Reply With QuoteOh yes. Heaven forbid we actually hold the person who actually did the crime responsible. That would just be pure insanity.
Make owners liable if guns are misused
Almost a year to the day after the Sandy Hook slaughter of the innocents, another young man with either a grudge or mental illness carried another gun into another school (near Columbine) and pulled the trigger. Fortunately, with one student wounded, the only fatality was the young man himself, a suicide.
Let the gun control debates begin.
As an avowed liberal who would like to see gun control but nevertheless enjoys trips to the pistol range with his police officer son, I would like to propose an alternative to the traditional debate. The first time I traveled to see my son in his new home, I asked to see the gun safe that would keep his guns out of the hands of my grandchildren. Satisfied, I enjoyed the rest of the tour.
I propose a national policy of personal responsibility, a concept conservatives must support. Instead of limiting gun ownership or magazine size, let’s make all gun owners responsible for the guns they own, just as car owners are responsible for what is done with their cars. In short, all guns must be registered with the state (not the federal government, which sets off NRA paranoid fantasies). Any gun used in any crime becomes the civil and criminal responsibility of the registered owner, unless reported stolen beforehand.
Buy all the guns you want but understand that you are liable if they are misused. To avoid jail or a lawsuit, be careful. The NRA is fond of talking about responsible gun owners. Let’s make all gun owners responsible.
Gary Earl Ross
Buffalo
More...
Oh yes. Heaven forbid we actually hold the person who actually did the crime responsible. That would just be pure insanity.
so you don't believe in personal responsibility for the storage of firearms? I am required by my agency to keep my firearm under direct control or secured in a locked container when not on my hip. If I leave it in my car or in my home unsecured and it is stolen or misused, I can be disciplined by the agency. And since the source of nearly all criminal guns are legal gun purchases, holding an owner responsible for the safe, secure storage of firearms makes absolute sense.Originally Posted by Chant
I'm in an open carry state on TDY standing in line at a Circle K. The guy in front of me has a small pistol in a "small of back" holster. All I had to do was take it from him. Stupid, stupid people with guns.
b.b.
And I could walk up and take any cops gun I wanted right out of the holster at Arby's, McDonalds, Ditando's, etc...what's your point?
Spare some BS about how cops are ever vigilant and trained. You're out of shape, under trained, and lazy.
Unfortunately the author of the editorial overstates the case, making his opinion nonsense.
The owner of a vehicle is liable in New York State only for "permissive" (either actual or implied) use of his vehicle by another person (NY V&T section 388). The courts have also held owners liable for injuries caused by thieves of cars left idling in violation of NY V&T section 1210. But there is no strict liability for an owner of a vehicle.
I'm guessing he got his mis-information about the law from his son. LEO's are well know for spewing incorrect statements of the law.
I'm also betting the gun safe his son uses would not prevent a thief from making off with the his firearms.
Again.... hold the owner responsible for the action's of another person. No method of storage is 100% totally secure. Over the years I've learned a lot of ways to by-pass many different types of locks... some of them ridiculously easy.
So, using your logic, if you're standing in line at the Circle K and the guy behind you grabs your firearm from your holster and your retention holster has a fail, then he shoots several people in the next check-out line... you are responsible for it?
Hey, its your gun. You are responsible for making it secure. Oh, your retention holster failed? Too bad, your responsible for making sure it worked properly at all times. It was department issued? Too bad again, you should have realized it was flawed and bought a better one.
How about: Someone broke into your house and stole your little locked firearm container, then 2 days later used your gun to rob a store and kill the clerk? Too bad, your fault.
Someone broke into your house and bounced or shimmed open the American Lock Company padlock on your firearm locker? Too bad, you're responsible for what they do with your guns.
Someone broke into your house and drilled the tumblers on your gun safe? Gee, too bad they went on a shooting spree in that retirement home... looks like you'll be heading to jail for it.
When does this BS stop, and we start holding people accountable for their criminal actions. Do they hold you responsible if someone hot-wires your car in the middle of the night and then drives through a crowd of people outside of a nightclub and kills a bunch of them?
All this crap is just another way for the government to discourage gun ownership among citizens.
No, we are holding the firearms owner responsible for his or her negligent care and storage of that weapon.
b.b.
Doesn't answer the question. Negligence is in the eye (mind) of the accuser. You using a safety holster that can possibly fail can be seen as neglect. You storing your guns in container with a lock that can be picked (which is all of them) can be seen as neglect. You using a gun safe that can be peeled can be seen as neglect. You using department issued ammo with soft primers that can cause your weapon to machine gun when fired can be seen as neglect. Etc, etc, etc...
Anything you do, any steps you take, someone, somewhere, can and will find negligence of some sort in it. Have you not paid attention to what lawyers do for a living?
Again, when do we hold criminals and only criminals responsible for their actions?
Is there a debate that firearms should be kept in a safe or in a secured manner? Obviously they should.
Does a trigger lock count?
But the point is that the author of the editorial incorrectly stated the law with respect to vehicles. If we applied the same standard to firearms that does exist for vehicles, then the owner of a firearm would only be responsible for "permissive" use of his weapon (which in most cases of a handgun would be illegal anyway) or specified violations of a statutory requirement.
And as we know from the Heller decision (and McDonald applying Heller to the states), the Constitution will not allow a state to impose restrictions on firearms in a personal residence that would render the firearm useless for its intended purpose of self defense. I doubt a home invader would patiently wait outside the house while the occupant retrieves his firearm from the safe in the basement, removes the trigger lock, and loads the weapon to protect himself.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions