Lets ask a hypothetical question......

Discussion in 'General GWL Questions' started by chainsaw123, Aug 22, 2007.

  1. chainsaw123

    chainsaw123 GPDO Supporter

    3,507
    0
    36
    lets say there are absolutely no reasons in your past that would exclude you from getting a GFL. You apply for it and if I am correct (maybe not), they have 3 months to get an answer or your license to you. Correct so far? So, now it is after the 3 months as required by law and you have heard nothing. So here is the hypothetical: Since you cannot carry a gun concealed or in the open with you legally yet, lets say you get mugged and beat up very badly. Could a slick lawyer sue the county on your behalf for not getting you your license in a timely fashion as required by law and hold them accountable for you not being able to defend yourself?

    I know this is highly unlikely but I have been very impressed with the knowledge of most members here and figure that one of you probably know the answer to this scenario.

    thanks
     
  2. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    If I were the one injured in this hypothetical, I would press the issue. Not sure how far it would get, but constructively I feel that you could argue negligence.
     

  3. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,419
    2
    38
    You can indeed sue most anyone/anything for anything.
    Would you get anywhere with it?

    :?:
     
  4. chainsaw123

    chainsaw123 GPDO Supporter

    3,507
    0
    36
    it would only take ONE winning lawsuit to make the counties realize the importance of getting us our licenses to us within the legal limit or open themselves up for possibly being held liable for damages.
     
  5. VolGrad

    VolGrad Tactical Statistician

    13,592
    0
    0
    :ianal:

    I think this scenario and any lawsuit filed would raise awareness of the problem (delayed issuance of GFL) but would be thrown out immediately. There are too many factors to hold anyone accountable. Who is to say if a GFL would have been issued that the GFL holder would have been carrying that day? Who is to say it would have changed the outcome? Would it have changed the outcome favorably? If the argument could be made, as outlined in this scenario, then one could also make the argument that if the GFL was issued and the holder would have had a gun and the outcome was less than favorable, that the county/state was then liable for any negative outcomes. Just playing the devil's advocate here.

    Interesting thought though.
     
  6. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    IMO, It'd get dismissed faster than Judge Cranford can say "I hate GCO."
     
  7. GunNut

    GunNut New Member

    1,966
    0
    0
    Yeah, it would be thrown out cause they would argue that you were close to a PG, bar, etc...So, you couldn't have possibly been carrying anyway. :?
     
  8. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    [hijack]hey GunNut...how do you like that P2000SK?
     
  9. GunNut

    GunNut New Member

    1,966
    0
    0
    I like it....still waiting on a holster for it though. Shoots really nice, the LEM trigger takes a little getting use to. It has a very long pull. It only a pube larger than my G33, but seems significantly easier to control.

    I still need to shoot it a little more, pattern not quite as tight as I'd like. I've only shot maybe a total of 350-400 rounds thru it so far...all of which went bang, so no failures at all.
     
  10. chainsaw123

    chainsaw123 GPDO Supporter

    3,507
    0
    36
    I have seen much more stupid lawsuits get won in court. For instance: The famous "HOT COFFEE" suit agasinst McDonalds. Now to me, thats a big ol "DUH" but some really stupid jurors thought they needed to protect the general public from "TOO HOT" of a cup "o" Joe. Stranger things have happened.
     
  11. budder

    budder Moderator Staff Member

    Most of that money was awarded back to McDonald's in a later trial.

    GunNut, "a pube larger"? ;)
     
  12. VolGrad

    VolGrad Tactical Statistician

    13,592
    0
    0
    Yah, but consider the victim in the McD's case was a litigious dumb@$$ and not a potential "gun toting freak" who only wants to endanger kids through his GCO membership. Unfortunately, the only ones looking out for us is ourselves. Ourselves and MP. :wink: Thanks again GCO.
     
  13. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    Take a look at the actual facts of this lawsuit and not the blurbs you read on the internet or hear on the news. I did and was astounded at how the story was being reported as evidence of out of control litigation.

    The woman in question went through the drivethru and bought a cup of coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her thighs and pulled away from the window. The coffee cup was substandard with a flimsy top causing the coffee to spill all over her thighs. From the spill she received third degree burns to a sensitive area of her anatomy.

    Now I don't know about you, but if I was presented with evidence that a service provider provided a liquid so hot that it gave the user third degree burns and was placed in a substandard container, and that the service provider had received numerous complaints in the past about the temperature of their beverage and the substandard containers they were being placed in and had done absolutely nothing to correct the situation ..... well, I would probably rule in favor of the plaintiff as well.

    Keep in mind that even though the jury awarded her an exorbitant amount, the judge reduced the award to a reasonable sum (I think somewhere around $300,000).

    So in that case, the system worked and the award forced McDonalds to stop serving coffee at such a high temperature and to use a more sturdy cup/top combo in order to protect the customers from spillage caused by low quality beverage containers.
     
  14. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    No, she was just dumb. She put HOT coffee between her legs. Normal people don't do that nonsense because they know better than to put something HOT next to a sensitive part of their body.

    We cannot save everyone from their own incompetence, nor should companies be held responsible for their customer's stupidity.

    Should McD's made batter tops/cups? sure. But she got the cup and if she thought it was such a crap design should have put it in a cup holder.
     
  15. Wiley

    Wiley New Member

    2,609
    0
    0
    Chainsaw123, If you could even get a lawyer to take the case it would be thrown out. You're going to run up against 'Soverign Immunity'.

    Basicly no matter how stupid, how illegal, how badly they do their job, you can't sue the government, unless there is an exception.
     
  16. Purge

    Purge New Member

    251
    0
    0
    I would think it is possible.

    This woman won a $1.7 million lawsuit against MARTA because the “transit agency had not properly secured its property†and the woman was raped.

    scroll down to "MARTA loses negligent security lawsuit"
     
  17. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,081
    256
    83
    And yet she was not included in Marta's crime statistics.
     
  18. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    I guess it doesn't count if the victim is compensated after the fact.
     
  19. chainsaw123

    chainsaw123 GPDO Supporter

    3,507
    0
    36
    HEY NOW, my "hypotheticle didnt mention anything about RAPE !! Gadzooks !!!!!
     
  20. GAGunOwner

    GAGunOwner Active Member

    To answer the original question I don't think that there'd be a case.