Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Colorado Gun Proposal  
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 544 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2015 times:

While everyone has their own beliefs on gun ownership, that is NOT what I want this to turn into, or some political flame-fest. So PLEASE dont go there with this and if you actually agree with the proposed legislation, I can not for the life of me get it so please explain/discuss...

Colorado Democrat legislators have proposed a bill that includes a clause stating: ""The bill will hold gun manufacturers, sellers, owners and possessors strictly liable for 100 percent of the damage done by these military style assault weapons," said Senate President John Morse.'

Now I get that we live in a knee-jerk reaction world where everyone is campaigning every day they are holding office, but I CAN NOT get my head around this! IMHO, and no matter my stance on gun control, it is beyond constitutionally offensive to hold a law abiding business liable for abiding by the law, selling a legal product.

This is absolutely no different from going after Coors, Denver Beverage, and 7-11 because someone over 21 legally purchased beer and did something stupid.

It is no different from going after Fuji Heavy Industries, Valley Subaru, and Greddy because I sup up my WRX and do something stupid.

It is no different from going after Mikasa, Macy's, and Duncan Hines because someone gets fat eating and has a heart attack.

While I expect the anti-gun argument to come up that none of these examples mentioned were 'intended to kill', and while I digress, the argument has merit, none more-so than to realize I do not 'need' alcohol. I do not 'need' a bigger turbo on a car. I do not 'need' cake with a pound of sugar on it.

I wont go further because I really dont want this turned into a pro/anti-gun debate but I do want to understand why we have taken an absence of accountability so far as to say that someone abiding by numerous laws (Colorado's gun sales laws consist of something like12,000 pages), and lawfully selling a product to another lawful individual in a lawful manner could be presented accountable for the actions of the lawless?

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...ocrats-to-announce-gun-legislation

Discuss  


By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20191 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2008 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Thread starter):
Colorado Democrat legislators have proposed a bill that includes a clause stating: ""The bill will hold gun manufacturers, sellers, owners and possessors strictly liable for 100 percent of the damage done by these military style assault weapons," said Senate President John Morse.'

Dislike. This is no different than trying to de-facto ban abortions by passing impossible-to-follow regulations on abortion providers. It's underhanded. The only way that manufacturers would have to insulate themselves would be to cease all production. I know that's what the lawmaker wants, but if you're going to ban guns, then ban guns.

Furthermore, it could be argued that this violates the "ex post facto" clause of the Constitution because the manufacturers would be liable for guns they've already made.

This is bad business and it does nothing constructive to help the fact that mad men and criminals can walk into stores and purchase guns legally.

All this does is galvanize the NRA and the "Gimme mah guns" wackos. There are moderate solutions to this issue, and this is not one of them.


User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7242 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1990 times:

Who ever actually thinks this bill can pass and if passed would be found to be legal by a court needs to just quit whatever position and job they hold and go back to grade school. Really? I mean really?

So are Chrysler, Ford and GM responsible for tens of thousands of deaths too?
Ridiculous. Just plain stupid.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1934 times:

Well, we have the other thread running about states nullifying federal law. I guess that would apply here since there is a federal law prohibiting law suits against firearms manufacturers when their product was used by criminals for criminal purposes.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

And, this isn't the only case where federal law shields a particular industry. I've been looking, but can't remember much about it, but there is a federal law that protects civil aviation manufacturers from liability in some circumstances. Just need to hit on the right keywords and I should be able to find it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Thread starter):
This is absolutely no different from going after Coors, Denver Beverage, and 7-11 because someone over 21 legally purchased beer and did something stupid.

It is no different from going after Fuji Heavy Industries, Valley Subaru, and Greddy because I sup up my WRX and do something stupid.

It is no different from going after Mikasa, Macy's, and Duncan Hines because someone gets fat eating and has a heart attack.

I say that it is in different in that the intended design of the gun is to kill, which is illegal. To pick one of your examples above, the intended design of a Subaru is to get people from one place to another and if used to kill then it's being misused.



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1912 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think I might be gfetting something a bit wrong here but can more than 1 entity or person be held liable for 100%? Does this contravene double jeopardy?

Fred


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 4):
I say that it is in different in that the intended design of the gun is to kill, which is illegal.

It is only illegal to kill if the person doing the killing is commiting a crime. A little bit of a simplification, but there it is.

There are plenty of lawful uses for a firearm.

