FYI-Restaurant carry passed

[lawgator1]

So because I could steal your pocket full of cash and buy drugs and/or a gun and kill someone, it should be illegal for you to walk around with money in your pocket. Stupid idea I know, but it is utter BS that my rights should be curtailed because the justice system sucks at keeping criminals/dumb asses where they belong. Please tell me you agree??????????????

That's an idiotic comparison.

And you know it.

I mean REALLY heinously bad.

 

[VolDad]

So because some F,ing idiot might steal my gun and shoot smoeone, I should not be able to carry one? Please tell me you are not an attorney making this BS argument!!!!

... Yes, and yes.

Let’s pretend that a law was passed making it illegal to own/carry guns:

1) Only criminals would own and carry guns since law abiding citizens would follow the law and criminals have no propensity to do the same.

2) Guns would flood the borders much the same way as drugs do now and liquor did during the prohibition

What am I missing LG; why would banning guns be good?

 

[kptvol]

That's an idiotic comparison.

And you know it.

I mean REALLY heinously bad.

It's idiotic to think that because something could be stolen and could also be used for harm that it should be outlawed.

 

[lawgator1]

I did not mean to say that all guns should be banned because of the possibility that they might be stolen. But, I absolutely do think that the frequency with which they are stolen and then used to kill or injure someone is a factor that should go into how readily accessible they are and how they are regulated.

Florida law allows a person to have a weapon in their car as long as it is "securely encased," but the definition of that is so lax that basically having it in a zipped bag is good enough. As car burglars rifle through the console, they find it, can tell what it is, and take it. I have a real problem with that.

A possible solution is to treat a gun as a dangerous instrumentality that deserves a heightened degree of protection from theft such that, if a person has such a weapon in their car, and it is stolen, the person who had it in the car can be held civilly liable if the gun is then used to kill or injure someone. You'd see a lot less people buying such weapons if they didn't have a damn good reason to have one and, if they did buy one, they'd take "securely encased" to heart.

 

[KB5252]

I did not mean to say that all guns should be banned because of the possibility that they might be stolen. But, I absolutely do think that the frequency with which they are stolen and then used to kill or injure someone is a factor that should go into how readily accessible they are and how they are regulated.

Florida law allows a person to have a weapon in their car as long as it is "securely encased," but the definition of that is so lax that basically having it in a zipped bag is good enough. As car burglars rifle through the console, they find it, can tell what it is, and take it. I have a real problem with that.

A possible solution is to treat a gun as a dangerous instrumentality that deserves a heightened degree of protection from theft such that, if a person has such a weapon in their car, and it is stolen, the person who had it in the car can be held civilly liable if the gun is then used to kill or injure someone. You'd see a lot less people buying such weapons if they didn't have a damn good reason to have one and, if they did buy one, they'd take "securely encased" to heart.

By that logic we should most certainly require everyone who owns a car be required to keep their vehicle in a safe when not in use. After all they are stolen much more frequently and are much more likely to inflict harm or death on people than a gun.

I am all for people keeping their weapons safely secured at all times. It seems to me that the safest place to secure a firearm is by having it on your person and not locked in a vehicle or at home, which is where 99.99% of guns are stolen from.

 

[hndog609]

I did not mean to say that all guns should be banned because of the possibility that they might be stolen. But, I absolutely do think that the frequency with which they are stolen and then used to kill or injure someone is a factor that should go into how readily accessible they are and how they are regulated.

Florida law allows a person to have a weapon in their car as long as it is "securely encased," but the definition of that is so lax that basically having it in a zipped bag is good enough. As car burglars rifle through the console, they find it, can tell what it is, and take it. I have a real problem with that.

A possible solution is to treat a gun as a dangerous instrumentality that deserves a heightened degree of protection from theft such that, if a person has such a weapon in their car, and it is stolen, the person who had it in the car can be held civilly liable if the gun is then used to kill or injure someone. You'd see a lot less people buying such weapons if they didn't have a damn good reason to have one and, if they did buy one, they'd take "securely encased" to heart.

