Thats a pretty horrible sentiment.
The desire to put people in jail for this sort of thing makes you seem like you just have an animus towards guns and gun woners.
I have a laser-like focus on irresponsible gun owners who refuse to be held accountable when their negligence leads to the death of children or victims of crime. You seem to seem to have an irrational hostility toward anyone who seeks to impose any sort of accountability on gun owners for the security of their weapons.
Well, in this case what led to the death of a child was the child killing himself.
Here is the New Hampshire statute in question. Fear Itself, I’m curious what you think of Section V:
So, imagine the exact same circumstances: man leaves pistol atop gun safe, 15-year-old son kills himself with it, but the boy had completed a hunter safety course a couple summers before, and thus the man cannot be prosecuted. Acceptable outcome?
The statute also says:
Given that the gun was in the man’s bedroom closet, I doubt a jury will find the required gross negligence.
How does that excuse the gun owner of negligence?
I would conclude that gun safety courses are not as effective in preventing gun violence as some would have me believe. So, legal under the law, but no, not acceptable; I disagree with Section V. Dad goes to jail, if I had my way. Gun owners should always be held accountable for negligence.
Yeah, right.
“We as a society” don’t seem to have gotten the memo from “You as a society mouthpiece,” unless you think there’s a good chance that the Senate will reject background checks but enact your idea.
Your proposed standard is absurd. There is no other context in which a successful theft is proof that the stolen item was unsecured.
ETA: on re-reading, it seems perhaps you were saying that as a hypothetical only: IF this law were enacted,it would then MEAN that we as a society…
if so, I apologize for the contrary assumption.
Since my proposal has no second amendment implications, and is in line with Heller, it can be enacted on the state and local level.
I didn’t say that. You said that the negligence “led to” the death of children or victims of crime, which implies causation. In this case, the negligence didn’t cause the death.
You count suicide as violence?
The statute actually has quite a few exceptions:
Any of those acceptable?
Also, the “gross negligence” part is section VI, not V, my mistake.
I don’t agree that it has no second amendment implications. You seek to establish civil liability for personal property that is stolen and used to cause an injury or death only when the property is a gun.
How is that a second amendment issue?
The death could not have occurred absent the gun owner’s negligence.
You don’t?
Section V(a) is unacceptable, as described above.
Section V(b) violates Heller by my understanding, because it imposes a requirement for safes or locks to qualify for the exemption.
Section V(e) is so ambiguous as to render the entire law unenforceable.
Section V(f) would be right out, as I would punish any gun owner who took no measures to secure his gun, and it was stolen and subsequently used in a crime or by an unauthorized child. Gun owners must take some of the responsibility for stolen guns. Gun ownership is never risk free, and gun owners should have no legal protection to pretend otherwise.
To the various lawyers -
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I was very precise in defining what securing your weapon means: if your gun is stolen, it was not secured.
[/QUOTE]
Since Fear Itself is suggesting jail time, this is a criminal matter, not a civil one. Therefore, wouldn’t such a law violate the presumption of innocence? Because it presumes criminal negligence whenever someone misuses your property.
Regards,
Shodan
But wasn’t caused by it. “Led to” is inaccurate, the alleged negligence contributed to, or facilitated, or enabled the suicide, it didn’t lead to it. Nitpicky, perhaps, but accuracy has value, with words and with firearms.
No.
Ok, interesting. I’m assuming you’re find with (c) and (d), since you didn’t mention them. I’m not so sure (b) violates Heller, but I doubt the issue has been heard in court.
(e) seems clear enough to me, and didn’t render the law unenforceable in the case you linked to, in which “Parsons left the house to run errands, while the boy – the 15-year-old son of the chief’s girlfriend – remained in the home.”
(f) is there because the law criminalizes negligent storage when children are present; if a teen breaks into a childless neighbor’s house and steals his gun, that’s not at all what this statue is meant to deal with.
Why not present a draft statute that incorporates what you’d like the law to be?
It chills the freedom to own firearms.
That’s an interesting view of accountability. May I employ that in the future when conservatives seek to restrict civil rights, such as voter ID laws, restricting voting hours and polling places?
The law hasn’t been enforced yet.
Well, he’s been charged, and if the facts of the case were accurately reported in that article, he left home knowing that the boy was there, which means (e) doesn’t apply.
ETA: He might be acquitted (or the charges dropped) on the basis of section VI, but not V(e).
The “negligence” did not lead to the death. The death was not an accident, it was intentional and an intentional act cuts off proximate cause from negligence.
Like I said, that is a horrible sentiment to have towards someone who has just lost a child.
We already have laws that do this. Its just that you seem to want to replace negligence with strict liability.
Poison maybe? No?
Surely we applyn this standard to dynamite? No?
Acid? No?
Napalm, how about napalm? No?
So we don’t apply this sort of strict liability based on ownership of any other item except the item that is protected by a constitutional amendment? Yeah, I can see how that makes sense. :rolleyes:
So when the Supreme court said that you have a constitutional right to have a loaded gun (unsecured by a gun lock or locked in some form of gun storage) on your nightstand, you don’t think that you would have a problem with the sort of strict liability you are proposing?
I think he means to establish CRIMINAL liability not just civil liability.
Sure.
But note well what’s been said: the mere fact that it implicates the second amendment does not mean that the second amendment decides the issue. It merely means that some kind of balancing test is called for. The restriction against felons owning firearms has second amendment implications. But the end result is that such restrictions are permissible.
By the same token, burdens to voting such as voter ID also have constitutional implications, but are ultimately permissible. See Crawford v. Marion County; contrast Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.
Heller says the government cannot require gun locks or gun safes. My law does neither. Gun owners are free to keep guns where ever they wish, however, they assume the risk if something happens as a result. Accountability is not some sort of onerous tyranny. I have no problem with enforcing responsible gun ownership and and accountability for securing guns. Apparently you do.