Leaving gun in car - liability issue?

[Double Naught Spy]

My firearms are always with me or in the safe. I am opposed to the idea of a “truck gun”. Buying a gun so you can leave where it could get stolen without worrying about it does not make sense. IMO, it is also morally irresponsible..

You leave a gun in a safe where it can get stolen without worrying about it. After all, most gun safes are really nothing more than fire and teenager protection at most. They take a couple of minutes to break into with a sledge hammer and pry bar and that is about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBhOjWHbD6M

Sure, maybe yours is bolted down. Bolted down bank machines get stolen too.

Your morals are nice, but machs nicht.

If the gun is locked in a vehicle, then it is secured. You may not like the security, but for many states, that counts for liability purposes.

 

[delta53]

reasonable

I beleve if you don't use resonable precausions to keep your firearms out of the hands of kids or B/Gs you carry some baggage in the way they are used

 

[KodiakBeer]

My goodness, is there no question so simple that it can't be over-analyzed to death?

No! If your gun gets stolen you are not legally or morally responsible for the actions of the thief.

 

[macadore]

You leave a gun in a safe where it can get stolen without worrying about it. After all, most gun safes are really nothing more than fire and teenager protection at most. They take a couple of minutes to break into with a sledge hammer and pry bar and that is about it.

I don't leave my keys or my firearms in my vehicles for the same reason. It may be legal, but it's irresponsible. Irresponsible behavior with firearms gives ammunition to the anti-gun crowd.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I don't leave my keys or my firearms in my vehicles for the same reason. It may be legal, but it's irresponsible. Irresponsible behavior with firearms gives ammunition to the anti-gun crowd.

Fine, then drive home and put your gun in the safe and then drive back to pick up your mail then drive back and get your gun to continue your day.

 

[rmfnla]

My goodness, is there no question so simple that it can't be over-analyzed to death?

What, exactly, do you mean by that..?

 

[macadore]

Fine, then drive home and put your gun in the safe and then drive back to pick up your mail then drive back and get your gun to continue your day.

Granted, there are times when you have to leave your firearm in the car. That's different from buying a cheap firearm to leave in you vehicle all the time so you won't worry if it gets stolen.

The Brady Bunch consistently portrays firearms owners as a bunch of irresponsible cretins. I choose not to be a poster boy for their propaganda. The issue is not what I find convenient. The issue is one of making personal concessions to prevent further degradation of the Second Amendment.

 

[WardenWolf]

In most states, you could not be held legally liable for the actions of a criminal as long as leaving the firearm in the vehicle was perfectly legal in the first place. However, in some states such as California that consider all gun owners to be criminals anyway, it's entirely possible that you could be held liable or criminally negligent for leaving your gun unattended in your vehicle.

 

[KodiakBeer]

That's different from buying a cheap firearm to leave in you vehicle all the time so you won't worry if it gets stolen.

I don't see any difference. While you're at work, somebody might come into your home and steal your guns. They might stick a gun to your head and steal your carry gun because it prints. They might steal your car and drunkenly run down a child.

In effect, you're allowing the Brady Bunch to dictate your behavior; to acknowledge that gun owners have responsibility for the criminal actions of others.

I don't carry a cheap gun in my car, but it's already on my list of 'things to do".

 

[tigwiz]

I have a p220 and a LCP in my center console of my 2008 jeep with hard top unless I'm carrying one and before that a scout until the bottom rusted out, no problems in 40 years. I don't let criminals control my life.

 

[paul]

It may be legal, but it's irresponsible.

Morality and responsibility are personal virtues.
Things that you find moral or responsible may not mirror mine, or anybody else's, for that matter.
Do what makes you feel good.
Leave me, and my morals, alone.
p

Liability issues will be addressed locally.

 

[lwj2]

Nobody can answer your question. It's up to a jury to decide whether the precautions you took were "reasonable." You will sort of start out with two strikes against you, because in order for a case to actually get started, your precautions will not have succeeded in preventing harm. The jury, which will have the opportunity to be generous with your money, or your insurance company's, may incline toward finding liability. So the answer depends on the judgment of people who haven't been selected yet. As it happens, I think what you're doing is fine and I do the same thing myself from time to time. But I'm not going to be on your jury, and neither are any of the other people who will give you a flat opinion one way or the other.

