[Jeeper]

There are few good reasons in my mind to ever hold a gun store liable for the acts of a criminal. What is going on in New Orleans however is possibly such time. At least the argument is much better than the normal BS for the suits going on now.

1. Everyone knew that looting would occur
2. Gun store are such obvious targets that any idiot would think to put the guns in a safe.

I dont see it as much different than leaving a child alone in a room with a knife.

Do you think that some of the stores who left the guns out in the open should be held liable?

I was watching some of the coverage and they had the CEO of Harrahs Casinios and he stated that since they knew for so long that the storm was coming that they locked up everything to discourage looters. If it was obvious to him them why not to others.

Shouldnt the guns stores have had the same common sense?

[Dmack_901]

No, they you can't make someone prevent the crimes of another. They knew it would happen, but they all locked up as good as they could. If they had room in their safes, they put as much as they could in it. The gun store owners know best of all the negatives of leaving, and I'd find it hard to believe anyone did not due everything they could.

I'd equate it to leaving a knife on a high counter out of the child reach. If the kids resourcefull he could get a chair and a broom a reach for it and get it, but after all that you can't hold them liable considering the owners can't just sit there babysitting criminals.

[WT]

This sounds like something an anti-gunner would ask.

No. Gun stores in New Orleans should not be held accountable for the criminal acts of others.

[Zundfolge]

Jeeper, you're making 3 assumptions.

1) That gun store owners DIDN'T take any precautions to discourage looting (like locking up the guns)
2) That after major devastation there was any way to make a gun store in the devastated area 100% secure.
3) That Harrahs Casinos isn't (and/or won't) suffer any losses to looting.

[waterhouse]

I also saw the coverage of the CEO of Harrah's, and he also said that people had broken in and taken crow bars to the slot machines. His company saw that there would be a problem, but clearly couldn't completely defend against looters.

There are several articles saying that people were "pounding" on security gates until they went down. The point of locks, etc. is to deter. When there are no police and you can take your time and make as much noise as you want, it's pretty easy to get in anywhere.

It's not like they left their stores unlocked. No one should be responsible for the criminal actions of criminals except for criminals.

[benEzra]

All real-world anti-theft precautions are designed to delay a thief long enough for someone (security, police) to arrive and arrest the perpetrator, thereby deterring the perpetrator from spending the time to, say, crack the safe.

Unfortunately, in this instance there IS no police/security response. Even a high-grade safe can be broken into by brute force, given complete freedom to work and no time limit. Remember, the looters broke into one Rite-Aid with a forklift.

[dpesec]

I hate to say this but how long would a safe keep some criminal out. Not long. If there's nobody there to stop them, just like in the above post.
There was a report today of looters breaking into pharmacy safes stealing narcotics.

[Exposure]

I had a big long reply typed up addresing many of the points in the original post but I deleted it so I could say this:

When legal gun owners are ready to hold other legal gun owners at fault for the actions of CRIMINALS, then the antis have finally won.

[dpesec]

+100 ^

[answerguy]

Well Jeeper I'll defend you a little bit. This was predictable and they should have taken as much precaution as possible, although I can't say that I know if they did or didn't take precautions.

Would anyone say that it would be just fine for a gun store to leave their guns in a show room window? Certainly anyone who would break the window and steal those guns is a criminal but shouldn't the store keeper by held at least a percentage responsible?

[owen]

I have never been in a gun store that has a safe or saes large enough to hold even 10% of the inventory.

[RoyG]

Locks keep honest people honest...

[Standing Wolf]

When legal gun owners are ready to hold other legal gun owners at fault for the actions of CRIMINALS, then the antis have finally won.

Amen!

[Kim]

These types of arguments really get to me. It shows me how far the lawyer suing industry mafia has melted the brains of rational human beings. Long, Long ago ( not really) I lived in a country where people did not lock their doors, churches never locked their doors, automobiles were left with the windows down unlocked with the keys in the ignition and guess what guns stores left guns in storefront single paine windows, narcotics were not locked up in physicians offices and they actually carried them around with them in black bags and did not have to worry about being mugged for the morphine and syringes. If someone stole it was the person who did the stealing that was responsible--------period. Now just what has changed where the innocent are thought to be the guilty. A little indoctrination and the whole world has been turned upside down.

[artherd]

You have got to be kidding me.

I won't even touch on the idoicy of the notion that leaving a gun in a locked display case inside a locked & bared store is somehow "negligent" or "made the looter do it."

Instead I will simply mention that my STIHL TS700 14" gas cutoff saw, with a 100cc motor making 6.7hp, should get me into just about any gun safe in about a minuite or so.

As will a plain oxy torch.


All security is relative.

[iiibdsiil]

Ya, blame the store owners because people have no morals. Right. They took their loss with inventory. They shouldn't need nor be required to do anything more than lock their door at night. Irresponsible? The people are irresponsible, not the store owner. These people would get the guns any way, unless the owner took them off site. Let's hope they all off each other. And let's hope that them holding that gun give one more person the balls to shoot them.

