Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule10b5
Kind of a broad statement to make, given that you don't know my current practice area, do ya? (Hint: think plaintiff-side in Enron). I've never sued anyone who didn't have it coming -- the "scumbag" language was a bit of a joke on my part.
I appreciate your sentiments and position, and it's a free country. If you want to carry a gun with minimal take-up installed by or at the direction of the end-user, go for it. 
I'm just telling you (i) that I know what's admissible and what isn't; and (ii) how a talented lawyer could easily use your decision to carry such a weapon against you.
I think I've pretty much explained why you're not going to find a lot of case law on the issue -- and I'm not going to spend the $ on Lexis to prove it to you. If the opinion of a plaintiff's lawyer isn't enough to change your mind, when you've admitted that you have no personal basis for your opinion (and presumably you've never tried a civil case) other than the absence of published case law, I can't see how I can convince you.
So all I can do is wish you the best of luck, and tell you to enjoy your gun.
Cheers. |
That's why I said without knowing the details of what you actually do and my comments were based on if you would represent anyone no matter what with their lawsuit "because you have to eat." If I was a lawyer, representing people who are guilty and trying to get them out of what they've done or lesson their sentences is the top reason why I'd never want to be a public defender or defend someone who is guilty. I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor going after someone who is innocent either...our justice/legal system is a mess and I'm glad I'm not a part of it in any way.
I appreciate where you're coming from, but at the same time, I find it hard to believe that my aftermarket striker safety lever would be sole item responsible for my damnation in court as long as everything else is in the clear. I find it hard to believe because otherwise, we'd see a flourishing area of the news/press/media covering winning lawsuits filled by "victims" of gun owners.
With a crime being stopped by a firearm every 13 seconds on average, you'd think of the 2.5 million crimes stopped by firearms every year, we'd see more lawsuits won by the person shot or otherwise deterred by the use of those firearms by the person acting in self defense.
I am very much looking forward to the passing of the Castle Doctrine in PA to alleviate any fear of a civil suit by the criminal or his/her family in the event of a shooting. I'm tired of the way our system works to provide a paycheck for the family of the criminal injured or killed during the commission of a crime.
The majority of self defense shootings that are legit and legal go without charges being filed. We happen to live in a state that isn't run by anti-gun nazis who jump at every opportunity to make an example of someone who uses a firearm in a righteous act of self defense against an assailant. It's not that I don't respect your experience or knowledge, I just can't see how it's that much of an issue when we don't see the lawsuits being won left and right by people who are shot in self defense. If charges were filed based on the gun being modified and we saw more lawsuits won, I'd be concerned. Anyone can file a lawsuit...whether or not it goes through its paces is another story.