Is it a valid tactic for gun owners to start laying about with 42USC1983 lawsuits for deprivation of civil rights?

Heller establisheded that keeping and bearing arms is an individual civil right;
McDonald applied that to the states;

According to Miller, any state that has a AWB is infringing on our rights (Milita/Military weapon is protected by 2A)
Any state that prohibits both concealed and open carry should be vulnerable (Maryland just got smacked in Federal Court for that)

42 U.S.C. § 1983 now reads:[3]

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.

Second Amendment Foundation and Comm2A www.comm2a.org (sometimes they work together) have very successfully won 1983 cases post-Heller. They are very careful what cases they take and that is how they fund the next case and the next case, etc.

SAF:

Both Heller and MacDonald (Chicago case) were 1983 cases in the sense that after the major issues were ruled for our side, the courts ruled that 1983 did apply and assessed damages/legal fees against the defendants.

Check out these cases as they are similarly being done: http://www.comm2a.org/comm2a-projects. Fletcher v. Haas also ruled that defendants had to pay damages/legal fees per 1983.

1983 is NOT the main issue of these cases, just a handy way to pay for them and deliver an expensive lesson against gov't.

Disclaimer: Some of the principals in Comm2A are friends of mine, so I stay in close contact wrt what they are doing (only the public info).

Read the Heller case....Scalia changed the Miller reasoning, one that was objective in nature, to one that is completely subjective. He came up with " dangerous and unusual " and " in common use " as deciding factors in determining what weapons are not protected under the 2nd Amendment....IE,...No machine guns. He was posturing when he suggested that rocket launchers may be protected...That's an obvious truth as he mentioned short barreled shotguns as not being protected when writing the opinion for the Heller case.

Heller v DC

"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as SHORT-BARRELED SHOTGUNS. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right."

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

IIRC I saw a photo of a check from the City of Chicago made payable to the SAF for about $50K, signed by Rahm Emanuel.