Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« New 4473 | Main | List of Supreme Court 2A cases awaiting cert »

Interesting Suit over Seattle Protests/Riot/Takeover

Posted by David Hardy · 18 October 2020 08:49 AM

Story here. A number of Seattle businesses sued the city over its allowing the blackshirts to take over a part of downtown for a month, and in fact providing city aid (city-provided barriers to block vehicular traffic, etc.) to the efforts. I'd expect the city to plead the doctrine that a government has no legally-enforcable duty to protect its citizens (so much for the idea that police will be there to protect you).

The federal judge dismissed the businesses' equal protection claim, but allowed their other three to proceed, and they are interesting, someone put serious thought into this:

"The plaintiffs' three other claims allege that by allowing CHOP to operate for a month before police eventually shut it down, the city unlawfully took their private property for public use with no compensation, restricted their ability to fully use their property to conduct business and failed to protect the businesses from a danger of the city's own making."

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | October 18, 2020 4:14 PM | Reply

Links to filings once done would be great!

Dave D. | October 19, 2020 7:55 AM | Reply

...Once more the Federal courts have a chance to crush the Commies with liability. And make the Officials who connived with this criminal enterprise liable too. Joint and severable. Let the Jury decide how much punitive damages the Major owes to the City she sold out. Make her pay for not faithfully executing the Oath she took.

Michael Murray | October 19, 2020 8:32 AM | Reply

I can't imagine the reasons (excuses!) for dismissing the equal protection claim. One side of the street receive one response while the other side receives another one, and the government orders it. They not only fail in their duty, they actively aid an insurrection. This was not just an individual (as in Warren vs DC), it is a whole section of the city. If that still counts as an individual, at what point does it become "society" at risk?

Leave a comment