A firearms proposal

#1
lawgator1

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
72,745
Likes
42,922
#1
The discussion in my other thread has me mulling this issue on how we increase the odds that guns legally sold stay in the hands of the original owner, or someone down the line who is legally authorized to have it.

I see something of an analogy to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Under that theory, when you own a car, if you loan it to someone and they have an accident, you are liable. So, if you lend your car to your child and he crashes into someone, you can also be sued. The theory is that the other person should not bear the burden of lack of accountability if the car is driven negligently. Also, it encourages you to lend it out wisely.

How about the same thing with guns? If you buy a gun and it is sold or stolen and then used to commit a crime or injure or kill someone, then the victim can name you as a defendant.

This works in the classic negligence sense because your purchase and ownership of the gun creates the zone of risk that it will be stolen and then used in furtherance of another crime.

This would also give law-abiding citizens a significant incentive to be very careful with the gun and safeguard it from being stolen.
 
#2
#2
Ridiculous. There are already laws here at least that require a stolen firearm to be reported. You are trying to find a back door to blaming someone other than the criminal.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#3
#3
lending someone your car = someone stealing your gun?

can someone be found negligent if a person steals their car (that was properly secured) and runs over a person? Can you be found negligent if you sell a car and the new owner runs over a person?
 
#4
#4
not a fan of that. i have my pistols in a safe, but i have a shotgun under my bed. now the ammo is locked up but if someone broke into my house and stole the shotgun and shot someone with it, i should be liable? ****. I did nothing wrong. the gun was in my house(which the house was locked). there's not going to be a perfect solution, because nothing is perfect.
 
#5
#5
Vol Mania 21 said:
not a fan of that. i have my pistols in a safe, but i have a shotgun under my bed. now the ammo is locked up but if someone broke into my house and stole the shotgun and shot someone with it, i should be liable? ****. I did nothing wrong. the gun was in my house(which the house was locked). there's not going to be a perfect solution, because nothing is perfect.
Click to expand...

I guess you're liable for tempting the poor, blameless criminal who broke in and stole it
 
#6
#6
First off you shouldn't build wealth like that Mania, while so many people have nothing.
 
#7
#7
JTrainDavis said:
Ridiculous. There are already laws here at least that require a stolen firearm to be reported. You are trying to find a back door to blaming someone other than the criminal.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


I'm trying to make people be careful with the location and accessibility of their guns. Why should the widow of a law enforcement officer, or the son of a person shot and killed in a robbery, have no recourse if someone was negligent in the storage of their gun such that it was stolen and then used in a completely predictable way.
 
#8
#8
what happens if the legal owner reports his gun as stolen and receives a police report, is he or she still liable if the gun is used in a criminal act?

What if the gun is sold through legal means, including a background check and waiting period. Is he or she still liable?

What happens if your car is stolen and then used to mow down the Sisters of Mercy? Is the car owner on the hook unless they can prove it was stolen?
 
#11
#11
utvolpj said:
lending someone your car = someone stealing your gun?

can someone be found negligent if a person steals their car (that was properly secured) and runs over a person? Can you be found negligent if you sell a car and the new owner runs over a person?
Click to expand...


Well, there are two ways to do it. You could have it be strict liability, i.e. that you are responsible for harm done by your gun, regardless of who does the harming. Or, you could make it a negligence standard, i.e. that the injured person (or their surviving spouse or child) has to prove that your gun was stolen because you stored it negligently.
 
#12
#12
lawgator1 said:
I'm trying to make people be careful with the location and accessibility of their guns. Why should the widow of a law enforcement officer, or the son of a person shot and killed in a robbery, have no recourse if someone was negligent in the storage of their gun such that it was stolen and then used in a completely predictable way.
Click to expand...

how is someone negligent when the criminal had to break the law to obtain my possessions? Quit blaming the people for the actions of criminals

this is worse than the poster who said AR's should be banned because they're black and scary looking
 
#13
#13
MG1968 said:
what happens if the legal owner reports his gun as stolen and receives a police report, is he or she still liable if the gun is used in a criminal act?

What if the gun is sold through legal means, including a background check and waiting period. Is he or she still liable?

What happens if your car is stolen and then used to mow down the Sisters of Mercy? Is the car owner on the hook unless they can prove it was stolen?
Click to expand...


