question on the myriad of lawsuits

[Racer X]

why do the defendants keep using the "but people are dying" as an excuse for bans when it is not legally relevant, and thus in no way legal justification? I have been reading the actual court documents, and in Washington, Illinois and California, they are still using this post Heller obviously, but post Bruen as well.

I urge you all to read the court documents that pertain to your state or relevant District Court of Appeals. Very illuminating.

moderators, not sure where this would go. In no way meant to violate the TOS.

 

[moosedog]

It is part of our rapidly changing society and media blitz of double standards of the law, pushed to become acceptable, but only for one side of the spectrum.

 

[Alk8944]

It is just like the news media and their collective anti-gun bias and reporting. How many times have you heard or read that a victim was "Killed by an AK-47, or Handgun, etc? No gun has ever killed anyone, the gun was used, illegally or otherwise, by a PERSON to do whatever act, deliberate or not, which resulted in the death!

Just like the media, the persons drafting this sort of legislation, or filing lawsuits, will use whatever inflammatory terms or expressions that they believe will increase the probability of their anti-gun arguments being believed and accepted by the public or legislators to further their anti-gun agenda, and truth be damned!

 

[Racer X]

I'm talking about state's attorneys deffending their bans. I've read the court documents, and WA,CA and IL all use as LEGAL justification that people are dying. People also die because of due process, Miranda Rights, protections from certain searches and other guaranteed Rights too. Also not legally relevant

 

[JimKeene]

Because when you don't have the law on your side you pound on the table and make noise. I'm a retired trial lawyer. Trust me on that tactic.

 

[Rustyt1953]

"But, it's for the children."

 

[Doug M.]

First off, they want to claim that it is legally relevant, when it is not. Ferguson (here in WA) is not dumb, but for my money he is sleazy. They make that argument hoping it will have traction at the appellate level, and because it is the only argument they have. It is all based on emotion.

Suicide simply is not a relevant discussion point, and homicides with rifles are much less common than those committed with personal weapons (hands and feet.) They also do not consider self-defense to be an important issue, and the reality is that for most self-defenses uses, an AR is a much better choice than a shotgun. It is ample ballistically, less likely to penetrate a typical residential wall than pistol service ammo, and a lot easier to manipulate than a shotgun, especially for older or smaller shooters. After my bypass, I had some unpleasantness shooting a .38 and a 9mm; I have not yet gotten the 12 gauge out of the safe. The idea of shooting 000 or slugs out of that thing has lost its appeal.

 

[NYlakesider]

I see on OP-EDs or MSN people often that you do not need certain firearms or ammo to go hunting.

Like lots of other subjects out there many people are very uninformed on what is actually law. The 2ed amendment had nothing to do with hunting!-

 

[stansdds]

It plays on people's emotions, plain and simple.

 

[SMSgt]

Got news for them . . . everyone dies regardless.