[jdkelly]

Do you think that some of the stores who left the guns out in the open should be held liable?---jeeper
I wouldn't call it an "anti" question.

Knowing neither the Law nor what the gun stores did, then I'd suggest the if the gun stores met their minimum legal responsibility then no of course not.


Respectfully,

jdkelly

[dustind]

Portable plasma cutters sell for about a thousand dollars and can easily cut through steel in seconds.

Personally I blame the car manufactures for not designing cars that are incapable of moving goods that happen to be stolen... no wait the people who designed the roads that lead to the gun stores... or the phone book companies that let their information about gun store locations fall into the hands of criminals... ooh-ooh, lets sue the- :banghead:

[Janitor]

Now just what has changed where the innocent are thought to be the guilty. A little indoctrination and the whole world has been turned upside down.
+1


Portable plasma cutters sell for about a thousand dollars and can easily cut through steel in seconds.
And when you use a tool like a forklift, a portable plasma cutter can be stolen in about 2.3 minutes.

[mtnbkr]

Would anyone say that it would be just fine for a gun store to leave their guns in a show room window? Certainly anyone who would break the window and steal those guns is a criminal but shouldn't the store keeper by held at least a percentage responsible?

Dunno about your area, but around here gun shops have security gates that block the door and windows after hours. I doubt they'd do much good if other parts of the building were damaged by a storm or when the thieves have ample time to work on the gates.

I vote for holding only the thieves responsible. They ARE the ones breaking the law.

Chris

[CAS700850]

Hey, I think he's on to something. Anyone shot during this crisis should sue the gun store for not securing the guns against looting. Ut, let's not stop there. Sue the manufacturers for selling guns in a hurricane zone, as they should have known a hurricane could shut down civilization, leading to civil disobedience and looting, and the theft and criminal use of their products. BUt wait, there's more. Sue the Weather Channel and the media outlets for failing to give more than a few days notice that the hurricane was coming. Sue the City of New Orleans for not building stronger anti-hurrican protections. Sue the makers of tehy pump system in New Orleans for not making the pumps work under 8-10 feet of water. Sue the owner of the Superdome for allowing people to hide inside during the storm, which allowed them to live, get out, and start looting. Sue Nike because one of the looters had on a pair of their shoes, allowing him to kick in the door of the gun shop. Sue Stanley Tools for making the sledgehammer they used to beat down the world.

SUE THE WORLD!! :barf: :barf: :barf:

Okay, I'm a lawyer. Caught me! :o

[El Rojo]

I think I would have stayed with my shop and I think I would have discouraged the first looters with a few rounds over their heads. Anyone that choose to keep coming would have been shot. I would have done this and done this with no regret because if I didn't keep my inventory out of the hands of the lawless, more possible harm could come later. That wouldn't be my fault, but I would feel bad about it.

[buzz_knox]

I'm thinking of keeping a few bags of Quik-Crete around. In the event of a bug out emergency, place the valuables in the secure location, then pour the cement. That should delay things a bit. Dedicated thieves (or me when I get home) can get in but your average looter won't.

[Jeeper]

I posted this yesterday and never came back to check. What brought up this question was the reporting that guns were stolen from a walmart and used in the crimes. I would just figure that a place like walmart would have more sense than to leave guns on their shelves. I don't know that is what happened but I am assuming. I know that any safe can be broken into but I am talking about stores who left them in easy reach.

I think that there are definitely times when another person should be held responsible for the acts of the criminal. That is the basis of accomplice and conspiracy liability. If the gun stores took all reasonable precautions then they shouldn't be liable. I know sports authority used to lock up all their handguns in safes every night.

When legal gun owners are ready to hold other legal gun owners at fault for the actions of CRIMINALS, then the antis have finally won.

There are many things wrong with this statement
1. Stores aren't gun owners, they are sellers.
2. An adult leaving a loaded gun in reach of a child who isn't educated about gun and then shoots another child SHOULD be liable. (The child is technically a criminal)
3. A gun store who knowing sells guns to people who he 100% knows will use them in crimes should be liable.

Just because someone commits a crime with the gun doesn't mean the store wasn't aiding in the commission if they knew it would occur.

I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment but that doesn't mean that by default I must support every idiot that owns a gun store and acts completely illegally. It also doesn't mean that I must support every idiot that owns a gun and acts negligently.

[buzz_knox]

Just because someone commits a crime with the gun doesn't mean the store wasn't aiding in the commission if they knew it would occur.

You do realize that the crimes of accomplice and conspiracy require far more than knowing "it would occur."

Given the number of car thefts in this country, it's reasonable to assume that your car might be stolen. In fact, it's one of the reasons for insurance right? And given the fact that theives have a habit of committing other crimes, it's reasonable to assume that the thief will use the car in the commission of said crime. So, you would agree that if someone breaks into your car and steals it and commits a rape, murder, what have you, you are an accomplice to that crime? I mean, you could have posted an armed guard for your car, never left it unattended, or even never bought it in the first place.

[iiibdsiil]

I change part of my view.

Walmart should be charged with being wreckless. Anything to cost them a dollar is fine with me.

