I grew up thinking smoking was an individual choice and responsiblity, so the tobacco companies were above responsibility.
I grew up thinking the safe use of guns were a personal responsibiliy.
I grew up thinking what you ate was a personal responsibility.
The socialists activists and socialists embedded in the judicial system have talked stupid juries into thinking otherwise.
If you want to undo the gains the socialists have made in the judical process you have to fight them on that battleground. Small numbners of these socialists have managed to sieze the process. You can vote all you want for the NRA but if you ignor the means the socialists are taking over, you are doomed.
I believe he was speaking of those who *pass* unconstitutional gun control laws. Unfortunately, at least under the federal Constitution, and those state constitutions I'm aware of, you can't sue a legislator either for actions taken on the floor of the legislature.
And you can't sue the gov't for unconstitutional laws. The only things you can do is vote, volunteer on behalf of 2nd Amendment organizations and politicians who believe in the RKBA as well as donate money accordingly.
You most certainly can "sue" the government for unconstitutional laws, at least under some conditions. That what was done by the EFF some years ago in connection with the internet decency law (approximate title) and it's also just what the Silveira case is about with regards to the CA AW ban. You're not really sueing, you are asking for an injunction to prevent enforcement of the law and you can only do it if you can show a potential deprivation of rights, or potential arrest. Many times, most of the time with second amendment and tax cases, the courts won't allow it and insist that you break the law and take your chances, but not always. It's what make the Silveira case somewhat unique, non of the petioners are criminals, nor have they been charged with any crime.