One New Yorker tells the Daily News that he would like to see the National Rifle Association sued for the actions of criminals and for daring to have different policy ideas than he might prefer.
Flushing: The National Rifle Association cannot be defeated in the political arena. But what if the victims’ families sued the NRA for creating laws that allowed this tragedy to happen? What if Mayor Bloomberg and Mayors Against Illegal Guns sued the NRA as an accessory to gun deaths and injuries in their cities? If even one lawsuit succeeded, it would establish a precedent for holding the gun lobby accountable. Plus, defending against a blizzard of lawsuits would cripple the NRA’s finances. Richard Reif
Mr. Reif considers it perfectly acceptable that the American citizens who support the Second Amendment should see any attempt they make to organize to petition their government silenced by frivolous lawsuits. I am curious to know if Mr. Reif also wonders just why many people believe the political atmosphere is less civil these days.
You can also take your choice of comments from other New Yorkers and readers:
The right to bear arms should be limited to a simple, single-shot handgun for protection in the home or a single-shot rifle to be used during hunting season. No normal citizen needs anything more than that. Irene Goldsmith
I guess Dick Heller and Otis McDonald aren’t considered “normal citizens” to Irene. Perhaps she believes that the only people who should be deemed “normal” are those who think and live exactly like her – so much for tolerance.
To imply that President Obama is responsible for the Colorado tragedy and the proliferation of guns is disingenuous. Place blame on the NRA, where it belongs. James P. Hetzel …
The NRA is a group of unprincipled thugs who threaten any elected official who tries to limit its power; witness the cowardice of both Obama and Romney on gun control. Thanks for giving voice to the obvious and having the will to say what should be said. Suzanne Tenney Sutter Augur
Merely belonging to an organization that supports lawful gun ownership and use is enough for James to convict you of ties to the Colorado murders. Suzanne thinks you’re an unprincipled thug who shouldn’t have a voice with your elected officials anyway.
It’s just another glimpse in the world where anti-gun advocates don’t even believe that you should be allowed to participate in the political sphere because you don’t believe the very same things.
Oh goodie, I can sue the ACLU for its part in causing deinstitutionalization and the normalization of mass murder.
I see no reason why anyone should be allowed to carry, or to keep for home defense, a weapon that if used would pose a significant risk to individuals other than the assailant being targeted.
So with that in mind, I would think that a law forbidding the carrying in public of 106mm recoilless rifles, or of keeping loaded 32-pounder carronades around the house, would be quite reasonable.
That doesn’t, you understand, mean that I think that individuals should be forbidden to own weapons such as that, but I think that reasonable regulations on where they can be fired would be perfectly acceptable.
That’s the NY way: Blame others, do nothing, let problems persist, repeat.
From 42 USC 1983:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law”.
Let’s sue Mr. Reif in Federal Court (the Justice Department should do it on our behalf). Using his logic, we should sue the bejeezus out of every one of the whackos who attempt to curtail our rights via frivolous litigation. Once it starts costing them its like turning on a light – the cockoaches will vanish.
I’ll contribute. I think showing an injury will be hard, which means that standing will be an issue.
Thanks for the great reference, Kirk. I love it!
– Arnie
Obsession with gun regulation is a sort of mania with some people that blinds them to larger questions of civil liberties, as well as to exploring effective policies to make the public safer. The logic of these folks’ arguments could just as easily go the other way: suing anyone involved in preventing people who are victims of crimes from having been armed at the time.
If they can sue the NRA for being an accessory to gun deaths, can I sue the AFT for turning out such stupid children who grow up to become stupid adults who come up with stupid ideas like that?
Methinks the culture wars have gone completely off the rails.
It’s sad.
I think that an appropriate solution would be holding politicians and judges accountable as accessories since it they who have foisted tese laws on us.
Cruachan!
Can victims sue Cinemark for creating a “gun-free zone” then failing to enforce it or protect the people they disarmed?
The theater is already being sued for not making their regular exits from the theater “emergency” exits with alarms. Of course, the same person (who wasn’t shot) is also suing Warner Brothers for making the movie and the shooter’s doctors for not monitoring him every hour of his life.
While I think that patrons should be free to use the doors as exits, I would think it would be useful to have an alarm to indicate when a door is propped open.
Even so, I would expect that a meticulous planner like the Aurora shooter would have taken alarms into account, in making his plans. He may have even found a way to disable them…
I wasn’t aware the NRA had any law passing powers. I believe the Constitution mentions Congress and the President signing laws.
Ergo, they should sue Congress and the President, the Colorado Congress, Governor, Mayor and City Council. Interestingly, these bodies HAVE passed laws protecting themselves from this strategy.