By the way, the federal law shielding general aviation manufacturers is The General Aviation Revitalization Act

I'm sure there are others.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4747 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

This bill is rather ridiculous. It is holding everyone that ever touched the gun responsible and liable for the end actions of an end user. I don't see how it could pass a vote.... in Colorado. Nevermind the fact hat any court would toss it out. Not a good piece of legislation at all.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 6):
Does this contravene double jeopardy?

Not in the US. In the US it would require the same person to be tried twice for the same crime.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Thread starter):
Colorado Democrat legislators have proposed a bill that includes a clause stating: ""The bill will hold gun manufacturers, sellers, owners and possessors strictly liable for 100 percent of the damage done by these military style assault weapons," said Senate President John Morse.'

I am fully in support of owners and possessors being 100% responsible. I do not think you can extend it back unless there are some very special circumstances.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 6):

I think I might be gfetting something a bit wrong here but can more than 1 entity or person be held liable for 100%? Does this contravene double jeopardy?

Absolutely, it is a way to pool the combined resources to make sure 100% is reached. e.g. if one of the persons is not able to pay their share the others must cover that person.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 9):
What about firearms that were produced in countries other than the USA.

I would expect it to be the importer taking the manufacturers position in that case.


User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
Furthermore, it could be argued that this violates the "ex post facto" clause of the Constitution because the manufacturers would be liable for guns they've already made.

That was another interest that I had, was even when proposing a ban on particular parts (ie, high-cap magazines, picatinny rails [merely cosmetic but makes any rifle look like feinsteins 'Assasult' weapon, etc.), it would be unprecedented to include a grandfathering clause, and in that, admit their whole idea is defunct.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
All this does is galvanize the NRA and the "Gimme mah guns" wackos. There are moderate solutions to this issue, and this is not one of them.

I could not agree with you more, now we just need to figure out what those are amicably.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):
And, this isn't the only case where federal law shields a particular industry. I've been looking, but can't remember much about it, but there is a federal law that protects civil aviation manufacturers from liability in some circumstances. Just need to hit on the right keywords and I should be able to find it.

I didnt do better than a B in any of my Aviation Law classes but remember something of the like and should this bill somehow get pushed through, it could be helpful precedent.

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 4):
I say that it is in different in that the intended design of the gun is to kill, which is illegal. To pick one of your examples above, the intended design of a Subaru is to get people from one place to another and if used to kill then it's being misused.

Again, not turning this into a pro/anti-gun debate, the gun was not built to give the lawless a way to terrorize the innocent. Guns were made to kill yes. In defense of ones self/family/country AND for hunting food. Following legislation and lawfully selling a weapon needs to absolve the seller and back parties because of the actions of the end user. Remember, there are already laws on the books in Colorado to knowingly sell a firearm to someone who can not lawfully possess it. Perhaps this would be an interesting way to require transfers to include a background check on private party sales?

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 5):

I think I might be gfetting something a bit wrong here but can more than 1 entity or person be held liable for 100%? Does this contravene double jeopardy?

Sure they can. It is similar to charging 3 people with Capital murder of one person. Perfectly lawful and not what double jeopardy protects. Double jeopardy prohibits the same person from being charged with the same crime twice without exigent circumstances.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 7):
Nevermind the fact hat any court would toss it out.

Not before millions in legal fees and absurd settlements were to take place.

Quoting cmf (Reply 8):
I would expect it to be the importer taking the manufacturers position in that case.

Another good point that I am curious of considering many of the 'assault weapons' (I really hate that term) which would be covered by this legislation are built/re-built/procured/processed/sold by and through foreign governments...



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1924 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1833 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm against this because the manufacturers designed those weapons to kill. They are performing the tasks exactly as designed. So the only way I could stand for a suit against them is if I was harmed because of the failure of the weapon to kill my attacker.


The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1832 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 9):
I didnt do better than a B in any of my Aviation Law classes but remember something of the like and should this bill somehow get pushed through, it could be helpful precedent.
The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994

I'm sure there are other examples.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1391 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Thread starter):
This is absolutely no different from going after Coors, Denver Beverage, and 7-11 because someone over 21 legally purchased beer and did something stupid.

Actually restaurants and bars do now have third party liability in a lot of states, specifically related to serving patrons who go on to cause DUI/DWI/OUI involved wrecks. At the small bar in TX I ran, it was something we had to be aware of.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6157 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1776 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 4):
I say that it is in different in that the intended design of the gun is to kill, which is illegal.

Which isn't always illegal. and you aren't always using one to kill people either.