Like I said, a moment ago in another post, you could have it be automatic, or that the injured person shows you stored it in a manner where it was reasonably possible that it would be stolen.
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
I'm trying to make people be careful with the location and accessibility of their guns. Why should the widow of a law enforcement officer, or the son of a person shot and killed in a robbery, have no recourse if someone was negligent in the storage of their gun such that it was stolen and then used in a completely predictable way.
Click to expand...

it sounds like you would force a battered woman back home with her husband.

why should someone who was the victim of a crime (stolen gun) be then held accountable for the actions of another?
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
I'm trying to make people be careful with the location and accessibility of their guns. Why should the widow of a law enforcement officer, or the son of a person shot and killed in a robbery, have no recourse if someone was negligent in the storage of their gun such that it was stolen and then used in a completely predictable way.
Click to expand...

They do have rocourse. The person that pulled the trigger will pay. This world isn't perfect, you act like if we put every thing in a box no one will get hurt. People die and get killed. That is how it works. It sucks but you can't change it. If you outlaw guns, you will only see more voilent gun crimes.
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
Well, there are two ways to do it. You could have it be strict liability, i.e. that you are responsible for harm done by your gun, regardless of who does the harming. Or, you could make it a negligence standard, i.e. that the injured person (or their surviving spouse or child) has to prove that your gun was stolen because you stored it negligently.
Click to expand...

and yet you still never tied it to your dumb car analogy. Shocking

so once you own a gun it's on you for the rest of your life? Absolutely the dumbest idea I've heard on gun control yet

and define "stored negligently." It's in my locked house that should be good enough. If some useless piece of trash decides to break in and steal it he assumes the responsibility. Or better yet hold the store that sold it to me liable since they should have known I would just allow it to be stolen

What about knives? What if a guy steals one from my house and kills a person?
 
#19
#19
utvolpj said:
how is someone negligent when the criminal had to break the law to obtain my possessions? Quit blaming the people for the actions of criminals

this is worse than the poster who said AR's should be banned because they're black and scary looking
Click to expand...


Well, there's a significant difference. I think anyone going into a gun store nowadays is well aware of the strong possibility that the gun will be stolen, whether it be out of a house or out of a car. Knowing that, should you hesitate before buying it until you are sure that you have a means to secure it so that it is not stolen and then used in a crime.

Again, this is now so frequent that it cannot seriously be argued that someone would say "I had no idea that could happen."

So, if you buy the gun anyway, knowing that risk, and if that risk comes home to roost, why not hold the buyer accountable for the injuries that are certainly possible, if not then likely?
 
#23
#23
lawgator1 said:
Well, there's a significant difference. I think anyone going into a gun store nowadays is well aware of the strong possibility that the gun will be stolen, whether it be out of a house or out of a car. Knowing that, should you hesitate before buying it until you are sure that you have a means to secure it so that it is not stolen and then used in a crime.

Again, this is now so frequent that it cannot seriously be argued that someone would say "I had no idea that could happen."

So, if you buy the gun anyway, knowing that risk, and if that risk comes home to roost, why not hold the buyer accountable for the injuries that are certainly possible, if not then likely?
Click to expand...

you have stats on this?
 
#24
#24
lawgator1 said:
Well, there's a significant difference. I think anyone going into a gun store nowadays is well aware of the strong possibility that the gun will be stolen, whether it be out of a house or out of a car. Knowing that, should you hesitate before buying it until you are sure that you have a means to secure it so that it is not stolen and then used in a crime.

Again, this is now so frequent that it cannot seriously be argued that someone would say "I had no idea that could happen."

So, if you buy the gun anyway, knowing that risk, and if that risk comes home to roost, why not hold the buyer accountable for the injuries that are certainly possible, if not then likely?
Click to expand...

again the blame is on the lawful owner instead of the criminal. He should know it's likely to be stolen? :eek:lol:

JTrainDavis said:
Sometimes I think he's trying to be the Billy C of the politics forum.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

he's not even close to that level
 
#25
#25
All you naysayers:

If your parent or spouse or child was in a convenience store buying gas and some thug comes in and paralyzes them with a gunshot, and then you learn that the gun was stolen out of someone else's car and was in plain view for the auto burglar, would you not feel that the original owner is an idiot and that your family member, injured through no fault of their own, ought to be able to seek compensation for the original owner's negligence?

Or how about if the original owner you learned had pawned the gun somewhere? And then it was bought by the thug and then used. Wouldn't you feel that someone pawning a gun ought to know that it is a dangerous thing to do?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top