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, 542 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1975 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, 19708 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1968 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, 7175 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1950 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, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1894 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, 2296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1883 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, 1572 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1872 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, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1869 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, 4625 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1863 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 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1840 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, 542 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1820 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, 1882 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1793 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, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1792 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, 1363 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1790 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, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1736 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 7 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1724 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, 2727 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1682 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, 2873 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1666 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, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1645 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, 2873 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1639 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, 542 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1609 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, 5604 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1598 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, 1363 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1566 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 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1561 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, 1572 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1551 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 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1548 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 23):
Anyone agree?

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


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1542 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 23):
Anyone agree?

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 be reported as soon as possible after the theft is discovered.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5604 posts, RR: 8
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1534 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):
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 be reported as soon as possible after the theft is discovered.

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 ask this due to how straw sales sometimes work, and if there is a limit or requirement to keep control of ones firearms it adds one more layer of difficulty to those seeking guns for crime.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 27, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1534 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):
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 be reported as soon as possible after the theft is discovered.

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 compartment?

Quoting tugger (Reply 26):
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?

IMO it isn't the number of guns as much as the number of occasions and the circumstances of those occasions.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5604 posts, RR: 8
Reply 28, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1532 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 27):
IMO it isn't the number of guns as much as the number of occasions and the circumstances of those occasions.

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 actually not as easy to do as one might think) so it is difficult to link the gun to an original owner.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 29, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1515 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 27):
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 compartment?

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 the police as soon as the theft is discovered. In this state, I can not leave a firearm in the open, but I can keep it in the glove box or any other storage space installed as regular equipment by the manufacturer whether it can be locked or not. (paraphrased form the applicable statute).

So, on the seat or visible in anyway...subject to liability, criminal or civil, however it works out. Stored in accordance with the statute...not subject to liability.

Quoting tugger (Reply 26):
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?

There should be a limit. Now, lets say my house is hit and all my firearms are stolen; that would be one instance. If I report stolen firearms over a period of time...I think we have a problem. What's the limit? I think that's up to the courts to decide when its ok to deny someone a constitutional right, but I would set the limit pretty low...like twice in a 3 year period.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 30, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1516 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 18):
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 !

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 "Americans" even though we were talking about people in the US (according to him, "American" is anything from N or S America.) While technically correct, come on, we all know what we are talking about, same with "assault weapons."

Now, that being said, one should be picky when someone says "fully auto" and has no idea what they are talking about, because that really is a big difference. I am guilty of being picky myself though, when people say "clip" they almost always mean "magazine."

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 21):
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.

I see a problem with it. I'm against suing the bar for a drunk driver (unless it's pretty obvious you're over-serving the guy and just let him walk out and don't take reasonable measures to stop him.) I'm against suing car manufacturers for bad drivers. Against suing fast food joints for making people fat. And against this.

What I do see as more legitimate is having insurance for the actual gun owners (vs manufacturers) but I still disagree with, here's why. Yes, you need it for cars, but that is because good people that are good at driving can very easily cause accidents. Car driving is inherently risky.

But take guns... target shooting (or even carrying) with proper training and handling is not inherently risky... so basically you are making ordinary people get insurance for BLATANT criminals that go around shooting (and probably wouldn't bother with gun insurance anyway) or idiots that are untrained being idiots with guns (just as unlicensed and uninsured people with cars go and cause accidents.) Take it or leave it, that is what I think



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 31, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1515 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 23):
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?

I agree. And:

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
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

is the reason why handguns over here have stricter storage requirement, e.g. a doublewalled "Class B" safe as opposed to a singlewalled "Class A" safe for long guns. Criminlas love handguns because they are easily concealed, so that they can easily used for robberies and holdups. I´m quite sure that except somewhere in a very remote countryside place, where plenty of hunting goes on, people would call the police very fast if they saw somebody walking with a rifle or shotgun through town (unless it was carried inside a proper gun case).

Falstaff, I would suggest that you get yourself a gun safe for your guns. The alarm you have been writing about will not stop a criminal from stealing your guns, if he works fast. Cracking a gun safe, especially if it is bolted to a brick or concrete wall or floor, takes time and makes noise, something no burglar likes. And, if somebody breaks into your house and steals your guns, you are less likely to face nasty questions or lawyers if somebody used one of your guns to committ a crime.

Jan


User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 32, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1506 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):
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 be reported as soon as possible after the theft is discovered.

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 vacation. I reported it stolen right away and a couple of policemen came to the house to write the report. The house was locked and as were the windows so it was obvious nobody broke in. My neighbor had the key and was feeding my fish while I was gone. The cops said it was probably the neighbor (and I later found out his son was a drug addict). Oddly they never even bothered to question anyone. They didn't think it was that big of deal I guess. The gun got sold to one guy who sold it to another and another and so on until it was found about 50 miles from my house, still in its holster and looking like it had never been fired.

Some of you would probably want to hold me responsible for anything that happened regarding that gun, while it is a good thing we have common sense and laws in this country. I didn't do anything wrong. The gun was behind locked doors, in a locked case, in a house being looked after by somebody who I trusted. Unfortunately somebody walked in with bad intentions stole it anyway. The kid also stole prescription drugs from my house too, should I have been held responsible if he ODed on them? How about the whisky he stole? Should I be held responsible if he got drunk on it and killed somebody in a wreck. After all the liquor was just sitting out in plain sight. Maybe I should have locked it in a vault.... A person has a reasonable expectation that his home is secure and his neighbors are trustworthy people.