Quoting cmf (Reply 8):
I am fully in support of owners and possessors being 100% responsible

Owner

The possessor being responsible sure, but not the manufacturer. If you are in possession of firearm you are 100% responsible for what the gun does. My gun are sitting at home, alone, right now. They aren't doing anything by themselves.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 12):
Actually restaurants and bars do now have third party liability in a lot of states, specifically related to serving patrons who go on to cause DUI/DWI/OUI involved wrecks

But the brewer or distiller wasn't responsible, nor was the distributor who lawfully sold it to the bar.

Quoting ATCtower (Thread starter):
military style assault weapons

What is exactly is an assault weapon? Most of the ban proposals are based on looks or magazine size, not actual capabilities. I used to have a 22 that had all the appearances of an assault rifle, but really wasn't that big a threat. My M1 Garand is not an assault rifle, but a lot more deadly

What about firearms that were produced in countries other than the USA. Lets say some guy uses a Polish gun to kill a bunch of people. How would US apply to a company in Poland? So that company decides to stop selling its products here, but what about its products are already here? Lets say some guy uses an old SKS from East Germany, the country doesn't exist anymore, so who would be responsible? It sounds like this law would only be an issue to companies who are based or build their products in the USA. There are a lot of non American gun makers, if you don't believe me go to the NRA convention and see.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1764 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 13):
Owner

The possessor being responsible sure, but not the manufacturer. If you are in possession of firearm you are 100% responsible for what the gun does.

What about the owner? It isn't necessarily the same person as the owner.

I agree that it takes very special circumstances for the manufacturer to be responsible, e.g. malfunction.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 13):
My gun are sitting at home, alone, right now. They aren't doing anything by themselves.

They are not doing anything by themselves. Hope fully they are not being used by people you are not aware are using them.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2744 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Thread starter):
these military style assault weapons," said Senate President John Morse.'

There is no such thing as a military style assualt weapon. That is made up by the anti gun left. There are rifles, revolvers and semi-auto rifles and revolvers but no such thing as an assualt weapon out there that is being used. Full auto is a machine gun of which none have been invloved in any of these shootings. The AR in AR-15 does not stand for Assualt Rifle.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2923 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1706 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 15):
There is no such thing as a military style assualt weapon.

Not according to Websters Dictionary and the Oxford dictionary.... but then again.. who are they to argue otherwise !

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assault%2Brifle

Quoting windy95 (Reply 15):
That is made up by the anti gun left.

Now, you just shot yourself in the foot there, because as I said above, there clearly are Assault rifles, or at the very least, terminology widely used around the world to describe rifles/guns as such

[Edited 2013-02-06 17:47:42]


Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1685 times:

Yeah, this law is really stupid. Not even because I disagree with it, I just see the logic in it flawed

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 16):
Not according to Websters Dictionary and the Oxford dictionary.... but then again.. who are they to argue otherwise !

Yeah, proper definition or not, everyone knows what is being talked about, I think arguing what the formal definition is is kinda a waste



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2923 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1679 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 17):
I think arguing what the formal definition is is kinda a waste

Do you think ?

In short, if a simple definition over what a class of weapon is describe as, cant even be agreed upon, doesn't hold out much hope for any meaningful reform on gun control now dose it !



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1649 times:

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 10):

I'm against this because the manufacturers designed those weapons to kill. They are performing the tasks exactly as designed. So the only way I could stand for a suit against them is if I was harmed because of the failure of the weapon to kill my attacker.

Perhaps they were designed to kill but CERTAINLY NOT to be used by the lawless to kill innocent people!

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 12):
Actually restaurants and bars do now have third party liability in a lot of states, specifically related to serving patrons who go on to cause DUI/DWI/OUI involved wrecks. At the small bar in TX I ran, it was something we had to be aware of.

And according to ALL laws, the restaurant is liable because they BROKE THE LAW serving an intoxicated person, just as a gun dealer BREAKS THE LAW selling to a known, convicted felon. Totally different analogy. One is punished for breaking the law, the other for following it.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 13):
What is exactly is an assault weapon? Most of the ban proposals are based on looks or magazine size, not actual capabilities. I used to have a 22 that had all the appearances of an assault rifle, but really wasn't that big a threat. My M1 Garand is not an assault rifle, but a lot more deadly
Quoting windy95 (Reply 15):
There is no such thing as a military style assualt weapon

Herein lies the question related to the ignorant. Yes, there is such a thing as a 'military assault rifle' and it is one of the most difficult things ever to own. IMO, a 'military assault rifle' has already been banned Federally. The way a gun looks CAN NOT be the basis of this, and unfortunately because of ignorant Colorado politicians, the distinction is made based on IGNORANT information. I too own a Mini14 field rifle, and while I have no intention of putting a 40 rd mag in it and shooting up a school, my gun is targeted because of its black stock and picatinny rail. A Mini-14 with a wood stock and scope is perfectly acceptable... Why? They both hold the same number of rounds of the same caliber but ignorant politicians refuse to see a difference from one with a wood stock. I too own a GSG-ATI MP522SD. It 'looks' like a badass 'military' rifle and shoots 22LR bullets. Under this proposal, my .22 is targeted because it holds a removable magazine and a picatinny rail.... Why??