But in all honesty, ya, Walmart was pretty wreckless, and whatever other places just left them out in the open. I don't know of a real gun store that doesn't have a gate going across the windows, so that is not wreckless to me. But, for these places that knew they would be getting broken into (Duh! We all saw this coming from 15 miles away), and just leaving them out, it seems like they were asking for it. Come on, there's only about 12 billion people that work for corporate Walmart. I think someone that was high enough up had to say "Don't ya think we should put the guns away?"

I would like to believe that the people that left the guns kinda out did so because they are used to them being around, and don't view them as a threat like most people do. I really wish the world was coming to this, but I know better.

[buzz_knox]

1. Stores aren't gun owners, they are sellers.

Increased liability based on an occupation in the absence of any other factors? Way to kill the industry!

2. An adult leaving a loaded gun in reach of a child who isn't educated about gun and then shoots another child SHOULD be liable. (The child is technically a criminal)

That's not accomplice or conspiracy liability. That's negligence. I presume you lock up your knives, sharp objects, baseball bats, etc.

3. A gun store who knowing sells guns to people who he 100% knows will use them in crimes should be liable.

That's already illegal, under federal law as a violation of the FFL requirements and under state laws (criminal facilitation, etc). What's your point? That has no application to whether someone should be liable when they are ordered to evacuate by the gov't.

[buzz_knox]

But in all honesty, ya, Walmart was pretty wreckless, and whatever other places just left them out in the open. I don't know of a real gun store that doesn't have a gate going across the windows, so that is not wreckless to me.

Given that the looters are using heavy equipment to break into actual gun stores, please show how any effort Walmart could have made would have made a distinction.

Recklessness requires, in effect, an ambivalence to the consequences of one's actions. Walmart was about as reckless as homeowners who didn't have a safe and bugged out without all their weapons. If you're going to impose liability on one, do it for the other. And do it for everyone who left any other tool that can be misused, including the heavy equipment being used to steal the guns.

Walmart should be charged with being wreckless. Anything to cost them a dollar is fine with me.

Please clarify. Do you want to punish them for "recklessness", or just penalize them period, regardless of the justification?

[Hawkmoon]

What do you mean by "just leaving them out"?

Wal-Marts in my area sell rifles and shotguns. They have a few on display, in LOCKED revolving display cases. Ammunition is in LOCKED counter cabinets, or locked storage cases (depending on the store). I don't know what goes on in the storage areas, but I am fairly certain that guns aren't just left lying around at random.

So in order to steal a gun from a Wal-Mart, a looter has to first break into the store, then break into a locked cabinet to select his/her firearm of choice, and THEN break into yet another locked cabinet to get ammunition.

For this you believe Wal-Mart should be held liable? Man, I dislike Wal-Mart about as much as anybody I've ever met, but even I can't make this work.

[iiibdsiil]

First of all, I feel Walmart is evil. I know there are many that agree with me, and anything to help discourage Walmart is a plus in my book.

Second, you have to be a frigin idiot if you didn't honestly think Walmart would be one of the first places looted. DUH! They have EVERYTHING you need, and tons of it. Leaving guns in a GLASS display case in a place we all knew was going to be looted, is just plain wreckless. Come on guys. That is pretty clear to me. They could have at the bare minimum locked them up in the managers office or anything. Anything other than leaving them in a GLASS display case.

[Jeeper]

Given the number of car thefts in this country, it's reasonable to assume that your car might be stolen. In fact, it's one of the reasons for insurance right? And given the fact that theives have a habit of committing other crimes, it's reasonable to assume that the thief will use the car in the commission of said crime. So, you would agree that if someone breaks into your car and steals it and commits a rape, murder, what have you, you are an accomplice to that crime? I mean, you could have posted an armed guard for your car, never left it unattended, or even never bought it in the first place.

Are you honestly trying to compare the possibility of someone trying to break into my car on a normal day with the possibility of someone breaking into a Walmart during a disaster?

My whole point is that I think the stores that only left their gun invintory in a glass display case when they knew 100% they would be looted could be held liable. Putting it in a safe that gets broken into is different.


Quote:
1. Stores aren't gun owners, they are sellers.



Increased liability based on an occupation in the absence of any other factors? Way to kill the industry!


Quote:
2. An adult leaving a loaded gun in reach of a child who isn't educated about gun and then shoots another child SHOULD be liable. (The child is technically a criminal)



That's not accomplice or conspiracy liability. That's negligence. I presume you lock up your knives, sharp objects, baseball bats, etc.


Quote:
3. A gun store who knowing sells guns to people who he 100% knows will use them in crimes should be liable.



That's already illegal, under federal law as a violation of the FFL requirements and under state laws (criminal facilitation, etc). What's your point? That has no application to whether someone should be liable when they are ordered to evacuate by the gov't.

All my statements were in response to the blanket statment I was responding to, which you also seem to disagree with.

[Cosmoline]

You are assuming the looters of gun stores are planning criminal acts with the firearms. If I had been stranded in NO as a tourist, I would absolutely break into a gun store and get some iron and ammo at this point. I'd contact the owner and square things up later, of course. But I'm sure those firearms have proven useful for people.

