CCW denial is Cheap insurance?

[m4strmind]

So here's a question that's running through my head. Assume the scenario:

1) apply for CCW for personal protection
2) force the application to be accepted and do not allow the MDSP to be nice and not take your money
3) get denied
4) follow the process to its end to its end review board etc
5) get denied

then wait to have a violent crime committed against you that you could have prevented with a hand gun.

Not saying you should seek it out but just wait and if it ever does happen...

State now liable for damages? Sue the pants off them? Retire wealthy? Pain and suffering the whole deal.

Seems like for a few hundred dollars you can buy yourself insurance for life against ever having a violent crime committed against you. All in all it would be cheap insurance?

 

[eruby]

Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

[A1Uni]

I don't think you would get any traction there.

As long as MSP operates within the letter of the law with regard to their granting or denying your permit, you wouldn't have a case.

 

[redeemed.man]

So here's a question that's running through my head. Assume the scenario:

1) apply for CCW for personal protection
2) force the application to be accepted and do not allow the MDSP to be nice and not take your money
3) get denied
4) follow the process to its end to its end review board etc
5) get denied

then wait to have a violent crime committed against you that you could have prevented with a hand gun.

Not saying you should seek it out but just wait and if it ever does happen...

State now liable for damages? Sue the pants off them? Retire wealthy? Pain and suffering the whole deal.

Seems like for a few hundred dollars you can buy yourself insurance for life against ever having a violent crime committed against you. All in all it would be cheap insurance?

The state has no duty to protect you. You would have no case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

 

[m4strmind]

I don't think you would get any traction there.

As long as MSP operates within the letter of the law with regard to their granting or denying your permit, you wouldn't have a case.

I'm wondering if you could sue the entire review board, state government, everyone in between.

I dont like the idea of being sue happy but maybe a way to get the state to change?

chances are if everyone of us get denied, someone is going to get mugged, then let the NRA file suit?

 

[redeemed.man]

I'm wondering if you could sue the entire review board, state government, everyone in between.

I dont like the idea of being sue happy but maybe a way to get the state to change?

chances are if everyone of us get denied, someone is going to get mugged, then let the NRA file suit?

The answer is still no. Read about this case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

 

[Minuteman]

So here's a question that's running through my head. Assume the scenario:

1) apply for CCW for personal protection
2) force the application to be accepted and do not allow the MDSP to be nice and not take your money
3) get denied
4) follow the process to its end to its end review board etc
5) get denied

then wait to have a violent crime committed against you that you could have prevented with a hand gun.

Not saying you should seek it out but just wait and if it ever does happen...

State now liable for damages? Sue the pants off them? Retire wealthy? Pain and suffering the whole deal.

Seems like for a few hundred dollars you can buy yourself insurance for life against ever having a violent crime committed against you. All in all it would be cheap insurance?

I don't think you would get any traction there.

As long as MSP operates within the letter of the law with regard to their granting or denying your permit, you wouldn't have a case.

Agreed, might have a difficult time suing the MDSP, and not sure you should; they are in the unenviable position of carrying out an SOP that most of us, and some of them feel is improper and maybe even illegal. But they want to keep their jobs, and getting promoted, so they just regurgitate the same information they have for years and years now. At one point during the last Handgun Review Board hearing, one of them (I inferred) nearly said as much. I've heard other troopers say similar things during cross-examination at bill hearings and the like. They are in a really tough spot.

Having said that, I know people who have been denied, have representation and are just waiting until they are assaulted; they plan to file a lawsuit - absolutely. At this point, everyone is just saying they are following the law, ignoring what's right and wrong, so I'm no longer against it. I've never been sued, nor have I ever sued anyone before, but if this is the state of affairs, looks like the lawyers are the only ones that are going to be making money.

Saying you were just following orders doesn't work; its tyranny. I have no sympathy for those that follow illegal or immoral orders.

 

[redeemed.man]

Agreed, might have a difficult time suing the MDSP, and not sure you should; they are in the unenviable position of carrying out an SOP that most of us, and some of them feel is improper and maybe even illegal. But they want to keep their jobs, and getting promoted, so they just regurgitate the same information they have for years and years now. At one point during the last Handgun Review Board hearing, one of them (I inferred) nearly said as much. I've heard other troopers say similar things during cross-examination at bill hearings and the like. They are in a really tough spot.

Having said that, I know people who have been denied, have representation and are just waiting until they are assaulted; they plan to file a lawsuit - absolutely. At this point, everyone is just saying they are following the law, ignoring what's right and wrong, so I'm no longer against it. I've never been sued, nor have I ever sued anyone before, but if this is the state of affairs, looks like the lawyers are the only ones that are going to be making money.

Saying you were just following orders doesn't work; its tyranny. I have no sympathy for those that follow illegal or immoral orders.

You can sue for the deprivation of a right but a state cannot be held liable for your protection.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Just spend the $ on term life Ins.

 

[m4strmind]

The answer is still no. Read about this case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

I think this might be different.

You wouldnt be suing the MD SP for not protecting you.

You would be suing the state for denying you the right to protect yourself. With evidence that they caused you direct harm.

