Politicians liable?

[Sam1]

Asking this in all seriousness because I do not know and am interested. - Throwing all kinds of hypotheticals out there:

 

Say that politicians in Texas implement a pistol ban (everything under the sun). Then, Larry a citizen in Texas that used to have a carry permit and carry on a regular basis for self-defense, can no longer carry.  One day coming home from work, he is carjacked by armed criminals and nearly beat to death before they stole his car and left him for dead on the side of the road.

 

Could Larry come back with legal recourse against those politicians that implemented the ban? Whether it be because of the 2nd amendment, or any other reason they could think of due to them essentially disarming him.

 

Could this be done at any level? Common sense says that if they were the reason he was not able to defend himself, then they could also be held accountable for his injuries. - But I also don't understand the legal aspect of something like this. Any explanations would be greatly appreciated

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They should be, but probably are not.

[Pain103]

  I'm sure they can't be sued for passing a law. Probably would fall under qualified immunity or something similar.

[BrasilNuts]

Politicians aren't held liable for anything else, I don't see why this would be any different.

[runco]

Isn't called sovereignty immunity or something.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It would be kind of difficult to hold a particular legislative body liable for anything, since they do often change

frequently. The legitimacy of the law is about it.

[Sam1]

It would be kind of difficult to hold a particular legislative body liable for anything, since they do often change

frequently. The legitimacy of the law is about it.

 

The confusion I'm having, is that there is documentation around that discusses people suing cops and gov. employees for constitutional torts, but half of them are written in some strange language that normal people can't understand like this one: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol38_2/park.pdf and I'm not sure that would actually pertain to lawmakers.

 

Only documentation I could find (and understand) was a bunch of cops being sued for violation of the 4th amendment 

[gregintenn]

Why the SOBs have never taken responsibility for their actions; what makes you think they's suddenly start?

[Pain103]

 I believe you are talking about a civil rights lawsuit typically brought under the 1983 act. It is actually coded as 42 USC § 1983. Apparantley under section 8.2.A.4 there is Legislative Immunity. This applies from the federal level all the way down to the local level and has been upheld by the SCOTUS. So I believe that provides them with total immunity.

[Sam1]

Am I reading this wrong:

 

 

 

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

 

Cause it says that they are liable to the party injured. - I'm sure there's more to this one somewhere cause it's not complicated enough

Edited December 26, 2012 by Sam1

[Pain103]

You need to read the entire law and the immunity sections. Just like any other law you have to read it in the entirety to ensure there isn't a section to provides exemption or limitations to other parts.

[daddyo]

As it relates to the massacre at Newtown, I hold every legislator accountable who voted in favor of the Gun Free School Zones Act, and especially Bill Clinton, who signed it into law.

 

They have the blood of those children and teachers on their hands. Every one of them should go to prison for being an accessory to murder.

[midtennchip]

Am I reading this wrong:
 
 
 

 
Cause it says that they are liable to the party injured. - I'm sure there's more to this one somewhere cause it's not complicated enough

Sam, yes, essentially you are reading it incorrectly. It says "color of law," rather than "by law." It the legislature passes a law, they ar not acting directly against anyone. What you are reading is where someone takes direct action to deprive another of protections afforded by law, but that that action under "color of law."

With respect to the actual passage of a law, legislators, as well as judges, DAs, etc. are protected when acting in official capacity.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm glad we have some lawyers around here. :D

[Sam1]

Thanks 6.8 & Chip.