I see no reason, having taken reasonable precautions (secured, in a locked area not readily visible) why you should be liable.

You wouldn't be liable were a burglar to break into your house and steal your weapon(s), so locked in a private vehicle is the same. The police need a warrant to search your vehicle, as they do to search your home, so it's the same thing.

Mind, that doesn't stop scum lawyers from filing suit, but I see no reason for criminal charges.

 

[Top_Gunn]

I see no reason, having taken reasonable precautions (secured, in a locked area not readily visible) why you should be liable.

Here's the catch: The jury gets to decide if precautions taken were reasonable. You don't. I don't either. Neither does "the law," whatever people mean by that. It's up to the jury, and anybody who thinks they know in advance that every jury will reach some particular decision is deluded.
A well-known legal scholar once said of the law of negligence that we really have very little in the way of negligence law; we just have a process by which the legal system determines whether someone was negligent. That process is leaving the issue to the jury. Juries have decided that serving very hot coffee is negligent. They have decided that failing to warn a professional football player that he might get heat stroke on a hot day is negligent. They have decided that failing to warn thieves that they might get electrocuted if they try to cut down high-voltage wires is negligent. If you think they can't decide that leaving a gun in your parked car was negligent, you haven't been paying attention.
I agree with you on the merits: people who do this shouldn't be liable. But the legal system doesn't care a bit about what you and I think, unless we happen to be on a jury.

 

[docsleepy]

I found a nut that I could get off, and bought a short segment of chain, and now have a way to chain down a container insider the center console (F150 has kind of a "space" in the center console. That allows me to lock a pistol case. At present, it is a PLASTIC case, but at least that offers some protection against kids. I plan to get something METAL. Sure, if you have tools, you can get past my impediment, but there is NOTHING that can't be eventually defeated. All I need to do is satisfy myself and others that I did my duty. I don't know any law, this is just my 2 cents' worth.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

The jury gets to decide if precautions taken were reasonable

So you are assuming that an arrest by LE and charges by the district attorney followed by a grand jury indictment has already occured(or whatever system is in place where you are). I would hate to live in a place that would let it get that far.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Can anyone cite a case where a gun owner was charged for having a gun stolen? I thought not...

 

[Top_Gunn]

The original post asked about civil liability ("can I be held liable?"), not criminal law.That's what my posts responded to. The last two posts talk about criminal charges; that's not the subject here. As for citing cases, jury verdicts are not reported; you seldom get a case to cite unless there has been an appeal. There are several cases in which people who negligently (according to the jury) let their cars be stolen have been held liable to people who were run over by the thief; I don't see why guns would be different.

The principle that the "trier of fact," which is the jury except in cases in which the parties agree to have a judge try the case without a jury, decides what's "reasonable" is fundamental; it is the rule in every US state and the Federal courts. If you want to dispute that, write your congressman.

Here's an example (not involving guns) which happened to get an appeal and so produced something that can be cited. Suppose somebody is driving at night, on a country road, with headlights on low beams, even though no oncoming car is present. There is no written law about high or low beams. Is this negligent? I've asked a lot of people about this, and they all get it wrong. About half say "yes," the other half say "no." The answer is, "it's up to the trier of fact to decide." Delao v. Carlson, 589 S.W. 2d 525 (Texas Civ. App. 1979).

 

[jimmyraythomason]

perhaps the better question is "Can I be SUED if my gun is stolen from my vehicle and used to harm someone?" The obvious answer is that anyone can be sued for anything.

 

[TJ42]

I sometimes lock a handgun in the glove box and then I lock the car doors. A thief has to break into the car and then break into the glove box. Thats two locks to break. From my way of thinking, I took two steps to secure the gun, plus the fact that it is intentionally hidden from view. I generally only do so when the law prevents me from taking it into a specific place and I have to leave it in the car, and so I am following the law and securing the gun to the best of my ability under the circumstances.

 

[Skinny 1950]

In Canada the only way you can transport a restricted firearm (handgun) is to have a transport permit for wherever you are going to take it. Long term permits to take them to a shooting range are common. The guns have to be in a locked box in a locked trunk unloaded with the ammo in a separate locked box. This would reduce the probability of someone stealing the guns but isn't going to stop them from taking the whole car or truck. Under these conditions the gun owner would not be liable for anything a perp might do with your guns....