While I admit, the likelihood of this being enforced because of our semi-intelligent judicial branch is near nil, Colorado has the strongest Democratic presence in history and this proposal certainly has a shot at being adopted.



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5729 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1638 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 19):
Why??

You are correct, the real gun issue with handguns that transgress into criminal hands. Handguns kill far more people than assault rifles, and the entire reason I have suggested things similar to the law being proposed is to prevent movement of handguns into to criminal hands via straw sales and unknowing or uncaring private gun sales. The goals is to keep guns out of criminals hands, keep government out of gun controlling gun sales, and yet allow the normal sale of firearms to normal law abiding citizens (while inhibiting what appear to be legal buyers that buy guns with the intent of reselling them to criminals).

Tugg

[Edited 2013-02-06 22:57:56]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1391 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1606 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 13):

But the brewer or distiller wasn't responsible, nor was the distributor who lawfully sold it to the bar.

No, they're not. But he mentioned a 7-11, which was the final point of sale. I do not know of a case where alcohol manufacturers/distributors would be liable there.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 15):

There is no such thing as a military style assualt weapon. That is made up by the anti gun left. There are rifles, revolvers and semi-auto rifles and revolvers but no such thing as an assualt weapon out there that is being used.

I'm sure the semantics are debatable here, yes. But what a civilian legal authority may choose to define as a military style weapon is what would be used for this bill, not really what the actual military or actual gun owners may call it.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 17):

Yeah, proper definition or not, everyone knows what is being talked about, I think arguing what the formal definition is is kinda a waste

I'll buy that.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 17):


Yeah, this law is really stupid. Not even because I disagree with it, I just see the logic in it flawed

I don't see where the logic itself is flawed. There's all kind of precedence for 3rd party liability in the United States. The problem with this one, a particularly troublesome one where unintended consequences are concerned, is the scope of it. I think that's a little broad here.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 19):

And according to ALL laws, the restaurant is liable because they BROKE THE LAW serving an intoxicated person, just as a gun dealer BREAKS THE LAW selling to a known, convicted felon. Totally different analogy. One is punished for breaking the law, the other for following it.

Yes & no. Bars & restaurants still have liability where someone doesn't start out intoxicated, and/or is not apparently intoxicated on the way out. To wit, in that instance, the law can be broken without intention there, and the liability does indeed still exist.

The analogy I would draw as it pertains to gun selling would be if a customer presents a seller with a certificate of compliance (I don't know the exact terminology there, so you can fix that if you like) stating that they have passed a background check. If this were to be a forgery, let's say, and the shop or individual selling the weapon simply accepted it without further diligence, then here they would still be liable for whatever happens down the road. That, I do not see a problem with. Dragging firearms OEMs, distributors, shippers, et al, into it would almost certainly create problems down the road. While I do not have an objection to this where guns are concerned, I can see how this will create a good deal of problems on its own in far too many other areas. I do not see this passing without extensive modification.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1601 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 19):
my gun is targeted because of its black stock and picatinny rail.

It is targeted for the same reasons NRA blamed video games.


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1591 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cmf (Reply 14):
They are not doing anything by themselves. Hope fully they are not being used by people you are not aware are using them.

Gun owners should be held responsible to as far as practicably possible keep their guns in the hands of safe and responsible people. That means if someone grabs it from your hands then the owner is not responsible for what happens to it but has a duty of care to inform the relevant authorities as soon as possible. If a gun is left on a car seat and it is stolen then the owner should be responsible, or partly responsible for the deeds carried out with said gun. If the gun is left in a locked cabinet of a certain standard and a theif takes your gun whilst you are out then your responsibility for the actions undertaken with the gun are 0, your responsibility is to contact the relevant authorities as soon as possible.

Anyone agree?

Fred


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1588 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 23):
Anyone agree?

Pretty much what I have suggested before. Can't include details every time.