Quoting tugger (Reply 28):
I also know that many "crime guns" will have identifying marks removed (though that is actually not as easy to do as one might think) so it is difficult to link the gun to an original owner.

It isn't that hard. It isn't as easy as it is on TV. You can wipe stuff out pretty good with a bench grinder.

I have lots of old military guns and a lot of them have had marks added or removed over the years and where they have been removed it's never coming back.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 21):
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.

What gun owners call it is important, because a non gun owners tend to call things the wrong thing. People on a.net bitch and moan all the time people and media using incorrect aviation terms.

Where do you draw the line with "Military style"? What does that mean and what era are you talking about? During the Vietnam war a guy in my dad's platoon carried a pump action shot gun, which was a standard issue weapon for certain applications. Since a good old Remington 870 is a pump action shotgun, much like the one used by the US Army the the 1960s and early 1970s would you call it a military style gun and restrict its use? How about my bolt action 8mm Mauser from 1937. It was used by the German military so therefore it is a military style gun. Since bolt action rifles are military style I guess we would have to ban them too. The armed forces the world over use all kinds of guns for all kinds of jobs so there are probably very very very few guns, or types of guns, that haven't been used by somebody's armed forces at some point or another. The use of the words "Military Style" or "Type" is a handy way of banning almost every gun on the planet.




Quoting ATCtower (Reply 19):
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??

Here is one of my favorite shooters.



It is just a 22LR, but that 50 round magazine would make it an assault rifle, as would the cooling device around the barrel. My M1 Carbine would do do more damage, but that wouldn't be considered an assault rifle, it only has a 10 round magazine, but they could be changed fast.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb309/NWA747/guns001.jpg

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

That would be rather unlikely. I doubt anyone is taking my guns out of my house, going to shoot people, cleaning them and putting them back, and not setting off my alarm system all during the time I'm at work.

Quoting cmf (Reply 14):
What about the owner? It isn't necessarily the same person as the owner.

You can't lend people guns who you know are going to use them unlawfully. You can't lend handguns to anyone. Other people can use them, if they are in your presence. Like a couple of buddies going hunting and they decide to try out each others guns.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29):
So, on the seat or visible in anyway...subject to liability, criminal or civil, however it works out. Stored in accordance with the statute...not subject to liability.

I agree with that, if requirement is reasonable. I do not consider glove compartment as reasonable.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 34, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1486 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
I agree with that, if requirement is reasonable. I do not consider glove compartment as reasonable.

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 the legal owner has to unload it and keep it separate from it´s ammunition in a locked gun case, so that he cannot use it without preparation. A target shooter can load it at an approved shooting range and start shooting and a hunter can take it out of the case and load it once he has reached his hunting area (in this area he can carry it loaded and openly). Of course they can also handle and load their guns in their own homes or on premisses, where the owner gives them the permission (though IIRC places where alcohol is being served are excluded).
While transporting the gun has either to be in the direct control of the licenced owner or it has to be in a lockable, theftproof container of a certain standard (e.g. the "Hamburger Kasten" (Hamburg Box) on board of ships or boats for signal pistols) in the car or on a boat.

For concealed or open carry in public the rules are different (and the licence is much more difficult to get, the applicant has to prove that he has a far higher risk than a normal person to become a victim of a violent crime. This would e.g. include prosecutors or judges who fear revenge attacks from criminals they had brought into jail, owners of jewellry shops or other businesses, where goods of high value or larger amounts of cash are being kept, who are at risk of being robbed or security guards guarding cash and valuables transports or bodyguards, but in the later two cases only while on duty. Gun and shooting training is also required). They can carry guns loaded and ready to be used.

Han


User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1477 times:

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 citizen (I didn't see those proposals directly, but rather just the reporting of them, so I don't know all the specifics). it's a kneejerk reaction designed to energize the politician's base without any hope of passing into law.


Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 36, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1471 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 32):
Some of you would probably want to hold me responsible for anything that happened regarding that gun

Depending on how what kind of case and where the key to the lock was.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 32):
You can't lend people guns who you know are going to use them unlawfully. You can't lend handguns to anyone. Other people can use them, if they are in your presence. Like a couple of buddies going hunting and they decide to try out each others guns.

If you are there I would not have a problem with you letting other people use your guns. If you are not there you're responsible for providing a weapon to someone without a background check.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 37, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
I do not consider glove compartment as reasonable.

But, the Commonwealth of Kentucky disagrees. I'm sure other states have other requirements concerning the proper storage of a firearm in the vehicle. Some will be more strict than others. It is up to the legislature to define the reasonability of an action and up to the court to define the reasonability (or constitutionality) of the statute in question.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 32):
What gun owners call it is important, because a non gun owners tend to call things the wrong thing.

For what it's worth, we as gun enthusiasts have lost that war of words. It should have been challenged much more vociferously back in the mid-80's when the term came to be used to describe all those "scary" looking guns. I can understand challenging it now, but "assault weapon" means whatever the legislature addressing the issue wants it to mean.

That's why words are important.