Law, while I agree to an extent with your concerns, especially in that "in a better world" kind of way, it's just tough. How secure does something have to be to escape liability and even then how easily can it be established after the fact? "Cased and locked" is a common requirement for transport in many if not most states but even then, bad guy takes the case and cuts the locks and there you go. Sure it might look good on my part that I had the weapons "secured" as best I could but, at best, all I did was make it a little more difficult to immediately deploy those weapons until the bad guys got some bolt cutters.

In truth, I think the intent of most such laws is to make it more difficult for the actual owner to have access, as in "to go armed". If you've got your guns and ammo stored as stated above it's not nearly as accessable in, say, some road rage scenario but in truth it's of very little use in keeping it from actually being stolen from a vehicle and used later by a criminal.

 

[VolDad]

.....

Florida law allows a person to have a weapon in their car as long as it is "securely encased," but the definition of that is so lax that basically having it in a zipped bag is good enough. As car burglars rifle through the console, they find it, can tell what it is, and take it. I have a real problem with that.

.....

I don’t think I understand the logic of keeping a gun in a parked car. Presumably, it you want a gun as protection you would have it on your person. Of course many establishments will not allow you to do that thus the parked car problem. So are you in favor of people having guns on their person thus avoiding the parked car problem?

 

[kptvol]

I used to own a car that had some secure cases. Guess what happened to them? Some thief took a crowbar to them and broke them open. You're either going to have to make three inch thick lead safes standard on cars, or quit whining.

 

[hndog609]

I used to own a car that had some secure cases. Guess what happened to them? Some thief took a crowbar to them and broke them open. You're either going to have to make three inch thick lead safes standard on cars, or quit whining.

I'm sure there are people with an ax to grind who would like to push it toward the same idea as having a pool. Even if somebody is trespassing on your property and drowns you can still find yourself getting sued in court. Admittedly this is a civil issue and not a criminal one but I think the mindset is at least similar.

 

[lawgator1]

By that logic we should most certainly require everyone who owns a car be required to keep their vehicle in a safe when not in use. After all they are stolen much more frequently and are much more likely to inflict harm or death on people than a gun.

I am all for people keeping their weapons safely secured at all times. It seems to me that the safest place to secure a firearm is by having it on your person and not locked in a vehicle or at home, which is where 99.99% of guns are stolen from.

If you lend your car to someone and they have an accident, you can get sued for lending it to them. If you have a gun, and you could reasonably foresee that it would be easily stolen, its not ridiculously different.

 

[kptvol]

If you lend your car to someone and they have an accident, you can get sued for lending it to them. If you have a gun, and you could reasonably foresee that it would be easily stolen, its not ridiculously different.

I think the difference between handing a guy access to something and locking something in your car is pretty freaking big.

 

[hndog609]

If you lend your car to someone and they have an accident, you can get sued for lending it to them. If you have a gun, and you could reasonably foresee that it would be easily stolen, its not ridiculously different.

I don't know Law. If you make that a situation where you loaned your gun that could make sense but I don't much like the "lend" on one hand and "easily stolen" being all that analogous.

I suppose if it could be proven that somebody left a loaded assault rifle sitting in back of a pickup or something you might have something but I'm extremely leery of anything that bestow's liability for a criminal's actions anywhere other than on the criminal.

 

[KB5252]

If you lend your car to someone and they have an accident, you can get sued for lending it to them. If you have a gun, and you could reasonably foresee that it would be easily stolen, its not ridiculously different.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Lend and stolen are two completely different words that make a huge difference when making an argument.

Let me get this straight: would you advocate the law holding the car owner responsible for injuries caused by a thief who stole a car because the windows were down, thus making it easier for them to steal the vehicle? This is a much better comparison than the one you came up with.

 

[droski]

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Lend and stolen are two completely different words that make a huge difference when making an argument.

Let me get this straight: would you advocate the law holding the car owner responsible for injuries caused by a thief who stole a car because the windows were down, thus making it easier for them to steal the vehicle? This is a much better comparison than the one you came up with.

if you lend your gun to someone and they kill someone you absolutely can get procecuted.

 

[rjd970]

if you lend your gun to someone and they kill someone you absolutely can get procecuted.

