You and your spouse have agreed that the razor is “hers”. But effectively (and in the eyes of the law), it’s both of yours. You, specifically, just agreed not to use it.
You are married. You have joint custody of the house, and everything in it, based on that legal union. It’s nice that you respect each other’s “private” space and whatnot, but to the rest of us, it’s immaterial.
Let’s say outside of your home, a child gets shot. The police are able to determine (maybe from eyewitness testimony) that the shot came from your house. They go inside. They discover a smoking gun sitting on the bed. You and your wife are standing there, arguing with each other.
Do you think that they will ask “who’s gun is this?” before they break out the cuffs?
Do you think that if they walked in, saw the gun, and your wife was the only one present, that she could say “It’s my husbands gun, officer. He’s downstairs right now. The stairs are over there.”, and the cops would respond with “Oh! Ok. Thanks, ma’am.”
Of course not! They arrest both of you. As far as they are concerned, the gun belongs to both of you. Her statements about ownership are, effectively, mean diddly.
Only after collecting further evidence, specifically gun purchase and registration records, fingerprints, and powder residue tests, do they decide who to charge with the gun charges. (The partner may still get hit with accessory charges, based on the details uncovered in the investigation.)
To further expand: You and your wife (and this includes Kalhoun’s situation) are married. You share custody of the home (I assume). The rest of the world considers you both responsible for the bills and expenses that comes with it, and the activities within.
If there are guns in the home, I consider you both responsible for them. If they are present, it’s because both spouses (assuming you have an “equal partnership” marriage) allow it.
When one spouse or the other says “Well, it’s not mine/my fault… it’s his/hers. I just live here.”, it sounds, well… to put about as bluntly as I care to… like something a child says.
You both own the home. You are both assumed to be adults. So act like adults, “Man up”, and take responsibility for what goes on in the house.
The law begs to differ. As Kalhoun mentioned, she is not the legal owner of that gun. She is not licensed for it.
Alternatively, the person who actually owns the gun could “man up” and treat it accordingly. It should be on his or her person, or safely locked up. End of. Period. **Your ** gun, **your ** responsibility.
If one of those guns was found to be “unregistered”, you could both be charged, not just the purchaser. because it was found in your (joint custody) home.
I may be responsible for a crime committed with an unsecured gun in my home (i.e., a kid blowing his brains out because it was on the table), but if my husband goes out and knocks over a liquor store, am I held responsible for that crime? My “responsibility” does not extend to learning how to (illegally) operate the guns. The remedy to the loaded, unsecured gun is NOT to unload it or put the safety on. It’s to remove the gun from the reach of someone who might accidentally discharge it.
Ideally, such a person would. (And does, according to Kalhoun.)
Her arguments include not trusting people enough, hence her dislike of guns.
But she trusts her husband enough to never make a mistake? Because that is what she is doing. By refusing to “have anthing to do with the odious things”, she is betting that he won’t. (From her description of things, she might win that bet. )
But the ideal situation would be for her to learn enough about the weapons to render them safe.
Well jeeeeeez…monkeys might fly out of my butt, too! But we’re talking about responsibility for learning how to operate a firearm. I am not responsible to do anything with a gun. It’s not up to me. It’s up to the gun owner. Always.
Which is another reason I won’t allow guns in the house. If my SO/soon to be spouse were to have a gun in the house for some reason (highly doubtful as he has less interest in them then I do) then I might bear some legal responsibility for it. I see no reason for me to have to do so. Thank you for giving me another reason to have the position on this issue that I do.
Possibly by your archaic laws, but not ours. I own anything I buy, and so does my wife (in her case, that includes the house)
I should hope so, if they don’t want a lawsuit.
Only if we both deny ownership. Which is cool.
Which would have what to do with Kalhoun’s case, exactly?
You assume wrong. My marriage gives me effective power of attorney for my wife, but not ownership of her property.
No, it doesn’t. I can’t be held liable for my wife’s debts, and assets in my name can’t be attached. It’s called the 21st century, you should get with it sometime.
The law here doesn’t, or it would require all of us to get licences if we lived in homes with guns, and not only the gunowner would be liable if ann unlocked gun (mandatory safes) caused an accident or was stolen. I repeat:Just the licence holder.
What the hell? Is this the frigging Honeymooners or* I Love Lucy*? I don’t “allow” my wife to do anything. What an antiquated attitude towards marriage.
To me, saying “I forbid it” to your partner is like talking to a child.
No, we don’t.
Taking responsibility has nothing to do with ownership. But that’s irrelevant. Not wanting anything to do with something of your partner’s is irresponsible, how? It’d only be an issue if the partner was irresponsible first (left gun out of safe), and how does not knowing how to strip down the para’ make you irresponsible? My wife tells me to pick up my leather tools or PS2 all the time, because it’s my responsibility. Same-same with her sewing machine. And if she had a gun, the onus would be on her to look after her shit, too.
I don’t know any other way to say this: I do not have to know how to operate a gun in order to render it safe. My knowledge of how to handle a gun has no bearing on my husband’s ability to handle it irresponsibly. I haven’t had to worry about an accident (accidents happen amongst even skilled marksmen like my husband) because he has lost interest in his guns. If he starts shooting again, I’ll start worrying again. If he starts making it an obsessive hobby, I’ll probably not live with him anymore if it involves guys sitting around my living room with cleaning patches and boxes of bullets.
