Don’t turn it around on us. Explain your position that seems to be so insane.
Do you still feel that despite any precautions that a person takes to secure their guns they should be held legally responsible for actions of a thief who steals them?
It’s too late to edit your posts. You can deny holding this position, or back away from it. But it’s what you clearly stated.
I never said gun owners should be charged with murder if a thief kills someone with their gun, so just stop.
Now that I have answered your question, you have to answer mine.
You didn’t say charged with murder specifically, but you did imply a gun owner should be charged with something if their weapon is stolen, did you not? You would hold the gun owner responsible for the actions of another i.e. the thief. I doubt you would hold the same standard if someone’s car was stolen and used as a get away car in a bank robbery.
Yes, I did.
No, I wouldn’t.
This is way too complicated. You’re responsible for your piece. Big brother doesn’t need to mandate what securing your piece is. That said, to make the honor system work, there needs to be penalties if you’re not responsible for your piece. For example, if your weapon is stolen, then you need to be a responsible owner and report that. You don’t report it, then IMHO there is a burden of proof that you did not aid and abet. Right now there is the old “I sold it to my nephew” excuse. That’s what should be closed.
Without getting nitpicky, people certainly get sued over failing to secure property safely and someone getting injured or worse over it. Now that’s civil rather than criminal, but there is still the presumption of the owner being responsible.
Let’s say bad things happen if you own a gun and it is used in a crime (for example being sued by the victim–the same thing as when you own a car and it gets in an accident even though you are not driving). That would give you an incentive to do a legal transfer rather than a fake loan or non-registered transfer.
I’m getting confused. Let me get this straight.
If I leave my gun on an open window sill and it is stolen from me and I report the theft immediately am I liable for anything?
If I leave my gun in a locked safe and someone breaks into the safe and steals my gun and kills orphans and widows with it and i didn’t report the theft in time, Am I liable for the deaths of those orphans and widows? Criminally or just civilly? or is there some set penalty for not reporting a gun that is subsequently used in a crime?
How do you deal with the constitutional right expressed in Heller that allows me to leave a loaded gun on my nightstand?
You are confused about the law I am proposing. It is not affected by whether or not you report a theft. Others have suggested this, but I have not. Your responsibility is the same, whether you report the theft or not; if your gun is used in a crime, or is in the possession of an unsupervised child, you are subject to prosecution.
No.
Neither.
This law cares not if you report a theft or not. If you fail to secure your weapon, and it is used in a crime, or is in the possession of an unsupervised child, you are subject to prosecution, but only for the crime of not adequately securing your gun, not the crimes committed with it.
Under my law, it is not illegal to leave your loaded gun on the nightstand, and you are not required to use trigger locks, or submit to inspections, so it does not contradict Heller. Responsible gun owners are free to decide for themselves what level of security is prudent for their own circumstances.
Calling out the problematic portion:
This simply states that I am liable for securing my firearm - without defining what securing means. Over time, then, the courts will determine what “secure” means if you are not willing to define it.
I was very precise in defining what securing your weapon means: if your gun is stolen, it was not secured.
It is up to you to decided what level of security you wish to apply, and what risk you are willing to assume as a responsible gun owner. This is the crux of the law: gun owners must bear the risk for unauthorized gun use, instead of shrugging their shoulders and denying any accountability for securing their weapons. We as a society are no longer going to permit gun owners to deny responsibility for thousands of guns falling into the hands of criminals and children. Your right to own a gun is tempered by a responsibility to prevent it from being used by criminals and children. If that responsibility seems daunting, then I suggest you not own a gun. But it is up to you.
You are suggesting a law that is impossible to follow. I can break into any safe, given time and gear. There is no such thing as 100% secure - ever. You telling me that I am liable regardless of what I do to secure, is you really saying that you hate the personal possession of guns and want to outlaw their it.
I don’t see any other way to interpet your series of posts.
Now, if you wish to rewrite all liability law in this fashion - let me know.
This makes me think of the nightmare of having a swimming pool and the various “attractive nuisance” laws that have been enacted.
No thanks - I don’t support (nor will the American public) such an expansion of liability laws that leaves the owner with no way to protect themself.
I agree. But you seem to be saying gun owners should not bear that risk, and it should be borne by the victims of crime and children with guns. That is crazy. Responsible gun owners must assume that risk.
Gun owners should not have to take on all of the risk - that is correct. If they act in a prudent fashion, and engage in reasonable actions to secure their firearms, then they should not be liable.
It is crazy to hold them liable if someone breaks into their home, cuts open the locks on their safe, and then commits a crime or causes harm with their firearm.
So gun victims bear the risk when a gun owner’s security fails to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. How is that more fair than making gun owners responsible for all of the risk?
Are you suggesting there is a level of security that is adequate, and below that level, gun owners should be held responsible? Should that be enforced by the government, or is it just on the honor system?
Victims bear the risk when people act in a criminal or negligent fashion, regardless of the source of the victimization.
The level of security is situation dependent.
I carry a loaded rifle when hunting. I could be robbed, and my rifle taken and used in a crime. I should not be held liable.
I have transported firearms in my vehicle. If I were carjacked, I should not held liable for whatever crimes are committed with those firearms.
I have had firearms in my home, in locked house and a locked safe. If I am burglarized, I should not be liable for how those firearms are used.
It is not possible to rob a person armed with a gun. Or so I have been told.
If a gun owner keeps a load handgun on the nightstand, which is stolen in a robbery and used in a crime, should the gun owner be prosecuted?
Who has told it is not possible? Carrying a rifle in the woods, another person comes up to ask a question, they pull a pistol and shoot me. I don’t hike with a round chambered (I have a hair trigger on my hunting rifle). I also hike with it slung - not prepped for combat.
In a robbery? Nope. That means someone came in, confronted the person, and somehow convinced them that they had to give up the firearm.
You are dancing all around the place with your arguments here.
Wayne LaPierre, for one.
I have answered all of your questions directly and unambiguously. You may disagree with my answers, but that hardly qualifies as “dancing”. Which reminds me:
If a gun owner keeps a load handgun on the nightstand, which is stolen in a robbery and used in a crime, should the gun owner be prosecuted?
Cite for Wayne saying that?
And no, if you are robbed you are not liable.
So if a gun owner leaves his gun on a park bench, and someone steals it and kills a store clerk in a robbery, the gun owner is subject to no accountability? That is why the term Responsible Gun Owner is an oxymoron.