EvMick@aol.com wrote:
> Regarding guns.....
>
> Why shouldn't the lawmakers who passed the "safe storage laws...or the gun
> free school zone law...be held responsible?....cigarette manufactures are
> held responsible for what OTHER PEOPLE DO...of their own free will.
>
> Bar owners are held responsible for what OTHE PEOPLE DO of their own free
> will.
>
> Why shouldn't legislators be held responsible for the unintended
> consequences of what they FORCE PEOPLE to do?
Excellent question. However, considering that the damage of harmful legislation is
not directed intentionally at any individual, then normal common law practices
would not apply, although class action mandamus lawsuits would be possible, and
such are currently being pursued at this moment against Janet Reno, Louis Freeh,
and the rest for illegal use of NICS gun purchase queries. Violators of mandamus
court orders can be held personally liable for their refusal to obey mandamus
orders. The difficulty is that such orders can only be issued against individual
bureaucrats or politicians, and not against anyone who may hold their office after
them, although they can be issued against whole departments, etc, which may solve
that problem. Furthermore, you may also pursue legal action against politicians as
crimes against humanity if they violate the UN Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, however the right to keep and bear arms has not been elucidated in it, only
the right to defend oneself (not exactly the same thing).
One concept that strikes my fancy is out of H Beam Piper's _Lone Star Planet_,
where citizens had the right to kill a politician if they could prove that he/she
'needed killing' because of the politicians disregard for the rights of their
fellow man.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:44 MDT