ATCtower
Topic Author
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:46 am

Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:03 am

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.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20142
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:10 am

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
flymia
Posts: 6839
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:56 am

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)
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6714
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:52 pm

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.
 
bristolflyer
Posts: 2103
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 1:35 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:22 pm

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
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:39 pm

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
Image
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6714
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:43 pm

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 avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:49 pm

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.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:36 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
ATCtower
Topic Author
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:46 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:40 pm

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.
 
FlyDeltaJets
Posts: 1635
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:59 pm

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
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6714
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:02 pm

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 avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 1815
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:03 pm

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.
Be A Perfectionst, You're Nothing If You're Just Another; Something Material, This Isn't Personal...
 
User avatar
falstaff
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:17 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:19 pm

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
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:57 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
windy95
Posts: 2660
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:05 am

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.
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:46 am

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]
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:55 am

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 :)
 
TheCommodore
Posts: 3458
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:14 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:28 am

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 !
“At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you.”
 
ATCtower
Topic Author
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:46 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:51 am

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 avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6146
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:40 am

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 avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 1815
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:50 am

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.
Be A Perfectionst, You're Nothing If You're Just Another; Something Material, This Isn't Personal...
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:14 am

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:11 pm

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
Image
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:25 pm

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 23):
Anyone agree?

Pretty much what I have suggested before. Can't include details every time.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6714
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:50 pm

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 avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6146
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:26 pm

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
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:04 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6146
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:08 pm

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
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6714
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:46 pm

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:47 pm

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 :)
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:49 pm

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
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
User avatar
falstaff
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:17 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:18 pm

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
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:38 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:56 pm

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
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
CalebWilliams
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:48 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:27 pm

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
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:42 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6714
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:01 pm

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.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:48 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6714
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:57 pm

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 avatar
falstaff
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:17 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:07 pm

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
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6714
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:34 pm

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.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:50 pm

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]
Image
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6714
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:58 pm

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 avatar
falstaff
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:17 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:06 pm

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
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:22 pm

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
Image
 
User avatar
falstaff
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:17 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:33 pm

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:14 pm

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 avatar
falstaff
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:17 am

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:46 pm

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Colorado Gun Proposal

Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:14 pm

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 :)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bananaboy, einsteinboricua, LittleFokker, sbworcs and 18 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos