM   #16
DC
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 30, 1998
Location: Calif
Posts: 4,229
Elker...
Good question, but I have no answer. I suspect its petty turf wars, but thats just speculation

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

DC is offline  
Old May 14, 1999, 01:16 AM   #17
Paul B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,674
Elker. The big reason the gun rights groups don't join forces is each one wants to be the head honcho. If I can't be the boss, I won't play.
Maybe we should remind them that "United we stand. Divided Slick Willie wins."
While this is not a part of the thread, when NRA presidents were usually military,retired military, or law enforcement, it had real clout. I have almost all the American Rifleman Magazines from 1936 to the presten. Only one year missing, and researching through the years, it was when they stopped electing ex-military , or law enforcment people to run the show that they went downhill.
Paul B.
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
Paul B. is offline  
Old May 14, 1999, 03:19 AM   #18
Menos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 1999
Location: VA
Posts: 163
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?


Menos is offline  
Old May 14, 1999, 01:16 PM   #19
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,361
I just emailed Eugene Volokh at the UCLA School of Law. Maybe he'll respond.

Mr. Volokh,
>
> Is there any possibility of bringing suit against Handgun Control, Inc.
> and other organizations of that ilk under the US Code Title 18, Section
> 241 which reads:
>
> Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights
>
> If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
> intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,
> or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege
> secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
> because of his having so exercised the same; or If two
> or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of
> another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment
> of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this
> title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
> results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
> such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual
> abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to
> kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of
> years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
>
> If it is possible to bring suit under this statute or any other please
> let me know by email and- if you care to post it there-on The Firing
> Line's Legal and Political Forum. The URL is
> http://www.thefiringline.com/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi
>
> Thank you very much for your time and for any assistance you may provide
> in this matter.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Byron Quick
Byron Quick is offline  
Old May 14, 1999, 03:22 PM   #20
Mendocino
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 1999
Posts: 403
A painful thought:

If pro RKBA folks bring suit against HCI or some other group and/or government entity with the purpose of restoring the 2nd Amendment to it rightful status, this would require repealing existing GC legislation. Then, numerous people would have to work together in accomplishing this (read conspire by the ruling regime). Therefore, this could be prosecuted under the 1973 (?) RICO act, probably being considered conspiracy, and possibly a continuing criminal enterprise.

I think this is a long shot for the antis, but after what I have endured since 1992 I would NOT be surprised.
Mendocino is offline  
Old May 14, 1999, 03:30 PM   #21
DC
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 30, 1998
Location: Calif
Posts: 4,229
Mendo...

Is that so bad? Think about it...just as many people believe RICO is unconstitutional. But the important thing is that it is and would be an open, out front direct political confrontation. No more back door action, no more sub-rosa.
They wanted this war, they pushed for it, lets open up the whole can of worms...once exposed it will take years and years to sort it out....all in the open and energies will be directed at sorting, not new sneaky controls.
Fix it or burn it down and rebuild.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

DC is offline  
Old May 15, 1999, 02:34 PM   #22
Paul B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,674
If anyone decides to sue under this act, I will donate what little I can afford. I'm retired on a fixed income, but will send what I can.
Paul B.
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
Paul B. is offline  
Old May 15, 1999, 03:32 PM   #23
Kodiac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 1999
Posts: 1,173
Banzai, banzai, banzai!

A better one would be:

Tora Tora Tora!

Go for the Jugular! Hit THEM in the purse strings!

Make this a class action suit - I will add my signature! Having to PAY for CCW PERMIT -When carying a weapon is a RIGHT granted by LAW - and yet I have to PAY for it!?!

Im in... What do I do?

------------------
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE

Kodiac is offline  
Old May 16, 1999, 05:43 PM   #24
snoman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 1998
Location: Sauk Rapids, Mn, USA
Posts: 127
If HCI was really trying to make this a safer place to live, they would be trying to ban cars, only need to be 16,no background check, and with as many guns as I have, I don't have one with a 4000 pound bullet that I can steer or backup...Don't tell anyone, but the thing with HCI and guns, well I think it is personal


---snoman---
snoman is offline  
Old May 16, 1999, 06:05 PM   #25
Ed Brunner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1998
Location: Natchez, MS, USA
Posts: 2,562
Kodiac; Good point.You have been directly and financially impacted by unconstitutional anti-gun leglislation.We all have in the increased costs and inconveniences we have had to endure.
Goody Goody now we collect.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed


Ed Brunner is offline  
 

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13506 seconds with 7 queries