Now, back to liability. It appears some states want to require liability insurance for gun owners. I cautiously agree that this could be ok provided that the liability ends when the owner no longer possesses the firearm. I say it this way because there are some on this board that insist the last legal owner of a firearm (and his insurer) assumes unlimited liability...I guess much like the authors of the legislation in the op's link want to do for gun manufacturer's. This is ridiculous, on its face.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0..._2632321.html?utm_hp_ref=crime&amp

I do have some questions:

-What other constitutional right do we need insurance to exercise?
-What if someone can't afford the insurance? Do we pay for it, through taxes?
-What if insurance companies don't offer the protection in a certain market? Do we set up state exchanges to handle the insurance?
-If I sell the firearm, do I have a duty to ensure that the buyer has adequate insurance?

I hope this is in keeping with the topic of this thread. I mean, we are talking about the liabilities of gun ownership, aren't we?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 38, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1454 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 37):
But, the Commonwealth of Kentucky disagrees. I'm sure other states have other requirements concerning the proper storage of a firearm in the vehicle. Some will be more strict than others. It is up to the legislature to define the reasonability of an action and up to the court to define the reasonability (or constitutionality) of the statute in question.

Why I call for it to b changd.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 37):
provided that the liability ends when the owner no longer possesses the firearm. I say it this way because there are some on this board that insist the last legal owner of a firearm (and his insurer) assumes unlimited liability

With straw purchases being a major source of weapons possession isn't enough. Why you need to be responsible until you dispose of it responsibly or can show you took reasonable precaution to prevent it from being stolen.

This is similar to if an animal escapes. You're still on the line for the damage done.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 39, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1449 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 38):
Why you need to be responsible until you dispose of it responsibly or can show you took reasonable precaution to prevent it from being stolen.

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?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 40, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1448 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 34):
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 the legal owner has to unload it and keep it separate from it´s ammunition in a locked gun case, so that he cannot use it without preparation

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 weapon.

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
Depending on how what kind of case and where the key to the lock was.

But you can't draw the line at guns. There are many other deadly weapons around the home that are used to kill people on a regular basis. If you to hold a gun owner responsible for a stolen gun used in anger either in civil or criminal court you will soon have that argument expanded to anything used to kill a person. If a civil attorney goes after a gun owner and wins it will be a matter of time before he goes after a baseball bat owner, a golf club owner, a knife owner, a car owner and the list goes on. If somebody is held liable for the unlawful use of something then they all have to be. You would be charged with murder if you stabbed somebody to death, beat somebody to death, or intentionally ran them over with your car. It wouldn't matter what you killed the person with because murder is murder, so you can't pick and choose civil liability based in the what was used to kill somebody.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 41, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1440 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 40):
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 weapon.

It's about the only way to transport a firearm through some states, if you are not a resident.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 40):
If somebody is held liable for the unlawful use of something then they all have to be.

If I leave my wallet in my car and someone steals it, purchases a firearm with the credit card or cash I may have and then proceeds to commit a crime, am I liable?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1572 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1435 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting falstaff (Reply 32):
I didn't do anything wrong. The gun was behind locked doors, in a locked case, in a house being looked after by somebody who I trusted.

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 your neighbour then I'd say you were negligent.

How did he get the gun?

Fred

[Edited 2013-02-07 14:51:41]

User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 43, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1431 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 42):
If you left the key in the care of your neighbour then I'd say you were negligent.

Negligent? No. Too trusting, maybe.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 44, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 42):
How did he get the gun?

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 trigger locks are useless against crime.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 43):
Too trusting, maybe.

It isn't like I'm running background checks on my neighbors and friends. Could I? Sure, but then somebody would want to want to take away my guns because I was so paranoid. You can't win with the anti gun crowd.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 41):
If I leave my wallet in my car and someone steals it, purchases a firearm with the credit card or cash I may have and then proceeds to commit a crime, am I liable?

You shouldn't be, but I am sure some people would like to make you liable. Some people just want to put everyone in prison for safety's sake. Oddly when the right wanted tough measures against terrorism the left stood up and screamed about the rights of citizens. Now the left is going after guns and left is doesn't care about those rights.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1572 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1389 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 43):
Negligent? No. Too trusting, maybe.

Like carrying someones bag through customs?

Quoting falstaff (Reply 44):
Stole the entire locked gun safe it was stored in.

Blimey! You can't stop peiople who are determined I suppose.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 44):
It isn't like I'm running background checks on my neighbors and friends.

Thats why many laws use terms like "as far as reasonably practicable"

Fred


User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 46, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1385 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 45):
Like carrying someones bag through customs?

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 came back to get the projector (and the flight he said he was going to be on left) so my dad took it back to SGF (on Ozark) with him. Dad gets a laugh out of that because now days he would have reported the guy to the police for leaving a carry on unattended. Times sure have changed

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 45):
Blimey! You can't stop peiople who are determined I suppose.

Exactly....


There was a guy around here a few years ago stealing entire ATMs. He wrapped a chain around them and ripped them off the ground. Then took them home where he broke into them. It took a while before the guy was caught too.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 47, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1379 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 46):
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 45):
Blimey! You can't stop peiople who are determined I suppose.

Exactly....


There was a guy around here a few years ago stealing entire ATMs. He wrapped a chain around them and ripped them off the ground. Then took them home where he broke into them. It took a while before the guy was caught too.

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 department with my very eyes not only showed me how incredibly secure ATMs are but also the fact that any safe storage can be broken into. It took about an hour, 2-3 men, and a giant crowbar, but the deed was done



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 48, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1374 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):
Seeing a ATM being broken into by the fire department with my very eyes

Why was the fire department breaking into the ATM? Fire department funding getting a liitle weak?  



