Indiana news - Please help nuke this poll

Status
Not open for further replies.

Night Guy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
197
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Should gun owners be held liable for not storing their weapons properly?

http://www.indystar.com/

About halfway down on the left.

Our esteemed lawmakers are trying to pass a law that will prevent gun owners from being held liable should their weapons be stolen and used in a crime. Makes sense to me. The Indiana Senate comittee decided the other day to remove the part about immunity to gun owners who lend their weapons to others. We were all set to enact some of the most protective laws to prevent frivoulous lawsuits against gun owners, now I'm not so sure. I'll see if I can dig up the actual articles, because I'm sure I've not conveyed myself accurately.

-----------------------------------

Here's the actual article on this topic...


113th General Assembly
Panel weakens bill targeting gun lawsuits
Measure had raised concerns over the protections it would have given owners.

By Kevin Corcoran
[email protected]
February 18, 2004


An Indiana Senate committee on Tuesday scaled back a proposal that would protect gun owners from lawsuits over injuries or deaths caused by their weapons.

House Bill 1349 would have provided the nation's most sweeping protections, and safety groups had warned that Hoosiers no longer would be held responsible for failing to safeguard their guns.

As amended Tuesday, the protections would apply only to owners of weapons that had been stolen and misused, causing injuries or deaths. The bill is headed for a vote next week in the Indiana Senate.

After facing stiff opposition, Sen. Robert Meeks proposed an amendment that deleted controversial wording from the House-passed version of the bill.

As the legislation left the House by a 77-4 vote Feb. 4, it would have given Indiana the most sweeping gun immunity law in the country, according to the Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The bill wouldn't have affected criminal prosecutions, but it would have effectively eliminated most lawsuits involving guns.

Before Tuesday's amendment, the bill would have undone an April 2003 decision by the Indiana Supreme Court in which the high court ruled gun owners could be held liable for failing to safely store their weapons.

"We tried to address some of the concerns," said Meeks, R-LaGrange, the bill's primary sponsor. "The amendment addresses these concerns."

With little discussion, the Senate Criminal, Civil and Public Policy Committee voted 8-2 to recommend passage. Democratic Sens. Earline Rogers of Gary and Sam Smith of East Chicago cast no votes.

In Lake County, the city of Gary is suing several gun manufacturers and wholesalers. The city claims they sold handguns they knew would end up in the hands of criminals.

After the city filed its lawsuit in 1999, the General Assembly passed a bill the next year to ban lawsuits by other municipalities.

Last week, Gary Mayor Scott King testified against the bill, which could have kept the city's gun lawsuit from going forward.

Meeks removed that provision during Tuesday's committee hearing. The bill would exempt gun owners from lawsuits if their weapons or ammunition were stolen, including in burglaries or robberies.

"If you recklessly keep your gun around, you are liable," Meeks said.

But the Brady Center says the bill, although more narrow, is not needed.

"This is a remedy for something that's not a problem," said Brian Siebel, a senior attorney for the Brady Center. "It still protects negligent gun owners."

More than 300,000 Hoosiers have permits to carry weapons, and many more own guns.

HB 1349 also would limit the ability of Indiana's prison inmates to file frivolous lawsuits.

"We have some people in the penal institutions who have become very good attorneys . . . always suing the guards, always suing the state," said Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, and a member of the committee. "They have become a real burden on the courts."
 
"Should gun owners be held liable for failing to safely store their weapons?"

I didn't vote. The question is lose-lose. If I say they should be held liable, I'm assigning liability even in cases of firearm theft. The article suggests that this theft situation is the intent of the question, because that's the legislative issue. If I say they shouldn't be held liable, I'm failing to assign liability even in cases where a parent leaves a loaded gun accessible to a 4-year-old, based on the question's wording.

I predict totally useless results. People reading the article will vote one way; those voting based on the question alone will vote the other way, given identical political views. I'm for liability in the latter case, and against liability in the former, but hell if I can figure out how to answer that question other than "yes". Nobody should store firearms unsafely. It seems that words such as "safe" have lost their meaning in this glorious new century.
 
Right on, tyme. This is yet another absurd poll that cannot, by its very design, provide any useful information.

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top