I think you are responsible for the guns in your home, in a minimal way. That you choose to deny that responsibility and ignore them, I find disappointing.
Again, no one is asking for you to get a marksman badge. No one expects you to enjoy handling the thing. (Hence my dog poo analogy on page 1.)
But like knowing how to use a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, the most ideal situation is to learn that extra bit of info. It won’t turn you into a Republican. Trust me.
mlees, there are 9 community property states in the USA. I see you live in California, which is one of them. I don’t know what state Kalhoun lives in, but if it isn’t a community property state, then everything you’re saying about her husbands guns belonging to both of them by default is completely wrong.
Do you require all adults in your house to know how to operate all the power tools? Vehicles?
No…there is absolutely no moral responsibility for me to learn the workings of a gun. None. It is quite simple to simply remove the gun from the house should one of those runaway gun occurances happen in my kitchen. It is not ideal for me to learn how to operate a gun because it goes against my personal belief that we as a society are a lesser bunch because of them. I’ve gone to the range. I’ve worked the safety. I’ve loaded and unloaded. And I’ve not only forgotten all of it, but *I don’t care * that I’ve forgotten all of it. My home is no less safe than yours. Not even a little bit. If you think I’m wrong, you’ll need to offer up some evidence.
Like I said, it’s good that you respect each other’s space. But from my angle, the razor belongs to both of you. You both would have legal standing to sue me (or press charges) if I stole it.
“Archaic”? In a marriage, I assume the partners to be equal. They agree to share their lives together. They share in all the major (and some minor) decisions. If they can’t agree on something (like guns in the house), then it don’t happen.
How is a relationship so equal, so close, “archaic”? (Marriage aint easy. I know that.)
For what? Unlawfull arrest? Fight my ignorance. (Arrest does not equal being charged by law enforcement with a crime. It means you are being officialy detained.)
You don’t think Kalhoun would be arrested/detained, and tested for gun powder residue? Based on her statements that the gun wasn’t hers? :dubious:
Even if the husband claimed lawfull ownership of the gun, the police would still arrest and test all parties in the house, so that they can independently varify for themselves who might have shot the weapon.
That all responsibility for the gun in the house does not automatically revert to her husband, especially on her word alone.
I am not a lawyer. I guess it shows.
However, even if the title to the house is solely in her name, others would hold you legally responsible for some of what goes on inside. Like the electric and phone bills. Like taxes. Like the presence of dangerous or illegal items inside.
Also, during divorce hearings, you might successfully argue that you deserve some of the equity there.
Her being sole owner is a powerful legal argument, but not a bullet proof one.
(Anyone groan out there?)
When did this happen? I hear stories all the time of spouses being held responsible for financial problems caused by the spouse.
It’s possible you have (especially if you are an attorney) somehow drew up documents and trusts that seperate the two of you financially, but I assure you, sir, that that is not the norm, nor the default when those documents do not exist.
The law varies from place to place, but all those intending to legally discharge the weapon may/will need to be licenced. You don’t need to be licenced to move one from the kitchen table to the gun safe, nor do you need to be licenced to unload one.
Scenario: A child was hit by a bullet coming from your home, and your wife was the only person present. You are the only licenced user, but you are on a buisness trip.
Are you held responsible for the gun being out, and discharged unsafely? No. Your wife is. (Assuming other facts support that.)
Sigh.
You live together, you are adults, you are equal, you have equal say in what goes on. You should not engage in activities your partner/spouse/soul mate does not approve. (Even Kalhoun said that if the gun situation changed in her home, she would need to reevaluate things.)
This applies to gun ownership, drug use, or selling the home or car and moving to a new location.
While compromises are expected (and more often necessary), and when it comes to major things (like guns, especially in Kalhoun’s case, considering her feelings towards them), a consensus must be reached. One person does not over rule the other.
In Kalhoun’s case, she is content to let her husband own the guns, especially since he hardly ever uses them. She does not see it as an issue for her, I get that. But she claims that if that situation change, she would need to deal with that. What is more equal than that? Is she harboring antiquanted views of marriage, too?
So your spouse is free to do what they like, in all ways? Drug use? Annoying pets?
Ignoring your spouses feelings is childish, and antiquated to boot.
I assume that, in your case, you married someone you have come to believe that will not do anything that you would disapprove of. So in effect, yes, you have a “veto” power, but you have never had to use it.
You both reside there. And assuming you both have access to all the same rooms, you are held equally responsible for what goes on there.
Because your ignoring the issue (whatever that may be), and betting that it won’t become a problem.
It is irresponsible if you see a dangerous situation, and do nothing to remedy it.
Your partner, by creating a dangerous situation in the first place, accrues a greater “share” of the blame, but you may still be held accountable if you had a reasonable opportunity to remedy it.
Kalhoun says she would carry the gun, and place it in a more safe location. That is not irresponsible in of itself. It is (very mildly) irresponsible to think that that is the most ideal way to handle the situation. (Again, very mildly, in her case.)
That’s not quite how I see it…
If she asked you to pick up your mess, and observes you doing it, then she has “handled” the situation, not you.
You made the mess, and now she had to make you clean it up, so she had to deal with the consequences of your mess. Her (ultimately successful) solution was to make you clean it up. Her solution also has (hopefully) the benefit of teaching you to clean up your mess on your own, without anyone else having to deal with it. But she intiated the whole sequence of events to correct a problem (the mess).
)