[Jeeper]

I'll agree with that 100%

[Zundfolge]

First of all, I feel Walmart is evil. I know there are many that agree with me, and anything to help discourage Walmart is a plus in my book.

Walmart should be charged with being wreckless. Anything to cost them a dollar is fine with me.
Ah ... you're one of those people :rolleyes:

Its okay to hate the rich man, and its okay to screw the rich man even when he's in the right because he's rich ... thank you Mr. Marx.

Maybe you should hunt down an anti globalist group and help them throw rocks through Starbucks' windows.

I'm not going to concede that its okay to punish people for "negligence" when a criminal decides he wants their stuff and then he "misused" it later. And just because those people are the "evil rich" or "evil Walmart" doesn't justify it either ... such thinking is pretty much looter thinking (in both the Randian definition of looter and the "running-around-stealing-stuff-in-NO" definition of looter).

What has happened in NO is a clear TEOTWAWKI situation. There is no way to make something 100% secure under this type of situation and even if they had taken all the guns out of the glass cases and packed them up in a safe I guarantee you that the safe would have been broken into and the guns stolen.

Of course if you required every gun dealer to implement a security system that could withstand a Category 5 hurricane, flood and complete SHTF then you'd put most of them out of business and triple the cost of guns and ammo for the rest of us.

[buzz_knox]

Are you honestly trying to compare the possibility of someone trying to break into my car on a normal day with the possibility of someone breaking into a Walmart during a disaster?

Absolutely. There is no crisis situation, there is no rush to get out, you have all day to plan what is going on and should happen to your car. Walmart is in a far better position legally using your concept of the law because they, like most people, did not realize that a levee would break. They survived the destruction, thought everything was fine, and then the levees broke, flooding the city.

[jefnvk]

If they took reasonable precautions, then no. Things like locking up the shop the best they could, boarding windows, etc.

However, I know the gunshops in my area would not last long with vehicles deing driven through the wall. And if you have days, to cut into a safe, it isn't going to be much better than nothing.

If they left the doors open, the guns on the floor with loaded mags, and a big sgn outide that said Bushmaster AR15's available here, you may have a case. But I doubt it is the situation.

[Jeeper]

Absolutely. There is no crisis situation, there is no rush to get out, you have all day to plan what is going on and should happen to your car.

So you are saying that the possibility of someone breaking into my car on any normal day is HIGHER than someoen breaking into a Walmart during a hurricane? Walmart was the first place on every looters list to go.

[buzz_knox]

Prove the items were not secured during the hurricane, which was the foreseeable event.

Prove the items were not secured at the time the levees broke, which was the relatively unforeseeable event. Show that Walmart had time to take whatever "precautions" you think they should have, especially in light of the coordinated efforts to steal weapons seen in actual gun stores.

You are asserting Walmart was criminally liable, the burden is on you to establish it. So, go for it.

As for my statement, all it went to was that you are asserting liability for Walmart using a theory that easily goes to establishing your own guilt.

[thorn726]

what i dont get is the gun store that isnt extra secure, and why there arent strict laws about just that.

like our buddy here in Fremont Ca with the glass entry to a gun store. good.

unsecure gun stores should face finces and charges for unsecure storage, BUT held responsible for crimes? i hate the whole mentality.
id call it akin to me suing you for getting hurt in your car after i stole it. BS.

gasoline has to be stored safely,
id regulate gun stores along those lines.
NOW= in a storm like this, its all nuts. i mean people can get away with protracted extraction operations- cut a hole thru the roof, whatever.

i know you'll all scream gun control by expense, but i do feel a gun store should have REAL hardCore security to prevent this type of problem.
forget safes, a VAULT in a gun store.

[Jeeper]

I am going to take these a little out of order
You are asserting Walmart was criminally liable, the burden is on you to establish it. So, go for it.

I am asserting they COULD be held civilly liable. The only reason I mentioned accomplice and conspiracy liability is to show that they are based on someone else committing the crime.(even if all the elements...mainly intent.. are not met here)


Prove the items were not secured during the hurricane, which was the foreseeable event.
That is the question. My statement was based on an assumption that they were not secured.


Prove the items were not secured at the time the levees broke, which was the relatively unforeseeable event. Show that Walmart had time to take whatever "precautions" you think they should have, especially in light of the coordinated efforts to steal weapons seen in actual gun stores.

The levee breaking was foreseeable to every newscaster the day before the event as was the looting.

I cant prove the condition of the guns and neither can you. They could have been in a bank vault or laying on the counter top loaded. My whole argument was based on not taking reasonable precautions to secure them with knowledge that looting would occur and that you were 100% the first target for many people.


As for my statement, all it went to was that you are asserting liability for Walmart using a theory that easily goes to establishing your own guilt.

I wouldnt say easily. Breaking into my car is not as foreseeable as looting a Walmart during a hurricane.

[buzz_knox]

i know you'll all scream gun control by expense, but i do feel a gun store should have REAL hardCore security to prevent this type of problem.