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 49, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1367 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 48):
Why was the fire department breaking into the ATM? Fire department funding getting a liitle weak?  

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 impressive sight to say the least, they used a giant sledge hammer to shove a bar in, and then a bunch of them pried it open with a 4 foot or so long crowbar. Took a while and a lot of brute strength... Doc would've been impressed  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 50, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1328 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 39):
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?

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 corrected.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 40):
But you can't draw the line at guns. There are many other deadly weapons around the home that are used to kill people on a regular basis. If you to hold a gun owner responsible for a stolen gun used in anger either in civil or criminal court you will soon have that argument expanded to anything used to kill a person. If a civil attorney goes after a gun owner and wins it will be a matter of time before he goes after a baseball bat owner, a golf club owner, a knife owner, a car owner and the list goes on

I'm not drawing the line at guns. I'm drawing the line at what burglars try to steal to facilitate future crimes. You do not see burglars steel baseball bats and knifes to be used as weapons. The few times they steel them it is to make money. Guns on the other hand are sought after items.

How can you ignore the difference?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 41):
If I leave my wallet in my car and someone steals it, purchases a firearm with the credit card or cash I may have and then proceeds to commit a crime, am I liable?

You really think it is the same? You really fail to see how one is direct and the other indirect?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 43):
Negligent? No.

If you provide someone with access to your weapons you are responsible for how they use them. You are the facilitator.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 44):
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 must take significant time to break in or to remove. It also should trigger the alarm.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 44):
It isn't like I'm running background checks on my neighbors and friends. Could I? Sure, but then somebody would want to want to take away my guns because I was so paranoid. You can't win with the anti gun crowd.

You can't get gun owners to take responsibility for their actions. You need to know how your guns are used. They are your responsibility.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):
but also the fact that any safe storage can be broken into. It took about an hour, 2-3 men, and a giant crowbar, but the deed was done

Everything can be broken. What we want is that they hold up until backup arrive. This isn't just with theft protection. It is the base in many other areas too, fire protection and cryptography for example.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 49):
a few gas stations were doing some illegal gambling, so all the money in the place (even in the ATMs) had to be confiscated.

Sounds like needless destruction. They should just have turned off the power and got the keys so they could open them normally.


User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 51, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1324 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cmf (Reply 50):

Sounds like needless destruction. They should just have turned off the power and got the keys so they could open them normally.

That would have made a lot of sense and it probably have been much faster.

Quoting cmf (Reply 50):
It must take significant time to break in or to remove. It also should trigger the alarm.

I don't know anyone with a safe that as an alarm actually on the safe.

It is obvious that you are very anti gun so there is no possible way for you to ever agree with a very pro gun guy like myself. We have two very different ways of looking at the issues, so we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Quoting cmf (Reply 50):
Guns on the other hand are sought after items.

to be sold... Not every burglar is going to use guns in anger. Many are going to steal guns for the same reason he steals everything else, to make money. Guns always have value, you can trade them for goods and services anywhere, legal or not. Guns, like gold, have a value that is beyond that of paper money.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 52, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1313 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 51):
I don't know anyone with a safe that as an alarm actually on the safe.

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 zone.

Alarms are cheap. There is no excuse for not having gun safes without alarm. Get an alarm on your phone if it is the only zone triggered. Automatic alarm to the police if several zones in your house are triggered with an additional alert for the gun safe.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 51):
It is obvious that you are very anti gun so there is no possible way for you to ever agree with a very pro gun guy like myself. We have two very different ways of looking at the issues, so we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I want gun owners to be responsible for how their weapons are used. How is that anti gun? I have not once called for banning of guns. I have repeatedly stated that they serve a place in society. But because I don't agree on a free for all you label me anti gun.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 51):
to be sold... Not every burglar is going to use guns in anger. Many are going to steal guns for the same reason he steals everything else, to make money.

10 to 15% of all weapons used in crime are stolen. Eaxh year some 500,000 weapons are stolen. How many baseball bats and knifes are stolen per year and how often are they used in crime?


User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 53, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1306 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cmf (Reply 52):
10 to 15% of all weapons used in crime are stolen. Eaxh year some 500,000 weapons are stolen. How many baseball bats and knifes are stolen per year and how often are they used in crime?

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. They will steal a gun (depending on the type) as quickly as they would steal a gold watch. Some guns have a very low street value, so they aren't really a high priority for "professional" thieves.

Quoting cmf (Reply 52):
I want gun owners to be responsible for how their weapons are used

You have to be reasonable. All this stuff costs a lot of money and scares people away from gun ownership. The costs of this limits gun ownership and makes it so only the well off can afford guns.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 54, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1306 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 50):
You really think it is the same? You really fail to see how one is direct and the other indirect?


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 manufacturer, not a retailer, not an owner, would be immune from suit.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 48):
Why was the fire department breaking into the ATM? Fire department funding getting a liitle weak?


We did it as a challenge. Someone had decommissioned a couple of ATM's and was wondering how hard it really was to break into one. Any fire department worthy of their name would not pass up some good forcible entry training.

Quoting cmf (Reply 50):
I don't see how it could be any differently, can you?


No, I can't. But, too many people insist that others be held to a much higher standard than the general population.

