Gun Legislation

[Stinger]

I agree with O Really that guns could be treated differently for liability purposes, inanimate objects are not guaranteed equal protection under the law/exemption from double standards. However, I think that Stinger's view that they shouldn't be treated differently for liability purposes will prevail.

Cars and planes are inanimate. I don't see saying you're responsible if your gun is stolen, but you're not equally responsible in you're car or plane is stolen. You're making a distinction because of your bias. The law isn't supposed to work that way.

[O Really]

I agree with O Really that guns could be treated differently for liability purposes, inanimate objects are not guaranteed equal protection under the law/exemption from double standards. However, I think that Stinger's view that they shouldn't be treated differently for liability purposes will prevail.

Cars and planes are inanimate. I don't see saying you're responsible if your gun is stolen, but you're not equally responsible in you're car or plane is stolen. You're making a distinction because of your bias. The law isn't supposed to work that way.

Actually, I would have no problem treating guns just like anything else. Good luck getting that past the NRA-owned Congress. But look, you're using logic where in the real world that's not the controlling factor. Beverages containing alcohol in bottles are treated differently from beverages not containing alcohol in similar bottles. Pharmaceutic "controlled substances" are pretty much arbitrarily segmented from OTC drugs. Heck, there have been products treated differently for sales or protection of some sort just because they could be used to make meth or bombs even though the products themselves have other legitimate uses. We can't just keep chasing the same tails and expect to get to any answer. Of course the tail chasing is strongly encouraged by the NRA just for that reason.

[Stinger]

I agree with O Really that guns could be treated differently for liability purposes, inanimate objects are not guaranteed equal protection under the law/exemption from double standards. However, I think that Stinger's view that they shouldn't be treated differently for liability purposes will prevail.

Cars and planes are inanimate. I don't see saying you're responsible if your gun is stolen, but you're not equally responsible in you're car or plane is stolen. You're making a distinction because of your bias. The law isn't supposed to work that way.

Actually, I would have no problem treating guns just like anything else. Good luck getting that past the NRA-owned Congress. But look, you're using logic where in the real world that's not the controlling factor. Beverages containing alcohol in bottles are treated differently from beverages not containing alcohol in similar bottles. Pharmaceutic "controlled substances" are pretty much arbitrarily segmented from OTC drugs. Heck, there have been products treated differently for sales or protection of some sort just because they could be used to make meth or bombs even though the products themselves have other legitimate uses. We can't just keep chasing the same tails and expect to get to any answer. Of course the tail chasing is strongly encouraged by the NRA just for that reason.

But your intent is to legislate away the right to own a gun. The court's interpretation of the Second Amendment is that you have the right to own a firearm.

Yes, there are restrictions on drugs and alcohol AND guns. They're already regulated. You propose to regulate guns out of existence because you don't like them.

You're not liable if someone steals your pharmaceuticals. You're not liable if someone steals your liquor. If you give the pharmaceuticals or liquor or gun to someone, then maybe you're liable. If someone steals weapons from the military, will they get to sue the United States? If someone steals weapons from law enforcement, will people be able to sue the city, county, or state?

I think it's BS to make up an enhanced liability law for one, and only one, item.

[O Really]

But your intent is to legislate away the right to own a gun. The court's interpretation of the Second Amendment is that you have the right to own a firearm.

Yes, there are restrictions on drugs and alcohol AND guns. They're already regulated. You propose to regulate guns out of existence because you don't like them.

.

Au contraire - I do like guns, own several, and have better training in their use in regard to personal and home security than probably 90% of civilians who have a gun in the house. I don't want to legislate away the right to own a gun. That isn't going to happen because of the Second Amendment. But I think there are too many guns too easily available, with too little repercussion to their misuse. Guns that have little if any "sporting" or defense use. Guns and accessories whose sole purpose is to kill lots of people quickly. Guns that are left unsecured to be picked up by kids or thieves. Guns that are just lying around for when somebody gets drunk and mad. I'm not saying my current theme is practical. I'm just thinking of ways to keep within the Constitution and still make people think, "do I really want the liability associated with my legal right to own a firearm"? I think the ultimate answer won't be bans, it will be social unacceptance. Instead of people thinking that it's a strong brave protector who has an arsenal of military looking hardware, it's the paranoid schizo who thinks there are gay people under his bed who thinks that stuff is cool.