25 fr8mech : Of course any responsible gun owner will agree to that. Heck, I believe that it should be mandatory (read that as illegal not to) that a stolen gun b
26 tugger : Is there a limit to how many guns are "allowed" to be stolen before a person would no longer be deemed responsible enough to have and own firearms? I
27 cmf : There was more to the question. Is the owner free of responsibility after reporting it stolen after being left on a car seat? What about glove compar
28 tugger : I understand. I was just asking to see what people think. I also know that many "crime guns" will have identifying marks removed (though that is actu
29 fr8mech : I know where you are on this, but I will say that he free of responsibility so long as the weapon was stored as required by state law and he informs
30 DeltaMD90 : I meant correcting someone when it's a common term is kinda a waste. There was a poster here that got all bent out of shape when people said "America
31 MD11Engineer : I agree. And: is the reason why handguns over here have stricter storage requirement, e.g. a doublewalled "Class B" safe as opposed to a singlewalled
32 Post contains links and images falstaff : I had a gun stolen, back in 2002 and it was recovered in 2004. I discovered it missing (along with some other items) when I returned home from vacati
33 cmf : I agree with that, if requirement is reasonable. I do not consider glove compartment as reasonable.
34 MD11Engineer : Again, German law distinguishes between transporting a gun and concealed carry. The keyword in German gun law is "ready to be used". For the first th
35 CalebWilliams : To me, this is no difference the reported bills introduced that will make it a crime for any federal officer to take a gun away from a law abiding cit
36 cmf : Depending on how what kind of case and where the key to the lock was. If you are there I would not have a problem with you letting other people use y
37 Post contains links fr8mech : But, the Commonwealth of Kentucky disagrees. I'm sure other states have other requirements concerning the proper storage of a firearm in the vehicle.
38 cmf : Why I call for it to b changd. With straw purchases being a major source of weapons possession isn't enough. Why you need to be responsible until you
39 fr8mech : So, if I store the gun in my vehicle in accordance with state law, and it is stolen and I promptly report the theft, my liability ends?
40 falstaff : That is the case in most US states. Having a gun unloaded in the trunk of your car with the ammo in the glove box wouldn't be considered a concealed
41 fr8mech : It's about the only way to transport a firearm through some states, if you are not a resident. If I leave my wallet in my car and someone steals it,
42 flipdewaf : If I the guns were securely held as far as is reasonably practical then I'd say you didn't do an y thing wrong. If you left the key in the care of yo
43 fr8mech : Negligent? No. Too trusting, maybe.
44 falstaff : Stole the entire locked gun safe it was stored in. Now I am not a fan of any kind of "safe" storage somebody can move. It is the same reason I think
45 flipdewaf : Like carrying someones bag through customs? Blimey! You can't stop peiople who are determined I suppose. Thats why many laws use terms like "as far a
46 falstaff : I wouldn't do that. Back in the 1970s my dad was at STL and a guy asked him to after his movie projector while he used the men's room. The guy never
47 DeltaMD90 : That is what I am trying to convey to others... any law needs to be worded to account for reasonability. Seeing a ATM being broken into by the fire d
48 Post contains images falstaff : Why was the fire department breaking into the ATM? Fire department funding getting a liitle weak?
49 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : lol no... a few gas stations were doing some illegal gambling, so all the money in the place (even in the ATMs) had to be confiscated. It was an impr
50 cmf : I don't see how it could be any differently, can you? That a state law consider a glove box sufficient is a different issue, that needs to be correct
51 falstaff : That would have made a lot of sense and it probably have been much faster. I don't know anyone with a safe that as an alarm actually on the safe. It
52 cmf : I worked 18 months doing designs for Securitas. Alarms on safes are common. Both as to if the door is open and if it is moved. Always in their own zo
53 falstaff : I agree, but the point is that people don't just break into homes to get guns and use them in crimes. Many people break into and steal to make money.
54 fr8mech : Actually, I do see the difference. But, does a trial lawyer see the difference. If this proposed legislation were to somehow pass, no one; not a manu
55 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : That's what I thought but who knows. Cool to see regardless. I'm very sure the damage to that ATM would fall on the gas station owner and not the ATM
56 ATCtower : You guys have all made awesome points and I LOVE how well this has stayed on topic! I know you were asking cmf, but as the OP, I feel the need to chim
57 Post contains links fr8mech : Whereevr did you get that information? 18USC922(d) makes it an unlawful act to sell a firearm to a person that is forbidden to own a firearm under th