As an aside, based on our "conversations" I have modified the way I store my firearm when I'm not allowed to carry it. I recently "discovered", even though I've owned the vehicle for 3 years, that the glove compartment actually locks. Kind of strange, but I had never noticed that before and since I rarely use the glove box (I use the console storage almost exclusively) and glove box locks have become an option on many cars, I really had no reason to look for a lock.

Quoting cmf (Reply 50):
If you provide someone with access to your weapons you are responsible for how they use them. You are the facilitator.


Near as I can tell, he provided access to his home for a trusted neighbor, it was the neighbor who failed to secure the keys.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 55, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1294 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 50):
Sounds like needless destruction. They should just have turned off the power and got the keys so they could open them normally.

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 company

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
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 manufacturer, not a retailer, not an owner, would be immune from suit.

   This. I'm curious, cmf, where do you stand on this? Who do you think should be held liable?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 542 posts, RR: 3
Reply 56, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1265 times:

You guys have all made awesome points and I LOVE how well this has stayed on topic!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 55):
This. I'm curious, cmf, where do you stand on this? Who do you think should be held liable?

I know you were asking cmf, but as the OP, I feel the need to chime in here. I for one feel the degredation of society is wholeheartedly due to our ongoing allowance of a lack of accountability. Where I take issue is someone FOLLOWING the law and being held liable for the end user whom they have almost no control. The regulations on gun manufacturers, dealers, and FFL's are insane! Not necessarily saying in a bad way but to make a buck selling a gun you need to do it illegally. As for your question, the people who should and IMHO NEED to be held accountable are those who break the law. In 14 states it is either LEGAL or 'permissible' to sell a gun to someone you knowingly know to not be able to possess one. If I were to sell a gun to someone who I 'know' should not have one legally, I am liable, I dont care about the law. If I sell a gun to someone who has followed the proper channels, as I have, to hold me liable is constitutionally OFFENSIVE and should be impermissible. Same goes if I have a stockpile of weapons in my home and keep them secured from those who should not have them (children, mentally fu*ked up people, criminals, etc.) and it happens to be stolen or misappropriated without my knowledge/permission, to hold me accountable is constitutionally OFFENSIVE! Now, if I leave my guns to the whim of anyone who wants to sweep the room with my AK47 with their finger on the trigger (ahem, feinstein), and should not have one, I need to be held to a certain level of liability, as I should be.

My $.03



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 57, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1242 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 56):
In 14 states it is either LEGAL or 'permissible' to sell a gun to someone you knowingly know to not be able to possess one.


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 the same statute. Please name one of the 14 states, and cite the applicable statute, that allows transfer of firearms in contradiction to the cited federal law.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 56):
Not necessarily saying in a bad way but to make a buck selling a gun you need to do it illegally.


What? You're telling me that all the gun retailers out there are making money and staying in business only because they are selling firearms "on the side?" That's ridiculous. The fact that you hold that belief is troubling.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 58, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1236 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
But, does a trial lawyer see the difference. If this proposed legislation were to somehow pass, no one; not a manufacturer, not a retailer, not an owner, would be immune from suit.

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 either gone through a background check (assuming that universal background checks did pass) or participated in an illegal purchase. In the first case, he was legally eligible to have a gun anyway, and in the second case someone else committed the crime of giving him the gun, which directly led to him having it.

Even if a trial lawyer didn't see the difference, I have a hard time believing that a judge or jury would, or that any conviction on those grounds would stand up to appeal.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 59, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1231 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 58):
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 either gone through a background check (assuming that universal background checks did pass) or participated in an illegal purchase. In the first case, he was legally eligible to have a gun anyway, and in the second case someone else committed the crime of giving him the gun, which directly led to him having it.


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 criminal with a firearm.

The manufacturer, indirectly provides a firearm to a criminal by selling a firearm, legally, to a distributor, dealer, wholesaler, etc. Why should that manufacturer bear any more (or less) responsibility than me?

Quoting Mir (Reply 58):
Even if a trial lawyer didn't see the difference, I have a hard time believing that a judge or jury would, or that any conviction on those grounds would stand up to appeal.


But, at what cost to me and the public treasury? Legislation like this is an open invitation to any trial lawyer "worth his salt" to take a stab at any entity that may have had, even tangential, contact with the firearm in question.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 60, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1232 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 53):
They will steal a gun (depending on the type) as quickly as they would steal a gold watch

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 no market for them.

This is why your suggestion that knifes and baseball bats should be treated the same way as guns fail.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 53):
You have to be reasonable. All this stuff costs a lot of money and scares people away from gun ownership. The costs of this limits gun ownership and makes it so only the well off can afford guns.

Yes, you have to be reasonable. Sure there are costs but I have no idea how you get to a lot. Not when you compare it to the costs of guns. Much less when you consider the cost of them ending up in the wrong hands.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
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 manufacturer, not a retailer, not an owner, would be immune from suit.

If there is an ambulance chaser I'm sure the judge will shut them down. If the judges fail then we are close to the time where it is use the second amendment.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
But, too many people insist that others be held to a much higher standard than the general population.

Of course standards vary, they must. Walking down a street with a loaded weapon isn't the same as walking down a street with with a box of doughnuts.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
As an aside, based on our "conversations" I have modified the way I store my firearm when I'm not allowed to carry it. I recently "discovered", even though I've owned the vehicle for 3 years, that the glove compartment actually locks

Who said nothing good comes from these discussions   I'm glad you do that because it is a big improvement but I'd much rather see you spend 30 bucks on something like this http://www.meijer.com/s/gunvault-nan...eCom_PLA_Sporting_Goods&kpid=NV100

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
Near as I can tell, he provided access to his home for a trusted neighbor, it was the neighbor who failed to secure the keys.