[Mad American]

???

I admit I've not followed this pissing contest very closely; there doesn't seem to be room for more than two in the mudpit. But having read the last few pages and, trying to winnow out the JYIS filler and process the rest, I have to say that I can't quite get a handle on the point you're trying to make here. Could you back up a little and punt your point, concisely and clearly for us, please?
Sorry to intrude.

Ok, thanks.

1. proposed federal legislation has a large basis on appearance not operation

Citation? Be specific, please?

Appearance items from Feinstein bill summary and only ONE is required to make the gun illegal
For rifles.... pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
For pistols....threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud
Those item have no bearing on the mechanical operation of the firearm. They are purely appearance oriented.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/ ... an-summary
It is important to remember that the Feinstein bill is being proposed at the federal level while the California proposals are for that state only.

2. proposed California legislation has now labeled EVERY semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine as an "assault weapon"

So? Detachable magazine is not merely an "appearance" issue.

True. However, the blanket statement includes this gun:
http://www.ruger.com/products/1022Compact/models.html

This gun:
http://www.browning.com/products/catalo ... flag_=002B

This gun:
http://www.remington.com/product-famili ... l-750.aspx

and every other sporting semi auto with a detachable magazine ever produced.

3. totally stock unmodified firearms are capable of high rates of fire.

Again, so? If rates of fire are an issue, it is not one of appearance. Are such weapons not included in "proposed" legislation?

Rate of fire is NOT included in the legislation. However, that point was being argued due to vrede's comments of "slide fire" stocks...accessory item which DO effect the operation of the firearm and are listed in the legislation to be banned.

4. ignorance of guns, their technical specs and operation, leads to mistakes like #'s 1 & 2

You have yet to demonstrate any "mistakes." Citations?

In my OPINION....banning firearms dues to a piece of plastic is a mistake. Like wise making a blanket statement which bans hundred of different models of centerfire sporting rifles is likewise a mistake. California has already proven that it is very easy to start down the slippery slope of banning "everyday" guns. So we ban all semi-autos with detachable magazines. Whats to stop them from banning tube fed semi-autos next, then semi-auto shotguns, then lever action rifles, then bolt action rifles....where does it stop??

[Mad American]

Yep, there are lots of 10- and 11-year-old master thieves cracking safes and raiding hunting camps.

Who said anything about a "hunting camp"? I said they were on a "hunting trip". The break in happened in the parking lot of a Holiday Inn. Now, tell us that youths are not responsible for vehicle break in's in populated areas.

[Mad American]

Serious answer - in criminal matters, the rule is "innocent until proven guilty" meaning that it is the state's responsibility to prove guilt - not the defendants job to prove innocence. But in civil matters, one often must prove innocence. I'd say if somebody's gun get stolen, it would be their responsibility to prove it was because of "life sucks it was a good thief." BTW, sure some pros might be able to steal your guns with the protection you stated, but the odds of them trying it when so many easier targets are around are slim. To steal yours, they'd have to (a) know you had them; (b) want your particular guns; (c) believe they could get them easier than some similar ones.

It's no secret I have guns and you are correct that getting them from my home would be tough for even a pro. However, what about the situation I listed about my friend? A locked case is stolen from a locked vehicle during an out of state hunting trip. Can't help bu notice you did NOT answer the second part of my question....When does it transition from negligent storage to bad luck, good thief. Furthermore what would constitute either adequate or inadequate storage??

[O Really]

I'm sure that any such law, were one to ever be enacted, would take into account whether the owner took reasonable precautions to prevent theft.

Certainly - as is considered in liability issues now and historically. There was a "self-help" book back in the day entitled "Games People Play" that expressed human behaviour in terms of games. One of them was named "Yes, but..." which is the constant response by people playing it. Always another objection, no matter what. It's a favorite of the NRA people. Other games in the book included "Ain't it Awful", "Uproar", and "Let's You and Him Fight." You can probably recognize some players of those games.

