Yeah...that’s really going to encourage reporting stolen guns....

Status
Not open for further replies.
fireside44 said:
Partially my butt. Fully liable. This is the 21st century, the criminal acted out because of circumstance. You were negligent. It's as if you committed the crime yourself. If it wasn't for you, he would've gone on to live an enlightened and blessed, law abiding existence.

*sips soy wheatgrass latte, adjusts skinny jeans



Yes, because I made someone steal something that didn't belong to him/her. Insert face into palm.

Safe storage laws are arbitrary. I think you need to lock up your knives and you should be prosecuted if you don't. That pocketknife you left on your nightstand, that oughta be a crime. Now what?

Just because you got people around ain't trustworthy with a weapon or foolishly moved into a high crime area doesn't mean I raised my kids like that or live in a hood like that. For years I had no problem breaking safe storage laws so my minor child would have access to a weapon in event of an emergency. Fortunately my kids are old enough now that I can leave guns loaded guns laying around without becoming a criminal. I was an anti safe storage law activist before anti safe storage law activism was cool. The only reason for a safe is so there is a place besides my wifes closet to put my guns and ammo.
Click to expand...
The laws will establish what are considered reasonable precautions; it's not what any individual considers reasonable and proper.
 
ATLDave said:
I feel strongly that people should not leave routinely store guns in cars overnight/permanently, but I have strong reservations about ever making the victim of one crime liable for subsequent crimes by their criminal violator.
Click to expand...

Depends on where you park your car, where you live, and how you stow the weapon in the vehicle. Everything, even gun ownership, is calculated risk. Legislating what risks people are allowed to take down to petty nonsense like how you stow your weapons is going to far. A weapon locked away in a safe is a dust collector and this is why safe storage laws are a great tool for making sure people are functionally disarmed.

jar said:
And yes, if a person leaves a car unlocked and it is used in a crime then they too should be partially responsible.
Click to expand...

Comedy gold.

What if I leave it unlocked but have removed the battery? Or if it's a stickshift and the crooks push start it am I guilty?
 
jar said:
The laws will establish what are considered reasonable precautions; it's not what any individual considers reasonable and proper.
Click to expand...

For the most part, the laws cut off liability at the culpable act of another through the concept of "proximate cause." This concept takes several classes in law school to cover, and lawyers constantly fight about (and judges have to rule on) the particular application of it to particular cases, so I can't do it justice in a post.

Suffice it to say, just because someone does something that is in some way negligent (or otherwise breaches a duty), that doesn't make them eternally liable for any and all downstream consequences, regardless of subsequent intervening events.

What you cavalierly suggest - open-ended perpetual liability for the acts of others if you didn't do enough to prevent their criminal activity - would quickly lead to all of us individually being liable for billions of dollars of damages. That way lies madness. What you are suggesting is not the ordinary course of business in American jurisprudence.
 
open-ended perpetual liability for the acts of others if you didn't do enough to prevent their criminal activity
Click to expand...

Just think of the legal actions if there were...makes me wonder how many hospitals have colluded in the birth of lawbreakers and they should be held accountable!

Insert rolling eye face here
 
ATLDave said:
For the most part, the laws cut off liability at the culpable act of another through the concept of "proximate cause." This concept takes several classes in law school to cover, and lawyers constantly fight about (and judges have to rule on) the particular application of it to particular cases, so I can't do it justice in a post.

Suffice it to say, just because someone does something that is in some way negligent (or otherwise breaches a duty), that doesn't make them eternally liable for any and all downstream consequences, regardless of subsequent intervening events.

What you cavalierly suggest - open-ended perpetual liability for the acts of others if you didn't do enough to prevent their criminal activity - would quickly lead to all of us individually being liable for billions of dollars of damages. That way lies madness. What you are suggesting is not the ordinary course of business in American jurisprudence.
Click to expand...
And that's why the laws should establish such limits on liability and yes, it would provide occupation for lots and lots of lawyers.
 
jmorris said:
Just think of the legal actions if there were...makes me wonder how many hospitals have colluded in the birth of lawbreakers and they should be held accountable!

