Gun sales way up.

#127
#127
KiffinKiller said:
he's an idiot? people without common sense shouldn't be packing anyway.
Click to expand...

C'mon KK, being a Marine I'm not terribly worried about his familiarity with firearms. Moreover, his wanting to check the weapon clearly indicates an intent to act responsibly. He was however lacking in due diligence in researching the weapon laws of where he was going.
 
#128
#128
if they're like DC it probably won't make it to court. Pay the money for a good lawyer (not a gun-hating one :whistling:) and it can go away
 
#129
#129
hndog609 said:
C'mon KK, being a Marine I'm not terribly worried about his familiarity with firearms. Moreover, his wanting to check the weapon clearly indicates an intent to act responsibly. He was however lacking in due diligence in researching the weapon laws of where he was going.
Click to expand...

"Excuse me, officer. I just finished driving from California and I need to mail a postcard. Where should I check my quarter pound of pot? It's awfully smelly."
 
#131
#131
DinkinFlicka said:
"Excuse me, officer. I just finished driving from California and I need to mail a postcard. Where should I check my quarter pound of pot? It's awfully smelly."
Click to expand...

While amusing (no really, got a laugh) even you must know that's not a particulary good analogy.
 
#133
#133
hndog609 said:
C'mon KK, being a Marine I'm not terribly worried about his familiarity with firearms. Moreover, his wanting to check the weapon clearly indicates an intent to act responsibly. He was however lacking in due diligence in researching the weapon laws of where he was going.
Click to expand...

I do not like the NYC gun laws and how they are used. In this cases like this and the one where the woman checked her gun at the 9/11 Memorial and was arrested. They did break the local law, but it was more in ignorance not intent and they were not using the gun in a crime. Instead of jail time, I think they should be fined because it is their responsibility to know the gun laws when they have a concealed firearm and they failed to do that.
 
#134
#134
Regarding the earlier point made by several that a large number of guns are purchased in private transactions, I would say the following:

1) The legality of such transactions varies by state. I would not change that. However ....

2) I would suggest that such transactions be recorded. No, not video. What I mean is that a person who would ordinarily have to file for a background check at a gun store would have to provide the same information to a private seller. And the private seller would have the responsibility to ensure that it is correct. This means ....

3) We can still trace the gun in the event it is stolen and one day used in a crime. And therefore we can still impose financial responsibility, preferably by insurance.


Again, this is not to say you cannot own a handgun. And it is not to say that your state's laws on allowing the purchase of such a gun from a private person is the least bit tinkered with. All this does is place on the shoulders of the lawful owner the responsibility to pay for the cost of injuries if the gun is stolen and used in a crime.

As I have said before, it is not strict liability. Each state would decide what constitutes negligence in storage of a gun. That could be done by common law principles as in any tort action. It could be done by statute.

For example, it could be that by common law a firearm stolen from a car is sound evidence of negligence in storage. But you could have a statute that provides a defense to that, i.e. that if the gun is locked in a glove compartment then that is evidence of proper storage.

Similarly, you could have a statute that says that storage of a gun in a gun safe at home is an absolute defense to a claim.

That would be up to each state to decide.
 
#135
#135
lawgator1 said:
Regarding the earlier point made by several that a large number of guns are purchased in private transactions, I would say the following:

1) The legality of such transactions varies by state. I would not change that. However ....

2) I would suggest that such transactions be recorded. No, not video. What I mean is that a person who would ordinarily have to file for a background check at a gun store would have to provide the same information to a private seller. And the private seller would have the responsibility to ensure that it is correct. This means ....

For the sake of argument by what means would the private seller go about the same degree of a background check as an FFL dealer? On a lesser level I suppose it could be required that a seller obtain a bill of sale with the weapon's serial number along with showing proper ID.

3) We can still trace the gun in the event it is stolen and one day used in a crime. And therefore we can still impose financial responsibility, preferably by insurance.



Again, this is not to say you cannot own a handgun. And it is not to say that your state's laws on allowing the purchase of such a gun from a private person is the least bit tinkered with. All this does is place on the shoulders of the lawful owner the responsibility to pay for the cost of injuries if the gun is stolen and used in a crime.

Tell you what LG, when lawyers become financially responsible for the actions of criminals they "put back out on the streets" (and that is a deliberate action by the way, that the lawyers are being compensated for no less) then you can come talk to me about how someone can be the victim of a crime and still be held accountable for what occurs with what was stolen.

As I have said before, it is not strict liability. Each state would decide what constitutes negligence in storage of a gun. That could be done by common law principles as in any tort action. It could be done by statute.