Here's the problem: any one with a brain and time can defeat your "REAL hardCore" security. So when that happens, the next stage is to demand "really really REAL hardCore" security. Don't focus on the criminal; focus on the victim.

Should they have security? Yup. The same security that we all do in our homes, cars, etc.: sufficient to deter casual thieves completely or to slow down serious thieves until such time as law enforcement arrives, thereby making the operation less enticing. Making them responsible for preventing criminal activity will make it financially impossible to do business because it is impossible to prevent crimes.

[buzz_knox]

I wouldnt say easily. Breaking into my car is not as foreseeable as looting a Walmart during a hurricane.

Statistically, the former is far more likely. We've had other hurricanes where Walmarts weren't looted. In fact, this is the first natural disaster in which the complete breakdown of law and order occurred on a widespread basis to my recollection.

I am asserting they COULD be held civilly liable. The only reason I mentioned accomplice and conspiracy liability is to show that they are based on someone else committing the crime.(even if all the elements...mainly intent.. are not met here)

Intent is the key element. Without intent, you can't have criminal charges as you assert. So the comparison is wholly invalid.

As for being civilly liable, you can't go off assumptions or presumptions. You have to show that they negligently failed to take reasonable precautions. And given that heavy equipment was used in the looting, it's impossible to show "reasonable precautions."

[thorn726]

Here's the problem: any one with a brain and time can defeat your "REAL hardCore" security. So when that happens, the next stage is to demand "really really REAL hardCore" security. Don't focus on the criminal; focus on the victim.

nonsense.

i am focusing on the victim.

car security keeps increasing. there are many reasonable steps to be taken, and
many weak efforts.

it isnt even that complicated.
is it really that out of hand to expect barred windows

example if you rent here, you can DEMANd bars on windows on the first floor.
a glass entry door is NOT up to code for a residence.

expecting a gun shop to secure itself better than a fruit stand=
unreasonable ???

how can you expect anyone to let a gun shop move in next door if they refuse to lock it up tight?

i suppose you dont mind if an oil refinery plants some hydrocrackers next to your house and doenst secure them either right?

[Henry Bowman]

how can you expect anyone to let a gun shop move in next door if they refuse to lock it up tight?

i suppose you dont mind if an oil refinery plants some hydrocrackers next to your house and doenst secure them either right? :confused: How do these two statements relate? How does the gun shop next door endanger you? If I were in the present situation (SHTF in NO), I'd be glad to have a poorly secured gun shop next door. How convenient!

[buzz_knox]

how can you expect anyone to let a gun shop move in next door if they refuse to lock it up tight?

You do realize that one of the ways that gun shops are coded out of existence is the "security" method? They can't provide sufficient security to meet the concerns (it's simply not possible) so they can't open the business in that area. "So sorry, but it's not about guns. Really. Wink, wink."

i suppose you dont mind if an oil refinery plants some hydrocrackers next to your house and doenst secure them either right?

Funny you should mention that. I've got some experience in that very area. So let me enlighten you: it is impossible to secure refineries, industrial facilities, or any other kind of facility which by its very nature requires open structures. Period. End of discussion. You can cut down on the risk, but the danger will always be there.

it isnt even that complicated.
is it really that out of hand to expect barred windows

Talk about weak efforts. A few minutes with a torch, or use of a truck will tear those out. And if that didn't work, how driving a truck through the front door? Bars don't hold up well. A store in my neighborhood was robbed when thieves came through the roof and tore the door of the safe off. The door was found lying well away from the safe, and no vehicle was used doing it. Just manpower and willpower.

car security keeps increasing. there are many reasonable steps to be taken, and

And yet, the law does not hold owners of old cars (without security measures) liable when their car is stolen and used in a crime. Go figure.

[Correia]

This whole thread is just plain asinine for many reasons.

First off, you're assuming that there weren't any guns there to begin with. Belive me, the scumbags that are currently shooting at the cops and NG were armed before hand.

Ridiculous security measure on a gunstore mean about jack squat to anybody with half a brain. If they are using forklifts to rob Rite-aid, I don't care if your gun store is one step above Ft. Knox, somebody is going to break in.

Third, the vast majority of people in NO fled. Most of the gunowners probably had to leave most of their guns behind. Looters are looting homes as well. They are stealing guns and ammo from homes too. Should those gun owners be held accountable? By these absurd standards that are being suggested here, then yes.

The stuff in my basement is way more formidable than the pissant hunting rifle display over at Walmart.

And the screw Walmart at all costs mentality isn't even worth commenting on. If you hate Walmart fine, but my gosh, at least have some small bit of logical argument to go along with it, otherwise you're no better than the folks at the VPC.

[thorn726]

look i am not debating that a truck could get thru- or that in a hurricane situation a gun store could be held responsible. in fact in my first post i stated i would only gun stores accountable for security, never for crimes commited

the funny thing is how we let the govt give tons of money to ensure the oil refineries stay in biz. we need subsidies for gun store security improvement as they are essential to national security

refineries are granted land deals to increase their perimeter. they have guards 24-7.

your guns at home are probably better guarded than too many stores inventories

whatever. obvioulsy you all feel that a gun store need be no more secure than any other business, who cares right? no biggie, stolen guns are not an issue.

amazing mentality. i wonder what kind of banks you guys use...
probably an old mattress, huh?

leave your car unlocked, doors open.....