[O Really]

Can't help bu notice you did NOT answer the second part of my question....When does it transition from negligent storage to bad luck, good thief. Furthermore what would constitute either adequate or inadequate storage??

It would "transition" during the legal process. There are very few things one can get charged with in the US that bring about an immediate conviction or adverse decision. As mentioned below, a person who actually had taken all reasonable and expected precautions wouldn't get hauled off without opportunity to defend.

[O Really]

Yep, there are lots of 10- and 11-year-old master thieves cracking safes and raiding hunting camps.

Who said anything about a "hunting camp"? I said they were on a "hunting trip". The break in happened in the parking lot of a Holiday Inn. Now, tell us that youths are not responsible for vehicle break in's in populated areas.

Yep, there are lots of 10- and 11-year-old master thieves trolling Holiday Inns.

I don't know about you, but I don't leave valuables in my rig at motels, especially something as visible as a gun case.

Not my weapon, not my computer, not my GPS. When the sign says, "not responsible for break-ins" I take heed. Especially if my rig was one that screamed "hunter's truck."

[Mad American]

Can't help bu notice you did NOT answer the second part of my question....When does it transition from negligent storage to bad luck, good thief. Furthermore what would constitute either adequate or inadequate storage??

It would "transition" during the legal process. There are very few things one can get charged with in the US that bring about an immediate conviction or adverse decision. As mentioned below, a person who actually had taken all reasonable and expected precautions wouldn't get hauled off without opportunity to defend.

Defend where? In the courts? Would that not infer being charged. I agree with stinger on this one....attempting to hold a gun owner liable for his stolen gun being used in a crime is no different than holding a car owner liable if that car is involved in an accident.

[O Really]

Defend where? In the courts? Would that not infer being charged. I agree with stinger on this one....attempting to hold a gun owner liable for his stolen gun being used in a crime is no different than holding a car owner liable if that car is involved in an accident.

It is you that "infer" it is I who "implies." But it would not necessarily imply a charge. Events occur all the time in which a crime might have been committed - or maybe not. Police investigate and subsequently a decision is made whether to charge, and for what. I'm not going to invent very many more layers of detail here because there is no chance in several lifetimes that such a law would get past the NRA-owned Congress. But in theory, it is certainly workable. Compare to a child being dead and having what appears to be a broken neck. Police may suspect abuse, but if the evidence shows otherwise, there's no charge. But past the specific topic of theft, the use of guns should be held to at least the liability standard of other stuff. Since you like the car analogy, consider: kill somebody by hitting them with your car, and there's a good chance you'll be charged at least with negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. Shoot them in the woods and you've got a good chance of getting off with the "opps" defense.

[Mad American]

Since you like the car analogy, consider: kill somebody by hitting them with your car, and there's a good chance you'll be charged at least with negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. Shoot them in the woods and you've got a good chance of getting off with the "opps" defense.

Disagree...hit someone, who steps out from between two parked vehicles wearing dark clothing on a rainy night, with your car and you have a good chance of getting off with the "oops" defense as well. Shoot someone in the woods wearing the REQUIRED blaze orange vest and/or hat for hunters and see how far "oops" gets you. There are both extenuating and mitigating circumstance in cases.

[rstrong]

....see how far "oops" gets you. There are both extenuating and mitigating circumstance in cases.

Extenuating and mitigating circumstances:

In January, Kirill Bartashevitch, 52, was charged with making "terroristic" threats to his high-school-age daughter after he allegedly pointed his new AK-47 at her because her report card showed 2 B's instead of all A's. He said he had recently purchased the gun because he feared that President Obama intended to ban them.) [St. Paul Pioneer-Press, 1-16-2012]

[rstrong]

Florida man Steven Egan mistakes girlfriend for hog, shoots her

...Authorities told ABC News they did not plan to charge Egan in the incident...

It doesn't say whether she was wearing orange, but it sounds like he shot at the noise not something he could see, anyhow. Opps.

Or someone is dressing hogs in orange safety vests. This is Florida we're talking about.