For example, it could be that by common law a firearm stolen from a car is sound evidence of negligence in storage. But you could have a statute that provides a defense to that, i.e. that if the gun is locked in a glove compartment then that is evidence of proper storage.

No. There may be something to be said for leaving guns in plain sight in the back of your pickup truck (an incomprehensibly stupid idea even without liability) but if force is required to gain access (breaking into a vehicle) that more than covers it in my eyes. (nevermind that all weapons, or even handguns, could fit in all glove box anyway)

Similarly, you could have a statute that says that storage of a gun in a gun safe at home is an absolute defense to a claim.

That would be up to each state to decide.
Click to expand...

I'll say again that I appreciate that you seem to have good intentions with this line of thought but it's a horrible idea. One simply does not punish a victim for a stolen object unless extreme negligence can be demonstrated.
 
#138
#138
LG, my patrol car has an m4 assault rifle and a tactical shotgun in the trunk. If these weapons are stolen am I liable along wuth the state?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#139
#139
OrangeEmpire said:
LG, my patrol car has an m4 assault rifle and a tactical shotgun in the trunk. If these weapons are stolen am I liable along wuth the state?
Click to expand...


As you carry them in the line of duty, no.

A non-issue firearm at home or in your own car, however, yes. If you store it in a negligent manner and it is stolen and used in a crime, you might be held liable.
 
#142
#142
lawgator1 said:
As you carry them in the line of duty, no.

A non-issue firearm at home or in your own car, however, yes. If you store it in a negligent manner and it is stolen and used in a crime, you might be held liable.
Click to expand...

What if you are an "officer of the peace"?
 
#143
#143
lawgator1 said:
As you carry them in the line of duty, no.

A non-issue firearm at home or in your own car, however, yes. If you store it in a negligent manner and it is stolen and used in a crime, you might be held liable.
Click to expand...

If this is really what you believe to be a reasonable onus (I don't think it comes close) then you being anything short of this board's leading proponent for having severed heads rolling all over the BATF and Eric Holder in jail over Fast and Furious/Gunwalker to be profoundly incongruous.
 
#144
#144
OrangeEmpire said:
LG, my patrol car has an m4 assault rifle and a tactical shotgun in the trunk. If these weapons are stolen am I liable along wuth the state?
Click to expand...

You are responsible for them, though, aren't you? Not liable for what happens afterward, though.
 
#146
#146
OrangeEmpire said:
Duty weapon stolen out my gun locker in my house?

Cruiser keys stolen out of my house?
Click to expand...

1) I have a hard time imagining that the theft of your duty weapon could lead to civil liability under the scheme I am thinking of. If there is some provision in your state's law that allows it, I'd want to see it.

2) No, not the keys to your police cruiser. But your own Glock sitting in the console of your 1994 Corrola and its a smash and grab?

Yup.
 
#147
#147
hndog609 said:
If this is really what you believe to be a reasonable onus (I don't think it comes close) then you being anything short of this board's leading proponent for having severed heads rolling all over the BATF and Eric Holder in jail over Fast and Furious/Gunwalker to be profoundly incongruous.
Click to expand...

Boom.
 
#148
#148
lawgator1 said:
1) I have a hard time imagining that the theft of your duty weapon could lead to civil liability under the scheme I am thinking of. If there is some provision in your state's law that allows it, I'd want to see it.

2) No, not the keys to your police cruiser. But your own Glock sitting in the console of your 1994 Corrola and its a smash and grab?

Yup.
Click to expand...

would never own a glock, barf
 
#149
#149
hndog609 said:
If this is really what you believe to be a reasonable onus (I don't think it comes close) then you being anything short of this board's leading proponent for having severed heads rolling all over the BATF and Eric Holder in jail over Fast and Furious/Gunwalker to be profoundly incongruous.
Click to expand...


There is a distinction about the duty owed by government agencies to the public on the whole versus that owed by a private citizen. Has to do with sovereign immunity and separation of powers.

Without going into what is really enormous detail, the difference is that when the government acts negligently in carrying out its duties to the public on the whole, it is generally not actionable because, well, there are so many ways that could lead to liability that it would simply be unworkable.

Absent a special duty of care to the individual harmed, which typically arises by direct contact and assurance of safety, or having someone in custody, something along those lines, you cannot sue the government, for lack of a better phrase, when it doesn't do its job or doesn't do it well.
 
#150
#150
ARe you saying I shouldn't leave my AR-15 sitting in my passenger seat when I go down the street to the grocery store?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top