Actually I think you do, since you are penalizing even responsible gun owners.
I own a gun. I keep it locked up in a cabinet, with a trigger guard and everything. Someone breaks into my house, breaks open the cabinet and steals my gun. Then he shoots somebody with my gun.
Even though I took reasonable precautions, I am still being penalized.
Regards,
Shodan
Isn’t that like saying that car thieves are free to steal cars wherever they wish, however, they assume the risk of going to jail if they are caught doing so?
I don’t see how that is remotely similar.
Who decides what is reasonable?
You don’t? You’re saying you’re free to do something, except it may well result in criminal punishment. That means you’re not actually free to do it.
The statute and/or the court system.
Care to take a stab at drafting a statute?
You’re certainly on solid ground requiring that gun owners take reasonable steps to secure their guns, and imposing some civil liability if they don’t.
Where your solid ground turns to dust, however, is in making your rule one of strict liability: no matter what precautions they take, they are liable if their gun is stolen.
And keeping the title of the thread in mind:
What would that accomplish?
And from ABC News:
Good news!
And Huffington Post:
I suspect this will be a big political problem for Republicans in the Senate who have to win statewide elections, since background checks are overwhelmingly popular with nearly all demographics. In the House, not so much, because of gerrymandering. But it does give Democrats ammo for future elections: “Republicans did nothing when children died!”
It would ground your ideas in the kind of practical reality that lawmakers have to deal with, and as a by-product, require you to consider various exceptions, a penalty, and so forth.
If you’d rather keep things vague, that’s your choice.
If you think I am going to spend days drafting comprehensive legislation, just to have my adversaries reject it out of hand, you’re… mistaken. Take that as you will.
It’s really not that hard, hell, do it as just bullet points with no legalese. So far, all I know is that gun owners should face some kind of penalty if a gun they own is used in some harmful ways, regardless of the owner’s efforts to secure it. If that’s all you’re prepared to commit to, so be it.
Vote failed.
That’s much of my objection to your proposal - nothing would be reasonable enough to avoid being penalized. If somebody broke into a policeman’s house and stole his gun, you would hold him criminally responsible even if he locked it in a gun safe.
Regards,
Shodan
It is far preferable to absolutely no accountability for gun owners negligence in securing their weapons. None. Left his Glock on the hood of his car, and it is stolen? Whoops! He’s just another victim of a theft! Not his fault when it is used to kill the neighbor kid. Can’t touch him, he’s the victim. Well, him and the neighbor kid.
This is the point that Fear Itself seems determined to avoid answering directly.