[O Really]

NRA types will always have an example of why any attempt to rein in the availability of guns for unlawful purposes just won't work. But consider: I'll bet a lot of gun owners have attended some fundamental training or "gun safety" program or the concealed carry show that passes for "training." Whatever it is, and whoever presents it, I'd say the odds are around 100% that some version of these three statements was made: (1) always treat a gun as if it were loaded; (2) never point at anything you don't intend to shoot; (3) never shoot at anything you haven't identified. Here's one version of those statements... http://www.americanhandgunner.com/service/gun-safety/
here's another... http://armeddefense.org/safetyrules and one more... http://www.frfrogspad.com/safety.htm
And more of the same, from Remington... http://www.minutemansportsmen.com/Safet ... safety.pdf

Given that, how can any shooting be considered an "oops" or accident without any civil or criminal liability? Add in the existing laws regarding securing firearms in homes with children, etc., and at the very least, there is an obvious negligence on the part of anyone "accidentally" shooting someone or themselves. Take the Newtown incident. The mom had her guns in the house shared with a son she (said she) feared, obviously not secured sufficiently to keep him from taking them. And she taught him to shoot. What argument is there, had she not been killed, not to hold her criminally negligent?

[O Really]

Interesting stats... (Washinton State Department of Social and Health Services)

Storage Practices
Among homes with children and firearms
28% do not always keep guns locked in a secure place
25% only “occasionally” lock and store the bullets separate from the
gun
48% do not regularly make sure that guns are equipped with child
safety and trigger locks
In 30% of hand gun owning homes, the gun was stored unlocked and
loaded at the time of the survey

Accessibility
In 72% of unintentional deaths and injuries, suicide and suicide attempts, the
firearm was stored in the residence of the victim

47% of high school kids and 22% of middle school kids said they could get a
gun

[Mad American]

You can not fix stupidity. However, it is usually a self curing problem.

47% of high school kids and 22% of middle school kids said they could get a
gun

I'd be interested to know the demographics of that stat. Reason being, I would bet had you asked my graduating class it would be over 90% would say they could "get" a gun. By the time I graduated high school I had several that were mine, could "get" a gun from the time I was about 48" tall, and had "my" first gun in the third grade. This may seems as a tangent but it is relative to this discussion. I was raised around open and readily available firearms. I was taught about them, their safe operation, and capabilities from a young age. I was also taught that if I EVER touched one without my fathers permission I would not be able to sit down for a week. I had every reason to believe that because he had never failed to verify that statement in other areas of my upbringing. Society has now vilified disciplining children to the point that you can't spank them and you better never let it be known you administer "hickory tea". Now we put them in "time out" because we are afraid we might hurt their feelings. It is my opinion that society needs to allow parents to discipline their kids as they see fit and keep it's nose out of the parent's business. As it stands now I feel that society is as much to blame in many of "gun theft" incidents as the thieves them self.

[O Really]

Florida man Steven Egan mistakes girlfriend for hog, shoots her

...Authorities told ABC News they did not plan to charge Egan in the incident...

It doesn't say whether she was wearing orange, but it sounds like he shot at the noise not something he could see, anyhow. Opps.

And it says further, "He was very sympathetic that he'd shot his girlfriend," Maj. Steve Clair with the Flagler County Sheriff's Office told ABC. " It was an accident. I think it was just a violation of one of the cardinal rules of hunting which is you never shoot what you don't see."

So the guy violated, according to the Deputy, "one of the cardinal rules of shooting" and in doing so seriously injured his girlfriend and he gets off with an "opps"? I wonder what would have happened if he had pushed the ladder out from under her while she was climbing up on top of their trailer? "Opps, I thought she wuz offen it."

[O Really]

... It is my opinion that society needs to allow parents to discipline their kids as they see fit and keep it's nose out of the parent's business. As it stands now I feel that society is as much to blame in many of "gun theft" incidents as the thieves them self.

You don't mean that literally, I'm sure. Of course society has an obligation to set boundaries for its members. You wouldn't stand by and think it's "the parent's business" if they burned him with cigarettes or cut off his fingers for sticking them in the jam would you? Of course not. The only question isn't whether society has an obligation, but where or at what point that obligation begins.

BTW, that's quite liberal of you to blame society for gun thefts. Quite a distance from your usual "individual responsibility" viewpoint.