I didn't express any issue with giving house keys to a neighbor. You do not (Should not) have access to the guns just because you're inside the house. The issue was that the boxes he used could easily be carried out.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 55):
This. I'm curious, cmf, where do you stand on this? Who do you think should be held liable?

Not sure if you are asking about the left wallet issue with money/credit card used to buy weapons that was the subject of that comment or the Colorado proposal to hold dealers and manufacturers liable.

I can't imagine a situation where someone can hope to win a case based on that money stolen from a car means you are responsible for what people do with something they buy with that money. It would be the same as holding an employer responsible for how an employee use money earned.

As to the Colorado proposal. I early on stated that I do not think you can hold manufacturers responsible for a what happens when a weapon is used. The exemption would possibly be in cases of malfunction or similar things related to the design or manufacturing.

I don't think sellers can be held responsible as long as sale was done with background check being approved and there were no obviously strange things happening, e.g. indications of straw purchase.

I do not think the owner is responsible if they have not given access and have stored the weapon reasonably. (I'm sure we will have additional discussions about what is reasonable   )

The possessor is always responsible. But I also see how multiple parties should be held responsible in some circumstances, e.g. obvious straw purchase.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 56):
Same goes if I have a stockpile of weapons in my home and keep them secured from those who should not have them (children, mentally fu*ked up people, criminals, etc.) and it happens to be stolen or misappropriated without my knowledge/permission, to hold me accountable is constitutionally OFFENSIVE! Now, if I leave my guns to the whim of anyone who wants to sweep the room with my AK47 with their finger on the trigger (ahem, feinstein), and should not have one, I need to be held to a certain level of liability, as I should be.

Very close to what I said   The key issue is that secured means different things to different people. For example, I do not consider a glove box properly secured.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 56):
My $.03
Inflation  


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 61, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1231 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 60):
Who said nothing good comes from these discussions I'm glad you do that because it is a big improvement but I'd much rather see you spend 30 bucks on something like this http://www.meijer.com/s/gunvault-nan...NV100

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 wearing it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 62, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1226 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 61):
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 wearing it.

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  


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 63, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1219 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 62):
Why not give the glove compartment an upgrade then?


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 driver). Neither of our vehicles have a trunk.

Quoting cmf (Reply 62):
Are we in agreement on the rest or will we return to them in future posts


I think we're in basic agreement, but let's just say we disagree as to the level of agreement.   

I still have a very strong feeling that if the proposed legislation passes, the ambulance chaser class of our society will look to assess blame...everywhere.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1572 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1214 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting falstaff (Reply 53):
You have to be reasonable. All this stuff costs a lot of money and scares people away from gun ownership. The costs of this limits gun ownership and makes it so only the well off can afford guns.

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 really dont see what you are getting at with the guns? Where is the difference?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
Near as I can tell, he provided access to his home for a trusted neighbor, it was the neighbor who failed to secure the keys.

Just like carrying someone else's bag through customs? You just trusted your friend, it was them who put the 4kg of cocaine in it.

Fred


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 65, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1209 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 64):
Just like carrying someone else's bag through customs? You just trusted your friend, it was them who put the 4kg of cocaine in it.


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 to him to secure the keys. Now, I may have misplaced my trust, but I did nothing illegal or negligent.

If a trusted friend provides me with a bag, it is up to me to inspect the bag and ensure it is legal. If I fail to do that, I am culpable.

Big difference.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 66, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1198 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
If I provide the keys to a trusted friend, it is up to him to secure the keys. Now, I may have misplaced my trust, but I did nothing illegal or negligent.

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 give out the keys you have provided someone access to guns without background check and without you being there supervising how your guns are used. This is why you are negligent.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 67, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 60):
As to the Colorado proposal. I early on stated that I do not think you can hold manufacturers responsible for a what happens when a weapon is used. The exemption would possibly be in cases of malfunction or similar things related to the design or manufacturing.

I don't think sellers can be held responsible as long as sale was done with background check being approved and there were no obviously strange things happening, e.g. indications of straw purchase.

I do not think the owner is responsible if they have not given access and have stored the weapon reasonably. (I'm sure we will have additional discussions about what is reasonable   )

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 issue and you approach it from the "left."

What you just mentioned is what I was talking about when I said "flawed logic" early on in the thread. Barring some extreme circumstances, I don't see how a gun manufacturer or store can or should be held responsible



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 68, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 66):
There are no valid reasons for you to give the keys to your guns to a neighbor.


He didn't give him the keys to the guns, they were:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 32):
The gun was behind locked doors, in a locked case,


Now, I don't know the exact circumstances, but my outside key has nothing to do with any of my inside doors.

Quoting cmf (Reply 66):
It is not needed to look after your house while you are away.


Yes, sometimes it is necessary to give keys to a friend. I have in the past and will in the future.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 32):
My neighbor had the key and was feeding my fish while I was gone.
Quoting cmf (Reply 66):
This is why you are negligent.