 

[montoya32]

So here's a question that's running through my head. Assume the scenario:

1) apply for CCW for personal protection
2) force the application to be accepted and do not allow the MDSP to be nice and not take your money
3) get denied
4) follow the process to its end to its end review board etc
5) get denied

then wait to have a violent crime committed against you that you could have prevented with a hand gun.

Not saying you should seek it out but just wait and if it ever does happen...

State now liable for damages? Sue the pants off them? Retire wealthy? Pain and suffering the whole deal.

Seems like for a few hundred dollars you can buy yourself insurance for life against ever having a violent crime committed against you. All in all it would be cheap insurance?

I think you are on the right track, just not sure of your approach. I have said that something similar to your scenario would make it easier for citizens to be awarded a permit, but now sure how the damages would be calculated and decided.

 

[PJDiesel]

The state has no duty to protect you. You would have no case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

He's not asking for the State to protect him, he's asking to be allowed to protect HIMSELF.

 

[redeemed.man]

So here's a question that's running through my head. Assume the scenario:

1) apply for CCW for personal protection
2) force the application to be accepted and do not allow the MDSP to be nice and not take your money
3) get denied
4) follow the process to its end to its end review board etc
5) get denied

then wait to have a violent crime committed against you that you could have prevented with a hand gun.

Not saying you should seek it out but just wait and if it ever does happen...

State now liable for damages? Sue the pants off them? Retire wealthy? Pain and suffering the whole deal.

Seems like for a few hundred dollars you can buy yourself insurance for life against ever having a violent crime committed against you. All in all it would be cheap insurance?

I think this might be different.

You wouldnt be suing the MD SP for not protecting you.

You would be suing the state for denying you the right to protect yourself. With evidence that they caused you direct harm.

I was pointing back to your original post. It would be virtually impossible to say that you would "NOT" be injured if only you had a gun. I agree with the rights deprivation theory just not the part about waiting until "AFTER" something happens to you to use as evidence. Your lawsuit could get your attorney fees paid for the deprivation of the right but it would not award you damages for things like pain and suffering when they had no duty to protect you from the pain and suffering in the first place. In other words lawsuits for deprivation of rights can get things changed for all of us but would not be a profit center for an individual IMO, IANAL. Besides, the state has access to unlimited funds anyway (YOUR money, and MY money) they could care less about a lawsuit. They will defend against your lawsuit with OUR money!

 

[redeemed.man]

He's not asking for the State to protect him, he's asking to be allowed to protect HIMSELF.

I get that but he is also seeking damages for "pain and suffering" after he is a victim of a crime that they had no duty to protect him from. I am not saying it is right or fair, it is just reality. They won't owe him any money. There won't be an early retirement with millions of dollars.

 

[Minuteman]

So just imagine for a moment that for whatever reason there is a law that says if you want to own and/or carry a fire extinguisher to defend your home from fire, you had to get a permit. You have to comply with all the ridiculous rules that just make it harder for you to get and use your fire extinguisher, like having a background check, getting a FQL (Fire extinguisher Qualification License), take training, get finger printed, photographed and you have to wait 7 days to pick it up. But now you have your fire extinguisher, and you want to carry it in your car, or with you in public; you have to apply for yet another permit, which is much like the one you already did but now they will interview a few of your friends, interview you; and make you wait another 90 days or so. Then they deny you. You appeal, and a couple NRA Instructors on the board uphold the ridiculous interpretation of the Fire Marshal, and you can not carry your fire extinguisher in public, and not even in your car, unless you are going to and from a specialty store that sells or repairs fire extinguishers (or to dog training (just for fun)).

Then, one day, you are minding your own business and your car catches on fire; you can't put it out because the NRA (National fiRe Association) Instructors upheld the ridiculous and probably illegal misguided practice of denying people. So your car burns, and your child in the back safety seat that you couldn't get out of the car in time because you couldn't stop the fire. Who's to blame, who should be sued?

How a person in their right mind would actually support denying someone their natural right to defend themselves and family with a fire-extinguisher or fire-arm is beyond my comprehension. How can you sleep with yourself at night knowing that at any moment that persons car might catch on fire (it does happen) you know, you are an Instructor on these matters; and that they or their family members could die. Personally I would resign if I could not determine right from wrong in matters like this. Maybe this is why I'm not a Fire Marshal or put myself in a position to judge others in these matters.

 

[Minuteman]

But, but...

This is real by the way:

 

[protegeV]

 

[babalou]

funny thing is this

1) You want to purchase a particular firearm. It is banned and they say 'No'. You ask why. They say you may do something bad with it. You assure them that you would not. Nope

2) You try to get your CCW. They say 'No'
You ask why. They say you do not need it. You say that you may get assaulted and you need it for self defense. They assure you you would not.


Heads they win, tails you lose.

 

[Minuteman]

Just a couple more, you'll like these:

 

[rseymorejr]

I'm wondering if you could sue the entire review board, state government, everyone in between.

I dont like the idea of being sue happy but maybe a way to get the state to change?

chances are if everyone of us get denied, someone is going to get mugged, then let the NRA file suit?

Sure, you can sue everybody.
And the state will defend them with our tax money.
Who do you think will run dry first you or them?