SEE this is actually quite reasonable, i would be totally satisified if the "locked cases" were actually heavy metal cages, but this is all i am asking for =
Wal-Marts in my area sell rifles and shotguns. They have a few on display, in LOCKED revolving display cases. Ammunition is in LOCKED counter cabinets, or locked storage cases (depending on the store). I don't know what goes on in the storage areas, but I am fairly certain that guns aren't just left lying around at random.

So in order to steal a gun from a Wal-Mart, a looter has to first break into the store, then break into a locked cabinet to select his/her firearm of choice, and THEN break into yet another locked cabinet to get ammunition.

[buzz_knox]

your guns at home are probably better guarded than too many stores inventories

You haven't been in many stores, have you?

[Jeeper]

Statistically, the former is far more likely. We've had other hurricanes where Walmarts weren't looted. In fact, this is the first natural disaster in which the complete breakdown of law and order occurred on a widespread basis to my recollection.

The closest thing to this was Andrew or Camille(sp?). That is what this storm compared to as of a day or 2 before it hit. That is the starting point for taking reasonable precautions. There was a ton of looting in Andrew. The only difference was that it didnt hit a major city like this did. Everyone knew that looting would occur on a large scale this time. I simply think that a reasonable precaution to lock the stuff up. If they left it in a display case instead of putting it in a safe that they have then civil liability is a possibility.

Intent is the key element. Without intent, you can't have criminal charges as you assert. So the comparison is wholly invalid.
.

I never said criminal liability should be imposed.

[buzz_knox]

I never said criminal liability should be imposed.

Then don't use words like "accomplice" or "conspiracy." They have specific means related to criminal law, with little application to civil law.

As for precautions to prevent looting, they made it through the hurricane with minimal issues. It was the levees breaking that caused the problems, with the water levels rising rapidly and cutting off people. The law is clear that in the face of an immediate crisis, armchair quaterbacking from a distance isn't the standard by which those involved are judged.

[thorn726]

well i was talking to guy up there who has this arsenal apparently.

and thinking of the fact that homeowner is there to protect the guns.

no i havent been in many stores- gosh the money , will i ever see it? probably not. i rely on friends with large arsenals and cheap finds.

it just doenst take that much to increse the need from a tire iron and a hammer to a truck and or a welding unit= things that would be tougher to get a hold of in a flood situation.

there's glass cases with tiny locks and steel cages with big padlocks.
i just wonder how many gun thefts involved only a hammer. THAT should not be how easy it is.

First off, you're assuming that there weren't any guns there to begin with. Belive me, the scumbags that are currently shooting at the cops and NG were armed before hand.

well, this is why i have completely strayed the topic, sorry. agree with that quote, but i am sure a few new gun owners were made.
at any rate, in this madness, there was no getting around some gun stores being looted.

it will be interesting if we ever find out if some stores retained their guns and some didnt, and why.

[buzz_knox]

it just doenst take that much to increse the need from a tire iron and a hammer to a truck and or a welding unit= things that would be tougher to get a hold of in a flood situation.

Yet, strangely enough, such equipment is being used to commit breakins right now, in a flood situation.

Amazing the level of resolve criminals have, isn't it?

[Exposure]

There are many things wrong with this statement
1. Stores aren't gun owners, they are sellers.

No, stores are not gun owners, but the people who own the stores are. Seeing how one has to jump through many stupid hoops to get a FFL then it is justifiable for me to assume that the store owners can legally posess firearms. So by holding the store liable, you are punishing the law abiding guy whose love of guns led him to open a store selling them. And in your scenario because someone broke in and took guns the store owner is paying the price and not the guy doing the actual crime.

2. An adult leaving a loaded gun in reach of a child who isn't educated about gun and then shoots another child SHOULD be liable. (The child is technically a criminal)

Doing something stupid like leaving a gun in front of a child is a far cry from someone breaking and entering to steal a gun. You are implying that the gun store owner enticed the criminals to come and steal firearms and he should be held accountable for the criminal actions of others.

3. A gun store who knowing sells guns to people who he 100% knows will use them in crimes should be liable.

Any gun store that engages in the act of knowingly selling to criminals are criminals themselves and therefore do not fall into the category of "legal gun owners".



I stand by what I said 100%. When gun owners such as yourself are pointing the finger of blame at the guy who legally sells the guns and not the guy who steals them then the antis propaganda is obviously having great effect.

[kbheiner7]

That's just stupid. What gun store has enough safes to lock up all the guns they hold in inventory?

If people steal guns and use them to committ crimes - they should hang from high trees.