While, we may agree that certain things are negligent and there are certain precautions that should be taken, I really don't think that giving your keys to a neighbor so that your fish may be fed raises to the level of negligence. Especially, since it was not the neighbor that took the stuff, it was the neighbor's son.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 67):
Funny how much we think we are at odds with each other when we usually agree 100%


  



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1178 times:

Some very selective quoting there.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
He didn't give him the keys to the guns, they were:

  

Answered back in post 60.

Quoting cmf (Reply 60):
I didn't express any issue with giving house keys to a neighbor. You do not (Should not) have access to the guns just because you're inside the house. The issue was that the boxes he used could easily be carried out.

.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
Yes, sometimes it is necessary to give keys to a friend. I have in the past and will in the future.

Again, keys to the house, fine. Keys to your guns, problem. Having cases that are easy to carry away, problem.


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1572 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1177 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
He didn't give him the keys to the guns, they were:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
Now, I don't know the exact circumstances, but my outside key has nothing to do with any of my inside doors.

We have established that we are not talking about Falstaffs gun being stolen so we can leave this now.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
Yes, sometimes it is necessary to give keys to a friend. I have in the past and will in the future.

to a house and not to the guns, sounds reasonable.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 68):
Quoting falstaff (Reply 32):
My neighbor had the key and was feeding my fish while I was gone.
Quoting cmf (Reply 66):
This is why you are negligent.

well done, you were able to put two different quotes together to misconstrue what was being stated. Hopefully most people will look up the respective quotes and see how they are not joined in this way.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 67):
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 issue and you approach it from the "left."

Couldn't agree more, somewhere between pulling the guns from your cold dead hands and everyone with a gun being a nut job recheck there are most people who want only sensible people be able to get their hands on dangerous weapons.

There must be accountability.

Fred


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 71, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1169 times:

I just finished re-reading 32 and I don't see the hang-up.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 70):
We have established that we are not talking about Falstaffs gun being stolen so we can leave this now

What are we talking about? Folks are claiming that Falstaff was negligent because his guns were stolen after he allowed someone to feed his fish while he was on vaaction.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 70):
to a house and not to the guns, sounds reasonable.

Nowhere does Falstaff indicate that he provided the keys to the room that the guns were in. Maybe Falstaff can weigh in here.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 70):
well done, you were able to put two different quotes together to misconstrue what was being stated. Hopefully most people will look up the respective quotes and see how they are not joined in this way.

See the following statement from cmf:

Quoting cmf (Reply 66):
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 give out the keys you have provided someone access to guns without background check and without you being there supervising how your guns are used. This is why you are negligent.

He ties the two together under the false (I assume) premise that Falstaff provided the keys to the locked room that the guns were stored in, not the keys to the house.

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
Answered back in post 60.

But the guns were behind an additional locked door, weren't they?

Quoting falstaff (Reply 32):
The gun was behind locked doors,
Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
Having cases that are easy to carry away, problem

I'll agree to that. All my firearms, and, as far as I know, my friends with firearms store them in a safe or locked steel cabinet secured to structure.

Again, would you hold him liable for his neighbor's son entering Falstaff's home and breaking into the room with the guns?

I don't think so...in fact, I suspect that Falstaff may have had a civil case against his neighbor for allowing acces to the keys. Especially, if the neighbor knew or reasonable should have known the son was an addict.

[Edited 2013-02-10 10:51:15]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 72, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1162 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 71):
Again, would you hold him liable for his neighbor's son entering Falstaff's home and breaking into the room with the guns?

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 if there is a risk the case can easily be carried out, i.e. not bolted to floor/wall and requiring noisy tools and hour+ work or major destruction, then a separate alarm zone is required.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 71):
I suspect that Falstaff may have had a civil case against his neighbor for allowing acces to the keys. Especially, if the neighbor knew or reasonable should have known the son was an addict.

very likely.

But again, that is a different issue. The issue at hand is guns falling in wrong hands. And then it isn't enough to protect access to the house. You also need to protect the guns inside the house.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 73, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1157 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 72):
I hold him responsible for having a case that could, from the info we have from Fallstaff, be carried out without too much problem

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 really not a fan of it, but it beats hiding them on the top shelf of a closet.

In fact, a couple of months ago, when I was moving, I stored my guns at a friend's (a police officer) house because the moving contract stipulated that they did not move guns. He did not have room in his safe for all my long guns, along with his. So, some were left in locked cases in the same locked closet that his safe was in. Ideal? Probably not, but certainly better than laying against a wall or in a closet.

I think we're basically on the same page here, but I draw liability at what the state law says in regards to storage. I'm not opposed to legislation concerning storage so long as the requirement is not so restrictive or onerous as to keep folks who are allowed to own firearms from owning them.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 74, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1137 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 73):
I think we're basically on the same page here, but I draw liability at what the state law says in regards to storage. I'm not opposed to legislation concerning storage so long as the requirement is not so restrictive or onerous as to keep folks who are allowed to own firearms from owning them.

Just consider it as $100,000 in cash when you store it and it will be fine.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 75, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1089 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 59):
Exactly, but isn't this what the proposed legislation ignores?

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 accountable, but that's a very vague term, and without seeing exactly how they plan to do that, I can't really form a solid opinion on it.

I will say that I generally do not support the idea of holding manufacturers accountable for what people do with their goods, but I am more amenable to holding users accountable for what happens with products that are in their control.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 76, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1082 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 71):
Nowhere does Falstaff indicate that he provided the keys to the room that the guns were in. Maybe Falstaff can weigh in here

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. This type of case is very common and are sold at gun shops around the country.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 73):
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 really not a fan of it, but it beats hiding them on the top shelf of a closet.

