Opinion
Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Frustrated by the lack of political progress on the gun control agenda, the legal wing of the anti-gun movement continues to pursue ever-more radical and confused legal strategies.
In the 1990s, trial lawyers and their allies in government sought to bankrupt the gun industry by holding them accountable for the criminal actions of third parties – a theory that would have overturned hundreds of years of established tort law. After failing to stop campus carry legislation in Texas in 2015, a group of professors filed a suit claiming that the state’s recognition of the Right-to-Carry in the classroom unlawfully infringed on their “First Amendment rights to academic freedom.”
In October 2018, a group of individuals representing minors in Chicago filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division against the state of Illinois and the Department of State Police (ISP). The plaintiffs contended that Chicago’s pervasive violence is causing children, including the plaintiffs, to become psychologically disabled and unable to perform adequately in school. Therefore – the plaintiffs contended – under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Illinois officials are required to enact an itemized list of severe new gun control regulations in order to accommodate these individuals so that they may do better in school and partake in “federally assisted law enforcement programs designed to protect the people of the State.”
On September 30, Bill Clinton-appointed Judge Joan B. Gottschall denied part of the state of Illinois’ motion to dismiss, allowing the case to go forward.
It is difficult to overstate the bizarre nature of the case. As Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul explained in a memorandum of law in support of the state’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs did not even have standing to bring the case. Raoul noted, “Standing is the ‘irreducible constitutional minimum’ required to bring a case in federal court.”
Summarizing standing doctrine, the AG went on to explain,
To have standing, a plaintiff must have sustained (1) an injury in fact that is (2) fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) it must be likely, rather than speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Walking the court through how the standing doctrine should be applied to the facts of the case, Raoul explained that alleged harms did not meet the traceability requirement,
The allegations of this complaint fall well outside the proper boundaries of legitimate standing… the complaint falls far short of alleging injuries fairly traceable to the State, the Governor, and ISP and its Director. The real harm to children is caused by third parties not before the Court, whom no injunction could reach to truly remedy the problem.
Addressing the question of whether the court had the ability to grant the relief sought, the AG pointed out,
The final part of the standing inquiry–that a favorable ruling from the court will likely redress the alleged wrong–is just as impossible to achieve… no injunction from this Court directed at the State, the Governor, or ISP could reasonably be expected to redress an entire state’s crime problem in order to accommodate disabilities resulting from that crime problem.
Beyond the obvious lack of standing, the plaintiffs’ theory is a wild abuse of the ADA. As Raoul noted, the ADA is there to ensure that reasonable accommodations are made so that persons with disabilities are not excluded from the use of public programs or services. An example of such accommodations might be a wheelchair ramp at a polling place, or a handicap stall in a bathroom at a public school.
The plaintiffs in this case have not been excluded from school or the general law enforcement functions of the state. Making this point clear to the court, Raoul explained,
The decisions by a law enforcement agency, like ISP, regarding how to allocate its resources to protect public safety–e.g., to what extent it should address drug interdiction, domestic violence, Internet fraud, or gun violence–are not “programs, activities, or services” which a “qualified individual with a disability” would be “excluded from” or “denied the benefits of.”… There is no claim the public schools are denying the plaintiffs any services or discriminating against them in any way, and certainly not at the behest of the state defendants…. The problem of gun violence in Chicago is pervasive and cannot be attributed to any action or inaction of the state defendants taken “by reason of” someone’s disability.
The abandonment of long-established standing doctrine and failure to reign in a wildly expansive interpretation of a federal statute never intended to encompass firearms policy will prompt some gun owners to question whether the politically charged nature of the firearms issue played a role in the decision not to dismiss the case outright. Toleration for this sort of legal creativity will only embolden gun control activists to test increasingly inventive theories that weaponize disparate statutes and questionable plaintiffs against law-abiding gun owners.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
Basically plaintive is trying to establish that Nothing could possibly be their fault. That them being stupid, lazy, jackasses was some body else’s fault. They personally have not personal responsibilities for their personal life chooses. Everyone simply needs to understand that they have to be fore given for their stupidity.
That just about sums it up?
I agree – I became a GOA Lifer 15 years ago! Just this year, I joined FPC too, seeing as they are also the sharp end of the spear. All of these groups doing the hard work and getting results need our support. Screw NRA, they’ve been selling us down the river for almost 100 years!!
That’s why I told NRA to take my Life Membership & stick it up their poop chute over 10 years ago, that I didnt want to be a member of their fudd club. Wayne LaPierre should just admit he’s on Bloomberg’s payroll!!! (He was, after all, a Demorat operative years ago, and probably still is).
I’m savvy enough biblically enough to know that practically all the prophecies have been fulfilled save for Revelation 13 onward to the return of Christ. Also, when couting prophetic time, one must use the day-year principle mentioned in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. Prophetic time ended in 1844, that is when the time of the end (the judgment hour) began. Soon the judgment shall pass from the dead to the living, and everyone will have to choose the Seal of God or the Mark of the Beast. The beast power has appointed a false day of worship, and will command… Read more »
If you really want to know more, email me. Minuteman 1969 @ outlook . com
Yes, USA, the vote system is a weapon for the radical Left, and they get paid by the likes of Soros, Bloomberg, Rothschild and many others to be full-time trolls, disruptors, and harassers of REAL Americans and patriots, against whom they have been conditioned to harbor blinding rage and hate! Honestly, I must say if God permits this country to have a civil war 2.0 then may the patriots completely wipe these demon-possessed traitors and radicals from this continent!!
“Summarizing standing doctrine, the AG went on to explain, To have standing, a plaintiff must have sustained (1) an injury in fact that is (2) fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) it must be likely, rather than speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” This AG had it wrong. Probably on purpose. Here’s the actual “Standing” requirements from Cornell Law. If you want to research further; go to Cornell Law, Wex, search “Standing.” They reference… Read more »
Tonight I will pray to God. I will beg his forgiveness for trespassing against others.
I had no intention to do so, but when they attacked me because I was a stranger to them,
I tried to defend myself.
On my knees I will beg that Jesus never visit Ammoland.
There are many here just waiting to crucify someone.
Why wait for tonight? How do you know that he has not already been here or visits his friends here regularly? Wait … are you talking about the Son of Man or your Mexican neighbor?
@considerthis, And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy an AR15.