[DRZinn]

1. Stores aren't gun owners, they are sellers.
2. An adult leaving a loaded gun in reach of a child who isn't educated about gun and then shoots another child SHOULD be liable. (The child is technically a criminal)
3. A gun store who knowing sells guns to people who he 100% knows will use them in crimes should be liable.1. Between the time they buy them and the time they sell them, they own them.
2. A child is not entirely responsible for his actions, an adult looter is. And the child in your examle didn't break in to anything to get the gun.
3. How could they know?

[Hawkmoon]

And the screw Walmart at all costs mentality isn't even worth commenting on. If you hate Walmart fine, but my gosh, at least have some small bit of logical argument to go along with it, otherwise you're no better than the folks at the VPC.
And the LEAST you could do to bolster your argument is learn how to spell R-E-C-K-L-E-S-S.

Wal-Mart certainly is "wreckless" -- they haven't been in an automobile accident in a decade or more, especially not in New Orleans.

[owen]

So you're saying Walmart should fire their employees for taking off to save their families instead of locking up some guns?

[Sleeping Dog]

That's just stupid. What gun store has enough safes to lock up all the guns they hold in inventory?

I know of one in my neighborhood. It's a spectacle at closing time to see all the employees moving over 100 rifles and a pretty big selection of pistols into what looks like a "stonehenge" of safes.

I think they're required to lock up the pistols, but they choose to lock up the whole collection.

[jefnvk]

example if you rent here, you can DEMANd bars on windows on the first floor.
a glass entry door is NOT up to code for a residence.

expecting a gun shop to secure itself better than a fruit stand=
unreasonable ???

how can you expect anyone to let a gun shop move in next door if they refuse to lock it up tight?

The last few gunstores that have been robbed around here? Trucks through doors and locks either shot off or cut off. This was in a matter of minuets, enough to snatch and grab before anyone responded to security systems. These are the regular gunstores, that close every night.

Wal-Mart stays open all the time (At least every one I have been to). having bars on windows becomes a moot point, as anytime someone is going to rob the place is going to be when there are people there. Or in very rare circumstances like this. In rare circumstances like this, nothign is going to stop people. They are talking about months before the city is even drained. People have all the time in the world.

Maybe we should hold the hardware store liable for not securing the tools that were most likely looted to loot the firearms. Or since this is Wal-mart, simply blame them too for not locking up all their grinders and welders. They should have realized that those would be used to cut open whatever security systems they may have had in place.

So you're saying Walmart should fire their employees for taking off to save their families instead of locking up some guns?

I think that is the most logical thing I have heard. Who is going to take the time to secure the gun department on their almost minimum wage job, instead of getting out of there.

[waterhouse]

What gun store has enough safes to lock up all the guns they hold in inventory?

This has little to do with the thread, and I realize this is quite the exception, but I thought it was cool: a couple years ago while driving to a camping trip I passed a gun store and decided to go in. The front room was all ammo and holsters and cleaning supplies. The back room was all guns. A closer look revealed that we were standing in a huge "safe." The store owner bought a bank that was going out of business and the front of his shop was the lobby and the back end was the old vault. It was probably the most secure gun store ever. :D

[Hkmp5sd]

My whole point is that I think the stores that only left their gun invintory in a glass display case when they knew 100% they would be looted could be held liable. Putting it in a safe that gets broken into is different.

What gun store has enough safes to lock up all the guns they hold in inventory?


Time for a little education for those sue-happy folks...

First, a licensed dealer is required to provide "secure storage" of the firearms in their inventory.

(G) in the case of an application to be licensed as a dealer, the applicant certifies that secure gun storage or safety devices will be available at any place in which firearms are sold under the license to persons who are not licensees (subject to the exception that in any case in which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable because of theft, casualty loss, consumer sales, backorders from a manufacturer, or any other similar reason beyond the control of the licensee, the dealer shall not be considered to be in violation of the requirement under this subparagraph to make available such a device).

To ensure everyone plays by the same rules, "secure storage" is specifically defined:

(34) The term “secure gun storage or safety device” means –

(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device;

(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not having access to the device; or

(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or other similar means.

If Walmart or any other FFLs in the area had their firearms secured as defined above, they were obeying the requirements of the law and are not subject to your bogus lawsuits. Note that it DOES NOT REQUIRE A SAFE. A safe is one of several approved methods.

[Jeeper]

When gun owners such as yourself are pointing the finger of blame at the guy who legally sells the guns and not the guy who steals them then the antis propaganda is obviously having great effect.

My philosophy on legal negligence and my philosophy on gun rights have nothing to do with each other. This is a legal negligence discussion and not a gun rights one.

No, stores are not gun owners, but the people who own the stores are. Seeing how one has to jump through many stupid hoops to get a FFL then it is justifiable for me to assume that the store owners can legally posess firearms. So by holding the store liable, you are punishing the law abiding guy whose love of guns led him to open a store selling them.

What about corporations that are publicly traded who sell guns? They are not people.

Hkmp5sd

Thanks for the info on the statutes. That doesnt mean that they still cant be found legally negligent if they had other facilities available.

So you're saying Walmart should fire their employees for taking off to save their families instead of locking up some guns?

