Gun sales way up.

#156
#156
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but not the point I was making. If having a gun stolen from a vehicle makes the gun owner liable for it's later nefarious use then the idea that people in the government could knowingly disperse guns in a manner they knew would put said guns in the hands of criminals should leave you slack-jawed in abhorrence and looking for criminal recourse against those responsible.
 
#157
#157
hndog609 said:
Agreed, but not the point I was making. If having a gun stolen from a vehicle makes the gun owner liable for it's later nefarious use then the idea that people in the government could knowingly disperse guns in a manner they knew would put said guns in the hands of criminals should leave you slack-jawed in abhorrence and looking for criminal recourse against those responsible.
Click to expand...

check & mate.

Well this thread is finished, let's wrap it up and go home.

:salute:
 
#158
#158
hndog609 said:
Agreed, but not the point I was making. If having a gun stolen from a vehicle makes the gun owner liable for it's later nefarious use then the idea that people in the government could knowingly disperse guns in a manner they knew would put said guns in the hands of criminals should leave you slack-jawed in abhorrence and looking for criminal recourse against those responsible.
Click to expand...


You say you agree with my post, but I don't think you understand it, given that statement.
 
#160
#160
lawgator1 said:
You say you agree with my post, but I don't think you understand it, given that statement.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I made it ambiguous; I'm talking about your view of things, not trying to argue the intricacies of the law. Unless I've completely missed it you've seemed terribly underwhelmed by what went on with F&F but seem perfectly willing to throw a victim of a crime under the legal bus.

I'm not an unreasonble guy. If you wanted to discuss reasonable definitions of negligent storage I'd at least lend you an ear. If someone were to set their carry piece on a park bench and forget it only to have it picked up and used in a shooting we'd at least have grounds for some kind of conversation. However, from what I can gather you are perfectly fine with the idea that John Q can be the subject of a forceful criminal act (car/home broken into) and then be held liable for what happens after. No sir...I'm not giving you a nanometer of ground with that.
 
#161
#161
lawgator1 said:
I don't think that gun control, in the traditional sense, is politically doable. It may not even be basically practical.

But I do think there is a lot to be said for holding people who buy guns accountable for the entirely predictable albeit unintended consequences of making that choice.

As I say, that is actually a fundamentally conservative point of view.
Click to expand...

How the heck is it predictable? What percentage of guns are stolen? Odds are very high that you gun will not be stolen. That is not "predictable".

Just a quick stat I found -

1994: 44 million people owned 192 million guns
1994: 211,000 hand guns stolen; 382K long guns stolen

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt


Hardly a predictable event that if you own a gun it will be stolen.

In fact it would be much more accurate to say that if you own a gun it is entirely predictable that it won't be stolen.
 
#163
#163
Can someone explain the private firearm transaction without an FFL? I thought you had to go through an FFL unless the transfer was from parent to child or between spouses.
 
#164
#164
dreVol said:
Can someone explain the private firearm transaction without an FFL? I thought you had to go through an FFL unless the transfer was from parent to child or between spouses.
Click to expand...

ATF Online - Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Unlicensed Persons

"licensed" below refers to FFL

To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
 
#165
#165
hndog609 said:
ATF Online - Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Unlicensed Persons

"licensed" below refers to FFL

To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
Click to expand...

I see. Thanks.
 
#171
#171
therealUT said:
And the man who never fired a shot is being charged with First-Degree Murder...

God Bless America.
Click to expand...

I understand the intent of the law but think it's a convoluted way to get there. Why not just make very harsh sentencing for armed burglary that results in a death rather than charging that person with another crime so you can increase the punishment?
 
#173
#173
volinbham said:
I understand the intent of the law but think it's a convoluted way to get there. Why not just make very harsh sentencing for armed burglary that results in a death rather than charging that person with another crime so you can increase the punishment?
Click to expand...

He should be charged with breaking and entering. That is what this man did. Those were his actions.

DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Wonder what would have happened if you take the gun out of the equation.
Click to expand...

Why wonder at that? Is our justice system based on prosecuting speculative crime?
 
#174
#174
therealUT said:
He should be charged with breaking and entering. That is what this man did. Those were his actions.



Why wonder at that? Is our justice system based on prosecuting speculative crime?
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with severe consequences to actions so let's charge him with what he did and put severe enough sanctions on it to deter others from doing it.

I agree in principle that we should charge people based on actions.
 
#175
#175
therealUT said:
And the man who never fired a shot is being charged with First-Degree Murder...

God Bless America.
Click to expand...

I have no problem whatsoever with Martin being dead and McKinley being held blameless.

I can make no more sense of Stewart being charged with 1st degree murder than I can LG's lunacy about a victim of a crime should be liable for illegal use of the stolen property.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top