Really? As an accessory after the fact?

 

[lawgator1]

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Lend and stolen are two completely different words that make a huge difference when making an argument.

Let me get this straight: would you advocate the law holding the car owner responsible for injuries caused by a thief who stole a car because the windows were down, thus making it easier for them to steal the vehicle? This is a much better comparison than the one you came up with.

There's a difference. The purpose of a handgun is to fire a bullet and no one hunts with a 9 mm. The overwhelming purpose of a handgun is to shoot a person.

A car, while misuse can obviously result in accidents and even intentional deaths -- that is not its main purpose.

A law abiding citizen buys a handgun 99 % of the time for one purpose -- and that is to shoot someone. That may not be evil, i.e. they intend to shoot someone in self defense should the situation ever arise. But it cannot seriously be argued that there is any other real purpose to most citizens buying a gun than to shoot someone.

It is therefore quite forseeable that if someone else gets your gun, then their purpose is also to use it to shoot someone.

Put it this way: your wife is walking down the street and she is shot by someone who just stole a legal, but very poorly secured gun from the console of a vehicle that should have been more carefully protected. Should there be a right of action against the owner of the gun and the car from which it was stolen?

if you lend your gun to someone and they kill someone you absolutely can get procecuted.

I am speaking in terms of civil liability, not criminal liability. What I'm saying is that if you think you really need to have a gun and that you are responsible with it and will keep it from making its way into the hands of the criminal element who look to steal and then sell them, if someone is proven to have been shot by the gun you bought and neglignetly secured, should you be subject to suit for that?

 

[KB5252]

if you lend your gun to someone and they kill someone you absolutely can get procecuted.

absolutely. I was arguing that a stolen gun is no different than a stolen car, they are both capable of killing.

 

[droski]

absolutely. I was arguing that a stolen gun is no different than a stolen car, they are both capable of killing.

yup i was agreeing with you.

 

[KB5252]

There's a difference. The purpose of a handgun is to fire a bullet and no one hunts with a 9 mm. The overwhelming purpose of a handgun is to shoot a person.

A car, while misuse can obviously result in accidents and even intentional deaths -- that is not its main purpose.

A law abiding citizen buys a handgun 99 % of the time for one purpose -- and that is to shoot someone. That may not be evil, i.e. they intend to shoot someone in self defense should the situation ever arise. But it cannot seriously be argued that there is any other real purpose to most citizens buying a gun than to shoot someone.

It is therefore quite forseeable that if someone else gets your gun, then their purpose is also to use it to shoot someone.

Put it this way: your wife is walking down the street and she is shot by someone who just stole a legal, but very poorly secured gun from the console of a vehicle that should have been more carefully protected. Should there be a right of action against the owner of the gun and the car from which it was stolen?






I am speaking in terms of civil liability, not criminal liability. What I'm saying is that if you think you really need to have a gun and that you are responsible with it and will keep it from making its way into the hands of the criminal element who look to steal and then sell them, if someone is proven to have been shot by the gun you bought and neglignetly secured, should you be subject to suit for that?

In the end it all comes down to what is reasonable in the way of securing firearms. If you leave your weapon in an unlocked glove box in your vehicle then most certainly that would be what I call negligent. I would argue however that many of the laws directed at firearm security are not for the purpose of trying to keep them out of the hands of criminals so much as they are trying to prohibit or at the very least discourage people from carrying guns altogether for fear of lawsuit or criminal charges.

 

[hndog609]

There's a difference. The purpose of a handgun is to fire a bullet and no one hunts with a 9 mm. The overwhelming purpose of a handgun is to shoot a person.

A car, while misuse can obviously result in accidents and even intentional deaths -- that is not its main purpose.

A law abiding citizen buys a handgun 99 % of the time for one purpose -- and that is to shoot someone. That may not be evil, i.e. they intend to shoot someone in self defense should the situation ever arise. But it cannot seriously be argued that there is any other real purpose to most citizens buying a gun than to shoot someone.

It is therefore quite forseeable that if someone else gets your gun, then their purpose is also to use it to shoot someone.

