A Different Kind Of Lawsuit?

It is obvious that the police are protected if something happens to us because the courts have ruled they have no duty to protect us. We are also screwed by the 4th CC decision (unless that is overturned) so we can't sue over GSR. BUT, what if those who have been denied a carry permit who later become victims of crime were to sue?

I don't want to see anyone be a victim of crime but we all know Marylandistan encourages criminals and allows them to thrive (even in jail). It is only a matter of time before one of us who gets denied will be a victim of some crime.

Suppose the lawsuit is not that the police did not protect us but that they denied us the right to protect ourselves? Most of us have self protection as our GSR and have indicated that the state is dangerous but when we are denied the police are basically telling us self protection is not GSR. I think a lawsuit holding them responsible for claiming you had no need for self protection when you clearly did might have legs.

Anyway, just thinking of a future path while waiting for the MSP to state that I am not as important as they or the governor...

BTW, does anyone know if folks on the board that we appeal to have concealed carry permits?

I would look at this another way.

What if you wanted your regulated firearm for self protection and were injured by a well coddled, Notsomerrylandistan criminal 8 days after completing the application?

Would the STATE, MSP, or the DEALER who sold the firearm then held it hostage be culpable?

The question has been asked many times here on MDS. It is remotely possible. If you had appealed your denial to the review board, you could try to sue the board, but there's not much chance of success. The crime rate is low enough in general that the chances of everything falling into place to do this are pretty low; if it was a 'real' possibility, it would have happened already.

To my understanding, the state doesnt have any kind of double jeopardy protection, we can resue on GS provided the circumstance is different, its an upcliff battle but if another suit was brought it would force the legislature to atleast hear about it again.

While the crime rate might be low (who knows with the way they fudge numbers) the reality is that MD is one of the top ten most violent states. It ranks about 8th in violent as I recall. In any event, the odds are that one day we will be victims. The 4th CC and the state confirmed that this is a dangerous place in Woollard when they cited the crime stats. They said carjackings were a concern and very dangerous (there were 16,000 auto thefts and 480 carjackings in 2011 - the last year for the stats) and MD has published a brochure telling people that it is dangerous and can cost you your life.

http://www.mdsp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hAdtUX1NPRo=&tabid=828&mid=2260

This is apprehended danger...

Mark75H said:

The question has been asked many times here on MDS. It is remotely possible. If you had appealed your denial to the review board, you could try to sue the board, but there's not much chance of success. The crime rate is low enough in general that the chances of everything falling into place to do this are pretty low; if it was a 'real' possibility, it would have happened already.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't look at it from this point of view either. What do "Chances" have to do with anything?

The "Chances" are I won't wreck my truck, but I'm required to wear a seatbelt and have insurance.

The "Chances" are I won't dump my Harley, but I'm required to wear a helmet and have insurance.

Two weeks ago, there was a Home Invasion not 100 yards from my house. That Home Owner had your "chances" argument on his side too before it happened.

"Chances" are just that. The "chance" or "odds" that something bad can happen to you.

The STATE does not have the right to deny you your RIGHT to self protection. When the "chances" and "odds" turn against a person, that person has the RIGHT to be prepared.

It seems to me and to many others as well that the STATE has the very bad habit of picking and choosing when we are and when we are not suppossed to be SAFE.

This, of course, is just my .02

Big Dog said:

While the crime rate might be low (who knows with the way they fudge numbers) the reality is that MD is one of the top ten most violent states. It ranks about 8th in violent as I recall. In any event, the odds are that one day we will be victims. The 4th CC and the state confirmed that this is a dangerous place in Woollard when they cited the crime stats. They said carjackings were a concern and very dangerous (there were 16,000 auto thefts and 480 carjackings in 2011 - the last year for the stats) and MD has published a brochure telling people that it is dangerous and can cost you your life.

http://www.mdsp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hAdtUX1NPRo=&tabid=828&mid=2260

This is apprehended danger...

Click to expand...

Good!

I'm not alone.

A logical argument, but it hasn't won in court yet. Logic and law are not the same thing.

iH8DemLibz said:

I wouldn't look at it from this point of view either. What do "Chances" have to do with anything?

The "Chances" are I won't wreck my truck, but I'm required to wear a seatbelt and have insurance.

The "Chances" are I won't dump my Harley, but I'm required to wear a helmet and have insurance.

Two weeks ago, there was a Home Invasion not 100 yards from my house. That Home Owner had your "chances" argument on his side too before it happened.

"Chances" are just that. The "chance" or "odds" that something bad can happen to you.

The STATE does not have the right to deny you your RIGHT to self protection. When the "chances" and "odds" turn against a person, that person has the RIGHT to be prepared.

It seems to me and to many others as well that the STATE has the very bad habit of picking and choosing when we are and when we are not suppossed to be SAFE.

This, of course, is just my .02

Click to expand...

In my mind, if SCOTUS says the police have no duty to protect you, then that duty must fall to the individual themselves. I mean, the duty for protection HAS to fall somewhere, right? The logical place for it to be would be the individual. May Issue (requiring a G&S) severely limits the individuals ability to fulfill that duty and forces a lot of people to go completely unprotected.

(I had this same discussion with a co-worker, and I was attempting to make my point without using the words "rights", or "constitution" or "2nd Amendment" or anything like that, since they seem to be the trigger words that make libbies stop listening. It seemed to work.)

J-Dog said:

May Issue (requiring a G&S) severely limits the individuals ability to fulfill that duty and forces a lot of people to go completely unprotected.

Click to expand...

It does.