Hiding guns in a closet is kind of dangerous, if you think children are going to get a hold of them. It is kind of like trigger locks; a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you want to keep the kids safe, but they won't work to prevent theft.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 77, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1082 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 76):
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 71):
Nowhere does Falstaff indicate that he provided the keys to the room that the guns were in. Maybe Falstaff can weigh in here

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. This type of case is very common and are sold at gun shops around the country.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 73):
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 really not a fan of it, but it beats hiding them on the top shelf of a closet.

Hiding guns in a closet is kind of dangerous, if you think children are going to get a hold of them. It is kind of like trigger locks; a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you want to keep the kids safe, but they won't work to prevent theft.


My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503

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 gave your neighbour the key to disarm the alarm as well, so that he could go in and take care of your house (ewatering plants etc.).
Those transport cases are more to keep you legal when you are transporting the gun, so that it is defintely not ready to be used (unlock the case first, then load it etc.).

Jan


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1572 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1070 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I heard a good idea today, make it the law to have all guns painted pink with flowers on.

Fred


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 79, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1071 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 76):
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. This type of case is very common and are sold at gun shops around the country.

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 person can get into it, but it's not that easy.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 542 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1013 times:

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://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...-limits-on-high-capacity-magazines

To get the ball rolling it looks like Colorado has taken two more steps toward 'banning', but today was not about the original question opening the thread so without veering off course, lets talk about the steps taken today...

As for my opinion, I am more irked than anything that the state, which has bigger problems, is WASTING their time trying to enact a COMPLETELY un-enforceable restriction on "high (regular) capacity" magazines while allowing all previously owned mags to remain legal. Ok, so anyone from Colorado will understand that we have quite possibly the strictest anti-fireworks laws in the country. Wyoming allows almost everything, so what do we do? Drive an hour to Wyoming and buy our fireworks and bring them back. Perhaps BlackCat will start selling magazines at their stand one mile north of the state line?? Ok, so we can still VERY easily get them, and nothing in the legislation passed even prohibits Coloradoans from doing so. Secondly, MagPul (for those who dont know, they are one of the premier gun part manufacturers out there) is based in Colorado and openly stated ANY ban on magazines and they are leaving the state. That is 500-700 jobs cut and $400m in annual revenue being taxed leaving the state (presumably because to operate in CO where they are no longer legal they would be required to put serial numbers on every magazine and thus an investment on new equipment they are not willing to spend)...

So, what is going through our lawmakers minds enacting a totally un-enforceable law that only serves to hurt our state's economy??

My $.03



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2873 posts, RR: 8
Reply 81, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 981 times:

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

Talking about definitions....

This was reported today and I quote part of the story where the Police themselves describe weapons Dorner had on his possession when killed.

"Dorner was equipped with an arsenal of weapons, including assault rifles with flash suppressors that masked the sound of gunfire and the location it was coming from as he pelted the first two deputies to arrive at the cabin, killing Det. Jeremiah MacKay."

So Yes, definitions are VERY important when describing situations. Just so everyone is on the same page.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ticle.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10865923



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, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 82, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 975 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 81):
So Yes, definitions are VERY important when describing situations. Just so everyone is on the same page.

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 is pretty broad. Terms like "flash suppressor" are often kinda overblown... a lot of times that's just how the guns are made, it may be the default feature or it may be some super high tech muzzle device, we do not know.

I see these terms often thrown around, and they sound really incriminating even when they are not... like "cop killer" bullets/armor piercing bullets. They sound undoubtedly cynical and a guaranteed "gotcha, who needs these bullets?" but even these can be explained very simply... a lot of surplus military ammo (aka cheap shooting ammo) is made with steel bullets (because they're cheap POS old Soviet bullets) but since they're steel, they're also considered "armor piercing."

Kinda rambled on and I'm kinda drunk, but I think you get what I'm saying... definitions aren't very good in describing these situations, even when you think you have them down, you may not have them down



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 83, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 914 times:

Yes, language and usage are important.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 81):
This was reported today and I quote part of the story where the Police themselves describe weapons Dorner had on his possession when killed.

"Dorner was equipped with an arsenal of weapons, including assault rifles with flash suppressors that masked the sound of gunfire and the location it was coming from as he pelted the first two deputies to arrive at the cabin, killing Det. Jeremiah MacKay."

Read the article carefully. The paragraph you quoted is not a quote from the police. What you posted is nestled between 2 quotes from the police spokesman. What you posted is commentary by the reporter.

"When about a quarter of the cabin was on fire, we heard a distinct single gunshot come from inside the house which was a much different-sounding shot than what he'd been shooting at us," sheriff's Capt. Kevin Lacy said.

Dorner was equipped with an arsenal of weapons, including assault rifles with flash suppressors that masked the sound of gunfire and the location it was coming from as he pelted the first two deputies to arrive at the cabin, killing Det. Jeremiah MacKay.

"Our officers had not even pulled their guns out at that point and were not prepared to engage anybody and they were ambushed," McMahon said.


And, flash suppressors do not mask the sound of gunfire, they mask the...wait for it...muzzle flash from the firearm. Can we guess what masks the sound? Yes, a sound supressor masks the sound. And, they require special licensing and a tax stamp to own.

So, yes, language and usage are important.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
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