Being one of the "chosen one's", I'm going to have to say I like 16-11-130!!!! lol
We are all created equal, but the law sees us differently.CountryGun said:Why aren't we all created equal?
I carry on my exemption, too, but I'd still like to see it go.higabyte said:Being one of the "chosen one's", I'm going to have to say I like 16-11-130!!!! lol
Agreed! Is a class action suit a reasonable approach to doing this? After all, most of us are in the lower class of citizens.phantoms said:How about just getting citizens capable of legally owning guns added to the section, then we could do away with GWL requirement altogether.
I've given thought to being the one individual. I certainly take individual offense that my life is somehow considered lowlier than that of a court clerk. That said, I know it's a big undertaking, and expensive. My feeling, though maybe very erroneous, is that a "class action suit" would get more recognition in the judiciary. I was trying to get a feel as to whether there is support for such a move. By support, I do not mean monetary support. I very much appreciate your input.gunsmoker said:a class action lawsuit is just a substitute for numerous regular lawsuits between the individuals harmed and [in this case] the government agency that is harming them.
Why go the "class action" route? Why not just one lawsuit from one offended citizen?
Even in a "class action" suit, you still have to have one or more individual plaintiffs to be the "class representative".
You use their facts and their circumstances to prove the case. You need details you can work with.
I would think "equal protection under the law" also conveys equal entitlement, but I'm not a lawyer. You all knew that long ago.CoffeeMate said:Is it that there are those who are exempt from carry restrictions which is causing the harm? Or is it that the carry restrictions exist at all?
Does "equal protection" come into play at all?
Your comments and questions are appreciated!New2Atlanta said:discrimination is legal in lots of settings, actually in all areas where it is not illegal
in certain settings it is not legal based on race, gender, age, military service...
now violation of civil rights, that's a Federal crime
but mostly used to prosecute somebody who kills somebody and the state did not do their job in prosecution
I very much appreciate your input. Thank you, Sir!gunsmoker said:Does the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution apply here?
If so, are civilian gun owners (or GFL / GWL permit holders) a "suspect classification"?
Are we a minority group that have historically been discriminated against?
Unless civilian gun packers are considered a suspect classification and deserving of special protection,
the law will easily be upheld if there is "any rational basis" for treating cops, prosecutors, court clerks, coroners, etc. differently from regular civilians.
Now if carrying a gun in public, away from your home or vehicle, were considered a "fundamental right" then laws restricting that right would be subject to strict scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny means the law must be narrowly tailored to fit a compelling government interest, and the law cannot be overly intrusive or trample freedom excessively.
And let's consider the issue of "standing" too. If you are only one of millions of non-LEO, non-military, non-criminal justice personnel who are gun owners, it will be hard to convince the court that YOU have standing to sue in the first place.
As in, the law protects a court clerk more than it protects someone who is not a court clerk?CountryGun said:I would think "equal protection under the law" also conveys equal entitlement, but I'm not a lawyer. You all knew that long ago.
I'm guessing the assumption is that a court clerk is more at risk of being forcefully coerced or retaliated against by a BG. It's the clerk who is making the "administrative wheels of the machine" turn -- "destroy that filing or I'll kill you" or "you filed the paperwork that put me in prison you SOB" kind of thing.CountryGun said:Going back to the court clerk?............Someone will have to tell me why their lives are more valuable than yours.
Something which I find objectionable -- and it seems I run into it repeatedly -- is that underlying assumption thing... that the state (using the term "state" in the general sense) as an entity always makes sure it's interests are protected and not subject to violation... but yet it seem always expected that the public -- individuals comprising the state -- must always give way and allow itself to be violated without question.CountryGun said:I'd simply like to see carry restrictions applied equally across both classes of citizens,...
So we have two in the class? All kidding aside, I would think your case is a prime example. But, what about the woman who crosses paths with the rapist on probation, the father whose child is snatched by the probational pedophile, or the student mugged by the same robber that robbed him at knife-point only a few months ago?rankhornjp said:I think I'd have a great argument. I'm a counselor whose clientele is 98% probationers, they are court ordered to counseling. If they don't follow the rules and complete the program, they go back to jail. They blame this on me (or the company I work for). So, I'm basically at the same risk as a probation officer; they get an exemption, I don't. Clerk of Court gets an exemption, I don't. Judges get an exemption, I don't. Guess who spends the most time with these people.....ME. Guess whose fault it is they went to jail....MINE (in their eyes.) Guess who they get to come see again when they get out of jail......ME.
That's what I'm trying to say. It isn't the measure of men. It is the measure of the interests of that entity called the "state" (general sense).CountryGun said:What measures of men are used to set the rights of one above another?
QFT.CoffeeMate said:That's what I'm trying to say. It isn't the measure of men. It is the measure of the interests of that entity called the "state" (general sense).CountryGun said:What measures of men are used to set the rights of one above another?
I'm guessing rankhornjp is a private counselor who doesn't work for the state. Therefore there is no state interest, therefore no exemption. Likewise for the woman, father and student you've mentioned. Likewise for defense attorneys. Likewise for any member of society who is not part of that entity called "the state".
The whole question is turned on its head and as long as we argue it in terms of "who should be exempt", we buy into the fraud that's been committed against us by that very same entity.
It's like asking, "how much money should the government let us keep?" The question instead should be "how much of our money should we let the government confiscate?"