Because securing your guns against theft is the act of a responsible gun owner.
nm
Not ok. Doesn’t work that way, for one thing. If I give a sample bullet from one of my guns, and then go out and put a few thousand rounds through like I am wont to do, he sample will not match the gun any more. Not even close. This also doesn’t address the fact that barrels can easily be changed with just a screwdriver, or that running said screwdriver down the barrel a few times will screw up the lands enough to render any comparison worthless, or the fact that most “murder bullets” are so deformed by the time they are through that it is impossible to get useful information from them in the first place, or…
You get the idea.
Or not. Gun ownership increases the chance of someone killing themselves, just as it increases the chance of them killing someone else.
My insurance man once recounted to me how some duck hunters claimed to have capsized their flat bottom boat and lost their very expensive shotguns…and how shocked they were that American family , working with the dive rescue team for the Sheriff’s Dept, used this as a training drill and to recover said lost shotguns…and they sure enough, did retrieve them for the insurance company.
Bullshit. Again, I am not responsible for the criminal actions of third parties. Do you have a safe for your chain saw? How about for your car? Steak knives? Do you want to bubble wrap the world so nobody gets an owie ever again? If someone breaks into my home and steals my property, I’m a crime victim, not a criminal.
I thought you were a lawyer. Surprising you didn’t hear about duty of care in your Torts class.
Go look up causation, and come back to apologize for being wrong. Bonus points if you provide citations regarding criminal actions by third parties.
I’ll bet you won’t go out on a limb and identify any responsibilities of a responsible gun owner. That term is officially meaningless.
You lose. I have a duty to not shoot you without a damn good reason.
Does or does not the law require you to take reasonable care to prevent your guns from being stolen by “bad guys”? :dubious:
You’re really not helping your cause here.
Reasonable is a pretty grey word. Guns in the garage? Pretty much everyone will say that’s not reasonably secured. Unadvertised guns stored out of sight, maybe stuffed under the mattress? Much more likely to be considered reasonably difficult for a thief to find and steal. But depending on who is on the jury you might not win even if you encased them in concrete and hid them under the house’s foundation–because they still got stolen.
You tell me, since you’re the “expert”. Don’t forget the citation to controlling legal authority.
Depending on how far off shore, it could also be transporting weapons across state lines or country borders. Wonder if Canada likes their new stash-o-guns?
There are a few cases on point. The Massachusetts Superior Court refused to uphold a summary judgment for the defendant in a negligence case, where the defendant homeowner allowed her ex-con stepson with previous adjudicated mental issues, access to a home where weapons were kept. Jupin v. Kask, 447 Mass. 141 (Mass. 2006). But see the First Circuit CoA case of Jones v. Secord where the appellate court upheld the summary judgment for the defendant homeowner. That the one was in MA and the other arose from a NH case might have something to do with the outcome.
Professor Andrew McClurg, of the University of Arkansas Law School, has advocated expanding negligence to cover situations similar to ones ElvisL1ves was talking about. One of his articles on this topic can be found here, and, IMHO, neatly recaps a lot of the arguments for extending such liability. I disagree with them, and wonder if we’re also going to extend liability to a automobile owner whose car is used in a crime, but, IMHO, the arguments are ably advanced by the professor.
I’m sure there are other cases on point, but to the best of my knowledge, no court has (Yet. In my reading of the opinion, the MA Court looked like they were thinking about it.) proposed finding a burglarized homeowner liable for the subsequent use of their stolen firearms to commit a crime.
Weird little gun fetishists with their weird little paranoid ‘jokes.’
Kinda takes all the fun out of trying to get Elvis to admit he was wrong when you do his homework for him.
Well, I first read the thread title as “fire ant” and that sounded more intriguing.
James Yeager is out there doing his part to promote gun control.
He’s the Tennessee businessman who posted a video in which he said, “I’m not fucking putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.” cite
Yeager doesn’t seem to understand that the reason we need gun control laws is to keep people like James Yeager from owning guns.
Nonsense! They’ll just mint a couple more trillion dollar platinum coins.