Play the gun control reversal game.

posted 3 years ago by Bronski 3 years ago by Bronski +32 / -0

Lawsuits based on 42 USC 1983.

9 comments

9 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (9)

sorted by:

▲ 6 ▼

– almond_activator 6 points 3 years ago +6 / -0

§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

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. Section was formerly classified to section 43 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.

AMENDMENTS

1996—Pub. L. 104–317 inserted before period at end of first sentence ‘‘, 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’’.

1979—Pub. L. 96–170 inserted ‘‘or the District of Columbia’’ after ‘‘Territory’’, and provisions relating to Acts of Congress applicable solely to the District of Columbia.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1979 AMENDMENT

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–170 applicable with respect to any deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws occurring after Dec. 29, 1979, see section 3 of Pub. L. 96–170, set out as a note under section 1343 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Totally unrelated:

§ 1984. Omitted

lul

permalink save report block reply

▲ 3 ▼

– Llamatime 3 points 3 years ago +3 / -0

I'm illiterate. What does this say?

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 7 ▼

– almond_activator 7 points 3 years ago +7 / -0

Every person ~~who~~, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia

Anybody in the USA

[who] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof

who targets a citizen or lawful resident

the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws

and denies them a legal or Constitutional right

shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress

can get fucked in court

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.

unless they're a judge acting during trial

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. Section was formerly classified to section 43 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.

including Congress for making an illegal law to target residents of Washington, D.C.

All together now:

Anybody in the USA who targets a citizen or lawful resident and denies them a legal or Constitutional right can get fucked in court, unless they're a judge acting during a trial, including Congress for making an illegal law to target residents of Washington, D.C.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. I don't want to be a lawyer. Lawyers are, in general, miserable pieces of shite.

Disclaimer2: Negatively-charged Over-sized Igloo: This probably also protects people acting under the orders of a judge during a legal proceeding, such as a bailiff.

Disclaimer3: The Faggots in Government will likely say that the entire infringement is carried out in a judicial capacity and ignore or dismiss any suit under this law.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 1 ▼

– mytummyhurts 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

Well Pat Lahey is apparently a supreme court chief justice now so there is precedent for the legislative branch to assume the duties of the judicial ??