Insert rolling eye face here
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people do not realize the overwhelming likelihood that, at some point in the last 20 years, one or more of their computers got hacked (potentially because they didn't install all patches the same day they were released, or because they failed to use strong passwords, or failed to reset all their passwords after some data breach) and were used, without their knowledge, to send millions of spam emails. There is strong evidence that this is true of most computer users/owners.

Similarly, at this point, most people have had their identity used to open some account and fraudulently obtain goods or services. In most cases, there is something else that initial victim could have done to make ID theft harder. Should Verizon be able to sue me because they allowed someone using my name and SSN to open an account? After all, there's probably something more I could have done that some security expert would recommend (with the benefit of hindsight especially) that might have prevented that.
 
jar said:
And that's why the laws should establish such limits on liability and yes, it would provide occupation for lots and lots of lawyers.
Click to expand...

The laws currently do, for the most part, through that proximate cause concept.

You need to think much harder about the ramifications of what you are suggesting. I would bet money that you have been the victim of some criminal activity, and that your stolen/misappropriated property or data has been used to commit subsequent crimes. You are probably unaware of it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened - or isn't happening right now. Your preferred scheme may expose you to millions of dollars of liability on day one.

It's a crazy idea.
 
fireside44 said:
Depends on where you park your car, where you live, and how you stow the weapon in the vehicle. Everything, even gun ownership, is calculated risk. Legislating what risks people are allowed to take down to petty nonsense like how you stow your weapons is going to far. A weapon locked away in a safe is a dust collector and this is why safe storage laws are a great tool for making sure people are functionally disarmed.



Comedy gold.

What if I leave it unlocked but have removed the battery? Or if it's a stickshift and the crooks push start it am I guilty?
Click to expand...
As is always the case that would be determined in a court of law. If it was determined you used reasonable precautions then you would not be held liable.
 
ATLDave said:
The laws currently do, for the most part, through that proximate cause concept.

You need to think much harder about the ramifications of what you are suggesting. I would bet money that you have been the victim of some criminal activity, and that your stolen/misappropriated property or data has been used to commit subsequent crimes. You are probably unaware of it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened - or isn't happening right now. Your preferred scheme may expose you to millions of dollars of liability on day one.

It's a crazy idea.
Click to expand...

And yes, I understand that. And yes, I might well suffer from my position.
 
jar said:
And yes, I understand that. And yes, I might well suffer from my position.
Click to expand...

A change in the law that overnight would expose the majority of the populace to levels of liability that exceed their net worth... we all might "suffer" from that position, and the resultant economic and societal collapse. And, no, I am not exaggerating.

At the very least, it would be beyond reckless to not immediately unplug from the web and all electronic commerce and go cash-only for all transactions. How to go back to a medieval economy in 6 months!

At least we'll save a bunch of zeros next time we calculate GDP.
 
I had a car stolen once in south central Los Angeles.
It was a '64 Rambler wagon with a burned out clutch, bad brakes and a bullet hole in the radiator.
I don't know how the thief even got it to move.
It was found in the local Unemployment Office parking lot.

Question: If the thief had managed to use the car in a crime, should I be held partially liable?
 
I really hope most of these comments are sarcasm. If a criminal steals my car, locked or unlocked, and subsequently uses it to do harm to someone, how in the world is it my fault? How do you even prove the car was locked or unlocked. I don’t need a key to unlock my truck. I can do it with a coat hanger. I know because I’ve had to do it many times. And it’s a 2009 model. The liability lies with the criminal who chose to commit an unlawful act. If that’s not the case, we should be forced to live with every possession, with the potential to do harm, under lock and key for fear of a criminal using said possession in a crime. Lock up your cars, guns, saws, axes, hammers, nails, kitchen knives, rope, screwdrivers, scissors, tire tools, crowbars, and the list could go on and on.

So if my mailbox is anchored by a T-post, and someone comes by my house, steals my mailbox in the middle of the night, and uses the T-post to kill his girlfriend, I can be held liable because I should have secured it better?

If a criminal comes by my truck in the Walmart parking lot, takes a piece of rebar out of my truck, uses it to beat someone in the parking lot to rob someone, and it’s determined it’s mine because it was caught on Walmart surveillance video, I’m liable?

Get outta here.
 