Of course not. However if the store remained open then there is an argument that they could have done more. If there was no one there since before the hurricane hit then liability is doubtful.

Do I ever think they will be held liable?...No
Should they be liable?......Most likely not

Is this a better argument for liability than most of the lawsuits against dealers?......Definately


It is interesting to me to see how many people here will never ever ever ever assert any blame on anyone but the criminal.

[The_Antibubba]

You know, I've never seen one of those easy to break into gun stores. All the ones I've ever seen were fortified. The exceptions were the Wal-Marts and other stores that carried more than "outdoors" stuff-and they all have their own elaborate and expensive layered systems in place.

Think of the circumstances for which most gun store owners are prepared. Quick break-ins and regular thefts that don't involve ramming a vehicle through a wall. I've never seen a gun shop that didn't have an alarm system (in fact, most businesses do). And even the most pessimistic gun shop owner knows that police will bust their blue butts getting to a gun shop break-in. They are not set-up for thieves who have all the time in the world because they know the cops can't/won't be coming by anytime this week.

Apparently NO doesn't have any Korean shop owners! :D

[Ezekiel]

But I'm sure those firearms have proven useful for people.

Yeah, but WHICH people? :uhoh:

If we're talking about guns "liberated" from their legal location, I fear it is much more likely that said firearm is being used in a deplorable manner, not a defendable one. (It is just easier to believe that "bad guys" are doing most of the looting, not "good guys".)

That being said, how could the shop owner have anticipated? "No chance."

[thorn726]

OK- seein the laws up there, etc, i guess i am still frustrated over this, an isolated incident=
As the store's alarm rang, thieves made off with 32 rifles and handguns from a Fremont gun shop early Wednesday, less than two weeks after police announced they will soon ignore burglar alarms unless there was a confirmed crime.

Irvington Arms owner Martin MacDonald was livid over the break-in at his shop, where burglars used an aluminum baseball bat to break the front door and smashed display cases with a crowbar before making off with $20,000 in weapons.


i did also find that they recovered seven guns at least

[AF_INT1N0]

Wait a minute maybe I'm daft for thinking this, but how come when a store sells records and someone steals from the store we say. "Those people stole" but when someone sells guns we say "That darn gun owner failed to secure the guns properly"????

Owning guns, or cars, or nuclear bombs does not make you liable for the criminal acts of another..

To think otherwise just nonsense.

Replace guns with teddy bear, or radio, and re-test logic.

[thorn726]

i guess its a moral decision.

you can have the gun shop extra safe because you KNOW criminals might look at you a little harder than a bait store
(im sure glad my bank knows it)

or not. and then since you're armed, you never need to think about whether the gun shop down the street gets robbed.
an excuse for a good shoot, right?

i dunno, just seems like common sense to me to want a little tighter than average security. for the millionth time, obvioulsy this hurricane was mroe than anyone could defend against. if i had a gun store in NO, id have every gun in a van on its way out of town- and then on its way back in as soon as the storm was over to remove looters.

the convience stores keep their smokes out of reach, the beer where they can keep an eye on it. jewelery stores have safes and metal gates (roll up doors? not sure how to call them) etc.

[foghornl]

The crooks are determined to take whatever they want, by any method available, since "Law-N-Order" no longer exists in 'Nawlins.

I do remember visiting a gunshop somewhere in Arkansas many years back, maybe in Hot Springs(??) It was named "Old Bank Pawn & Gun", IIRC. And that was exactly what it was...a pawn/gunshop in an old bank...complete with massive vault.

So yeah, in theory you could break into their storage, but I suspect it would take a while.

But Holding Wal-Mart, and gunshops liable for the actions of the ahhhh lower end of the humain chain ? ? ? Something only folks like Kennedy, Schumer, Finestein, etc would like.

[Jeff Timm]

Does anyone have any real evidence that the weapons were looted?

Based on incidental remarks, it seems organized gangs are engaging in systematic looting, then leaving others to cover their tracks.

Geoff
Who notes the only gang more evil than the drug gangs of NO, are the local politicians. :fire:

[Sean Smith]

Stop and think: the mandatory evac order came about 1 day before the storm made landfall. Is it realistic for the gun store owners to move all their stock, or otherwise place it under some kind of absolute protection, in that time frame? Even if we assume that they started a day or two earlier, what are they supposed to do?

Certainly, anything short of placing the guns in a really big safe isn't going to make much difference; we had people using stolen forklifts to tear their way into stores. God knows alarm systems are a waste of time when there is no power & the cops are in on some of the looting anyway.

You can only judge folks' decisions on the basis of things they could actually do. People aren't required to have magical powers to sell guns, are they?

[gezzer]

for Hkmp5sd

Your take of the quotes are wrong. It means that a dealer must stock and provide secure means of storage for the customer to purchase.

for every one

Double locks, barred widows, Caged areas and alarms What the heck else is a dealer suposed to have. If you get through that you are a thief period and it is not the dealers fault.

Or mabey dealers should be allowed to booby trap with claymores. Gheesh blame the dealer not the thieves if that is not anti- gun I do not know what is. :banghead: