For the protection of all?

Is it probable,that a new style of legal organization is needed.

It’s only purpose is to defend 2a rights,to advance lawsuits against improper weapons accusations and actions of politicians against the 2a and weapons from a federal level.

To advance lawsuits federally where states are called to account for violating without due lawful process their own constitutions ( to the extent it is seditious to the Federal constitution).

To advance lawsuits where politicians are held liable for law violations,if they are violating existing law or promoting sedition or subversion of the government through political stance or posturing, while not using the constitutional (congressional platforms )available in law.

To advance the facts of free society responsibility and protections afforded by the Constitution and to define(via suit) a series of governmental breaches of citizen rights.

To seek law change or jail time for politicians that willfully advance known falsities in regards to weapons ownership,protections.

What says the community.?

I noted with interest a discussion with mkby recently, where we acknowledge no duty to protect( the govt),we also noted with interest the Gov of NM( per the hill) advancing the gun control argument based upon the govt duty to protect.

While possibly a small point,it is a large point in the understanding of the population,and the latitude used to advance gun control.

We also note with sad understanding the louder with Crowder video posted ,where people with zero understanding of Guns,decides the fate of others (video posted in the community here)

Is it time for the manufacturers and others to support a new lawsuit driven entity to mold the argument in terms of the Constitution.?

What say you?



Although, they kind of exists in Constintunal Attorneys.

But do see what you’re saying …Finding one willing to sake such responsibilities [if] any would be insane…

Let’s ask no other than our good pal, @MikeBKY


Some things to think about…I have been thinking there should be some campaign contribution reform to prevent the Doombergs of the world from buying elections

1 Like

Sorry it has taken me so long to chime in, but, it will not happen. Legislators have immunity as lawmakers. You cannot prosecute a legislator for doing the job that they believe is in the best interest of their constituents. And you also have to consider that it takes a majority of a legislative body to pass a law.
You cannot sue or prosecute a legislator for them voting their conscience, even if it violates another law.
When legislators pass illegal or unconstitutional laws, the law can be challenged in court.

As far as the second amendment goes, as I have said before, while I agree that “shall not be infringed” is pretty clear, 2A jurisprudence is in its infancy. Compared to freedom of speech/expression jurisprudence, which has been developing since the 1960s, 2A is barely 10 years old, and all we have so far is that it the right to bear arms is a fundamental right and applies to possession of weapons in your home for self defense.

With respect to violations of due process, again while I am not in favor of red flag laws, as long as a law requires a finding of probable cause for search or seizure, it does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

1 Like