Trunk Monkey said:
What good is that going to do if they can get into the cabin of the car then pop the trunk from there?
Click to expand...

Cars I own the key needs to be in the ignition but not running to pop the trunk with the button. If your car is not equipped that way you can turn on the "valet" button in the trunk and it will not open unless you have the trunk key.My older beater car is this way.
 
Trunk Monkey said:
What good is that going to do if they can get into the cabin of the car then pop the trunk from there?
Click to expand...

You would know :evil:.

A criminal would have to know, or have a reason to believe, it WAS in the trunk.
We have car break-insurance in N. Alabama where I live. But nearly every break in was to steal something left in plain sight on a seat or on the dash.
 
Most of those who advocate for allowing the government to decide what "safe storage" is for any individual's given circumstances are probably also in favor of mandatory training, UBCs, carry licensing, and probably even gun/owner registration.

Saying that having something that tempts an evildoer makes you responsible for whatever he does with it once he steals it smacks of the old "Look at how she's dressed! She was clearly asking for it!" adage.
 
herrwalther said:
This is why I am 100% against safe storage law. Any knucklehead politician or DA can say your method of storage isn't good enough and charge you with a crime.
Click to expand...
Cali has a list published by the DOJ of what storage devices are acceptable to the state. The storage law says your firearms have to be locked up in one from the list unless you have it with you.

I think the list is pretty bogus, in that there are ones on there that were featured in the videos of a few years back showing toddlers opening them in less than a minute, while FAS-1 is not on the list because you have to jump through a lot of hoops AND pay money to get on it.

BUT, as long as you use one that's on the list, they can't nail you for failure to store your firearm(s) safely.
 
This is just the beginning. Just wait til he gets the doctors bills and the lawsuits start where the thief shoots himself in the groin gangsta carrying that pistol in his waistband. Sad, but realistic in the backwards society we live in. Clearly it’s even worse there than in a free state.
 
jar said:
If the owner did not use reasonable methods to secure ...
Click to expand...

The problem with that concept is what is reasonable to one person isn't to another. It's a comparison word, like tall. Is a six foot tall man tall? In a roomful of jockeys, yes. In a roomful of NBA players, um, no.
Right up there with that good old phrase "Common sense gun laws". What does that really mean?
 
jar said:
If the computer owner did not use reasonable methods to secure his computer and network the yes, that person should be held partially liable.

And yes, if a person leaves a car unlocked and it is used in a crime then they too should be partially responsible.

The point is that te law will establish what are reasonable precautions and as adults we should follow those laws.
Click to expand...

This is the most assinine nonsense I have ever read on this site. Just because I happen to personally trust that the people around me are honest law abiding citizens (however foolishly) why should I be held liable for criminal actions performed by someone using assets they illegally took from me.

This is exactly what is wrong with the accountability aspect of today's world. Responsibility for a persons actions are thrown out the window. It is always someone else's fault for what a criminal did. He robbed a bank because I "let him" do it by not protecting my personal property. So it's all my fault.

Well my personal property is mine. The only consequences to me for the theft of my property should be the loss of that property. If I choose to trust that the people around me are honest and law abiding then that is my somewhat foolish choice.

Please note I am not attempting to address issues of safety and harm that comes to other individuals when my failure to follow safe practices causes an incident. I am only attempting to address criminal activity using my possessions which were illegally taken from me and used elsewhere.
 
A change in the law that overnight would expose the majority of the populace to levels of liability that exceed their net worth... we all might "suffer" from that position, and the resultant economic and societal collapse. And, no, I am not exaggerating.
Click to expand...
This ^^^
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Speedo66
  • Locked
Alarming Trend, High Percentage of Guns Stolen Are From Vehicles
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
Old Dog
  • Locked
Dude, where's my car? Another SPD gun stolen ...
Replies
7
Views
964
Standing Wolf
S
9
  • Locked
Stolen guns from ALE
Replies
16
Views
2K
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
D
  • Locked
(CA) Large Gun Collection Stolen (reporter needs a time-out)
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
Chuhhuniban
C
Torian
  • Locked
Guns stolen from Chicago freight train
Replies
12
Views
2K
Deanimator
Deanimator
Back
Top