Put it this way: your wife is walking down the street and she is shot by someone who just stole a legal, but very poorly secured gun from the console of a vehicle that should have been more carefully protected. Should there be a right of action against the owner of the gun and the car from which it was stolen?






I am speaking in terms of civil liability, not criminal liability. What I'm saying is that if you think you really need to have a gun and that you are responsible with it and will keep it from making its way into the hands of the criminal element who look to steal and then sell them, if someone is proven to have been shot by the gun you bought and neglignetly secured, should you be subject to suit for that?

Law, even if I were to accept on a limited basis the logic you apply here would you please address the comments and concerns I make in post #106?

 

[kptvol]

Put it this way: your wife is walking down the street and she is shot by someone who just stole a legal, but very poorly secured gun from the console of a vehicle that should have been more carefully protected. Should there be a right of action against the owner of the gun and the car from which it was stolen?

It wouldn't even cross my mind. I'd bring the hammer down on the shooter.

 

[kptvol]

I am speaking in terms of civil liability, not criminal liability. What I'm saying is that if you think you really need to have a gun and that you are responsible with it and will keep it from making its way into the hands of the criminal element who look to steal and then sell them, if someone is proven to have been shot by the gun you bought and neglignetly secured, should you be subject to suit for that?

I fail to see how you could argue that my hidden handgun, which is stored in a securely locked vehicle, is not secured.

 

[volfanatic74]

There's a difference. The purpose of a handgun is to fire a bullet and no one hunts with a 9 mm. The overwhelming purpose of a handgun is to shoot a person.

A car, while misuse can obviously result in accidents and even intentional deaths -- that is not its main purpose.

A law abiding citizen buys a handgun 99 % of the time for one purpose -- and that is to shoot someone. That may not be evil, i.e. they intend to shoot someone in self defense should the situation ever arise. But it cannot seriously be argued that there is any other real purpose to most citizens buying a gun than to shoot someone.

It is therefore quite forseeable that if someone else gets your gun, then their purpose is also to use it to shoot someone.

Put it this way: your wife is walking down the street and she is shot by someone who just stole a legal, but very poorly secured gun from the console of a vehicle that should have been more carefully protected. Should there be a right of action against the owner of the gun and the car from which it was stolen?






I am speaking in terms of civil liability, not criminal liability. What I'm saying is that if you think you really need to have a gun and that you are responsible with it and will keep it from making its way into the hands of the criminal element who look to steal and then sell them, if someone is proven to have been shot by the gun you bought and neglignetly secured, should you be subject to suit for that?

IMO, NO!! Why should someone who has been violated by the theft of their legally owned property be held responsible when someone steals said property and inflicts damage upon other persons or property? If I steal a police officers handgun then shoot someone, should that police officer face charges? If I break into your home and steal a knife so I can kill someone, can you face charges? I mean.....what the hell were you thinking when you left your steak knives out? That they would be safe!!! LG, I call BS on your whole train of thought with this issue!

 

[lawgator1]

IMO, NO!! Why should someone who has been violated by the theft of their legally owned property be held responsible when someone steals said property and inflicts damage upon other persons or property? If I steal a police officers handgun then shoot someone, should that police officer face charges? If I break into your home and steal a knife so I can kill someone, can you face charges? I mean.....what the hell were you thinking when you left your steak knives out? That they would be safe!!! LG, I call BS on your whole train of thought with this issue!

It is the law in Florida, as it is in most states, that if you are a business owner and have a parking lot, and some criminal comes on to the lot and mugs a customer, then they can recover from you if they can find an expert (and they always can) who says you had a duty to prevent the crime in the first place and were negligent in failing to do so.

It seems to me by that logic that if you have a duty to secure a gun, and you don't, and a criminal takes the gun and uses it on another, then you can be argued to be responsible.

 

[kptvol]

]

It seems to me by that logic that if you have a duty to secure a gun, and you don't, and a criminal takes the gun and uses it on another, then you can be argued to be responsible.

So locking a gun in a car isn't securing it? Should every gun owner be driving a Wells Fargo truck?

And as about 10 people have now pointed out, wouldn't a gun be most secure on your person?