58 Mir : Any trial lawyer worth their salt should see the difference there; the thief might use your cash to buy a gun, but in order to do so he would have ei
59 fr8mech : Exactly, but isn't this what the proposed legislation ignores? In my scenario, I have indirectly (by allowing my wallet to be stolen) provided a crim
60 Post contains links and images cmf : They steal the watch for the same reason they steal the gun, there is a market for it. They don't steal the baseball bat or knife, because there is n
61 fr8mech : I have one, or something much like it, installed in my desk at home. It pretty much stays empty because the firearm goes into the safe when I'm done
62 Post contains images cmf : Why not give the glove compartment an upgrade then? Are we in agreement on the rest or will we return to them in future posts
63 Post contains images fr8mech : Actually, there really isn't a good place to keep it in the car where it will not interfere with my comfort (and, yes, comfort is important to the dr
64 flipdewaf : Having the legal checks on your car costs money, having the legal checks on an aircraft costs money. Building a house to regulations costs money. I r
65 fr8mech : You know, I ignored this earlier because it wasn't relevant, but since you brought it up again. If I provide the keys to a trusted friend, it is up t
66 cmf : There are no valid reasons for you to give the keys to your guns to a neighbor. It is not needed to look after your house while you are away. If you
67 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : Funny how much we think we are at odds with each other when we usually agree 100% Maybe it's because I approach the middle from the "right" of the is
68 Post contains images fr8mech : He didn't give him the keys to the guns, they were: Now, I don't know the exact circumstances, but my outside key has nothing to do with any of my in
69 Post contains images cmf : Some very selective quoting there. Answered back in post 60. . Again, keys to the house, fine. Keys to your guns, problem. Having cases that are easy
70 flipdewaf : We have established that we are not talking about Falstaffs gun being stolen so we can leave this now. to a house and not to the guns, sounds reasona
71 fr8mech : I just finished re-reading 32 and I don't see the hang-up. What are we talking about? Folks are claiming that Falstaff was negligent because his guns
72 cmf : I hold him responsible for having a case that could, from the info we have from Fallstaff, be carried out without too much problem. I also think that
73 fr8mech : It sounds like he kept them stored in standard carry cases. I've done it before, when I didn't have enough room before I upsized my storage. I'm real
74 cmf : Just consider it as $100,000 in cash when you store it and it will be fine.
75 Mir : WIthout seeing the legislation, I can't really say. The linked article isn't very descriptive - sure, they say they're going to hold everyone account
76 falstaff : I didn't. They were in a locked room inside of a steal fireproof case. The kind that is made so kids can't get in, but could be carried away easily.
77 MD11Engineer : The guns should be stored in a proper gun safe bolted to the floor and preferably a brick or concrete wall with heavy duty anchors. I assume that you
78 flipdewaf : I heard a good idea today, make it the law to have all guns painted pink with flowers on. Fred
79 fr8mech : It's actually where I have my firearms. But, the case is bolted to the wall and to the floor joists. It isn't going anywhere, easily. A determined pe
80 Post contains links ATCtower : I know the thread veered off a little but lets get back on track a little with todays 'introductory' measures taken up at the state capitol. http://ww
81 Post contains links TheCommodore : Talking about definitions.... This was reported today and I quote part of the story where the Police themselves describe weapons Dorner had on his po
82 DeltaMD90 : How so? I read what you posted, and even being an avid gun enthusiast, I'm not quite sure what they are describing. I have a good idea, but it still
83 fr8mech : Yes, language and usage are important. Read the article carefully. The paragraph you quoted is not a quote from the police. What you posted is nestled
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
NRA Launches Gun App For Children! posted Mon Jan 14 2013 20:48:52 by TheCommodore
Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree Part 2 posted Mon Jan 14 2013 18:23:39 by iowaman
Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree posted Wed Dec 26 2012 23:53:10 by AR385
Politician Arrested Carrying Loaded Gun On Flight posted Thu Dec 20 2012 07:22:35 by Superfly
Gun Hoarders posted Thu Dec 20 2012 03:18:53 by Revelation
Gun Control Is Needed - Great, What Is It? posted Fri Dec 14 2012 14:46:31 by tugger
Another Example Why US Gun Mentality Doesn't Work posted Fri Sep 28 2012 20:58:54 by cmf
R.I.P: Top Gun Director Tony Scott posted Mon Aug 20 2012 08:17:30 by Mortyman
Why Not Gun Control posted Sat Aug 11 2012 00:24:10 by GEEZER
Should The U.S. Start A Gun Control Policy? posted Sun Jan 9 2011 17:59:35 by flyorski