Keep and Bear Arms Home Page
This article was printed from
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit

This news item was printed from Keep And Bear Arms.
For more 2nd Amendment Information visit Articles at:


Print This Page
Print This Page

Second Amendment Legal Project

by Perry Thompson, Attorney
and collaborating patriotic partners

Use Your Webmaster Skills
to Fight Gun Violence!!!

National gun violence prevention organization, chaired by Sarah Brady, is seeking a Litigation Website Administrator to be responsible for establishing and maintaining a secure on-line litigation document repository and updating and managing a public website, in conjunction with outside vendors and internal staff.

The above is part of an advertisement running in the current issue of The Legal Times, a legal profession newspaper.  I would not want to help their search by telling you exactly who is running the advertisement, but I will tell you that they are the same people currently threatening to sue our friends at 

So what does a help wanted advertisement placed by an anti-freedom group have to do with  Well, an educated guess as to the website that this person will be maintaining is  This is the home of the CPHV’s Legal Action Project.  The LAP is helping coordinate the various lawsuits intended to destroy the firearms manufacturing industry, helping to defend unconstitutional gun laws, and disseminating lies to the legal community about the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. is not willing to let this attempt to abuse the courts in an effort to destroy our freedoms go unanswered.  Pro-freedom lawyers, in coordination with are proud to announce the launch of the Second Amendment Legal Project.   Soon to be located at, the Project’s web site will feature:

  • Information on the history and meaning of the Second Amendment as well as state Constitutional provisions relating to the right to keep and bear arms;
  • Updates on current litigation that impacts the right to keep and bear arms;
  • Legal research tools and articles about the functioning of the legal system; and
  • A directory of pro-gun lawyers.

The site will also include a section accessible only by lawyers and others with a bona fide professional interest in firearms litigation.  This section will include:

  • A discussion forum;
  • Legal tools for pro-gun lawyers, including a depository of legal briefs; and
  • Coordination for nationwide legal efforts to restore the Second Amendment.

A key feature of the site will be the development of litigation strategies to restore rights and seek damages against those who attempt to destroy rights.  Some of the litigation strategies considered so far include:

  • Civil rights case against governments with discretionary CCW laws.  There is a good chance that it can be shown that permits are granted to political contributors, the wealthy elite, etc.  This appears to violate procedural due process. Jim March has been doing exemplary work exposing such elitist practices in California, and surely there are others engaging in proactive solutions to similar behavior elsewhere. It is time to come together effectively and launch an offensive, and it is time to creatively empower individuals in the various states affected by such horrendous cronyism to act on their own behalves within the legal system.

  • A RICO suit against the same defendants.  If it can be shown that the recipients of the permits are essentially bribing the officials for permits, it would be possible to show a pattern racketeering activity and establish a RICO claim.

  • Civil rights suit against the State of Michigan (probably a few other states too).  The criminal statute prohibiting carrying of concealed weapons in Michigan was passed after a black doctor used a handgun to defend his family from a lynch mob that didn’t like his family moving into their neighborhood.  This law makes no explicit reference to race but in its early implementation, due to the discretionary granting system, permits were granted freely to whites and never to blacks.  I am convinced that a racial disparity would be found to still exist today.  In addition to violating the 14th Amendment, this seems to be a “vestige of slavery” under the 13th Amendment and a state law that continues a vestige of slavery is unconstitutional.

  • Class action defamation suit against the former president of S&W for his outrageous comments about gun owners.  S&W would also be an appropriate named defendant under the doctrine of respondiat superior because his statements were made during the course of his duties at S&W.

  • Fraud against any city that is suing gun manufacturers and/or holding gun buy back programs.  By suing manufacturers the city admits that getting guns off the street is a financial gain to it.  All we have to show is a lie by the city in promoting the buy back.  A lie for financial gain is fraud.  The plaintiff would need to be a person who was defrauded.  That would most likely mean someone who turned in a gun at a buy back for much less than it was worth, without knowing at the time that the city had lied in promoting the event.

  • Suit by gun owners’ or gun manufacturers’ groups against Rosie O’Donnell and other celebrities that demonize guns and gun owners much like the suit in which cattle ranchers sued Oprah. The fact that Rosie is being sued as we speak by PETA is most interesting timing. How many other celebrities are viciously labeling you as a gun owner in ways that demand legal recourse? We see quite a few, they have money we can put to use for freedom, and they need to be put in check for their hateful and bigoted speech against We The People.

  • Negligence / Gross Negligence against journalists, teachers, doctors, ministers, and anti-gun propaganda groups for disseminating bad information regarding not owning guns, using trigger locks, or storing unloaded in a vault with the knowledge that people will act on it to their detriment.  The plaintiff would have to be someone who was injured after following such advice. With a combined effort, as we have seen in the anti-rights groups' collaborations, we can identify potential plaintiffs and empower them with productive lawsuits that get results.

  • Breach of contract against mayors, police chiefs, Reno, and other law enforcement/politicians for statements that indicate that people do not need to own guns for self defense because that is job of the police.  Courts have repeatedly ruled that in general the police do not have a duty to protect any individual citizen.  However, the same cases indicate that it is also possible for the police to assume such a duty.  It may be possible to argue that they assume such a duty by making statements advising people not to prepare to defend themselves because the police will protect them. How many people have been hurt by these lies? It is time to hold Lying Public Officials personally and professionally responsible for their misstatements of fact. We can, we should, and we shall. A good case of merit is the California event where the parents kept their guns locked up because of a "law" telling them they had to, resulting in their children being killed by a madman with a pitchfork. The case, and many others of similar horrible natures, are ripe for making our voices heard in the courtrooms. The time has come.

  • Products liability against makers of trigger locks and vaults.  They make dangerous products by rendering a gun unavailable for self-defense.  Trigger locks also create a false sense of security because guns can often be fired accidentally with the lock installed.

  • Negligence against a manufacturer of a smart gun whose owner died because the gun didn’t work.  Obviously this hasn’t happened yet but we should be ready, because of a recently passed law it will happen soon in Maryland. The very first case where it happens (and it will), we need to pounce on the manufacturer and all public officials who forced this untested "law" on an unsuspecting population of trusting citizens.

  • Directly attacking gun control laws using Supreme Court precedent that states, "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right." Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942).  See also, Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944)

The Second Amendment Legal Project is actively seeking lawyers willing to further develop these ideas into practical litigation strategies, as well as additional litigation ideas.  We will make every effort to assist people who are potential plaintiffs in any of the above lawsuits in locating a lawyer who is licensed in their state to pursue the claim.

Please make contact by expressing your interest in participating in this project -- as either an attorney or a concerned citizen -- by emailing me at: As you can imagine, this project is quite sizable, and we ask for patience as we develop our strategies based on the amount of assistance we receive from the pro gun legal community as well as the citizenry at large.

The law is only on our side to the extent that we use it effectively to make our cases in courtrooms. If we sit idle while anti-rights people trample our rights, our manufacturers, our dealers and our brethren, what good can come of such inaction? We choose to be proactive. The time is at hand. What say you?