Gun owner paranoia---

[2aguy]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!



Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

Because at the local and state level they are banning guns and magazines......at the federal level the democrats packed the courts with anti-gun extremist judges who have ruled over and over against the Supreme Courts Heller, Macdonald, Friedman, and Caetano decisions......and the democrats have stated they plan on removing the "Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," which protects gun makers and gun stores from "Law Warfare," where left wing, anti-gun activists will sue gun makers and gun stores if criminals illegally use guns for crime...

That's why...

 

[ThisIsMe]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?

Sure, if you leave it with the keys in it and maybe running while left unattended. There is no keys for a gun and it's always running. For those that don't show "Reasonable" security then they are as guilty as the person that pulled the trigger. I saw a young in a quick stop who had a gun on her hip. She was tossing her hip in that direction knowing (or unknowingly) to broadcast she was carrying an open carry. I can just see the bad guy now who decides to mug here. "Hey, jake, look a free gun and a free piece of ass".

Thats a dangerous way of thinking about it because you are going down a path that anything in your life that is not "properly secured" could lead you to legal problems.

Loan your buddy a hammer and he kills someone with it, you are on the hook. Leave your garage door open while working in the back yard and someone steals a hatchet and kills someone else with it you are on the hook.

Leave your car parked on the driveway, even though locked, its not in the garage and therefore not "secured", and someone breaks in and steals a knife and kills someone with it, you're on the hook.

Look, I agree that you should always secure your belongings, especially firearms, but trying to make a case for legal damages on behalf of the owner simply because he left his truck running while he ran into the store to grab some coffee, and someone steals his truck....that can open a can of worms that could potentially make EVERYONE a criminal.

Newsflash: that driver that runs into the store and leaves his vehicle running is already liable for anything it's used for. If not criminal, civil.

Really? I've never heard of anyone being held liable for leaving their vehicle running.

Any thoughts as to the rest of my post?

Many states have a Puffing law. Look it up. You might learn something. Or not.

I looked it up, only info I could find on it is in about 4 states it only said it was a law to keep vehicles from being stolen, but mentioned nothing about holding owners responsible for what thieves did with a stolen vehicle.

Trust me, an lawyer worth their salts will use that law to put financial burden on the car owner. It's not criminal, it's civil.

I disagree. Again, you're using an equivalency where, if the law reacted thusly, you could hold just about anyone criminally or civil liable for any crime committed using their property, such as loaning a neighbor a tool.

How about this, if you can be held liable if someone breaks into your truck and steals your gun and shoots someone with it, then wouldn't that means you'd be held liable if someone broke into your home and stole your guns and shot someone with them? I would think not. At some point, your are to be secure in your belongings and property.

Now, I agree that, if you have a gun in plain sight in your vehicle, and you leave your vehicle unlocked in a public place, there could be some liability there. Possibly negligence. However, if your gun is secure in your vehicle that is secure and you are in a state where its legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle, then if someone breaks into your vehicle, finds your gun, steals it, then commits a crime, then no, the owner of the vehicle should not be held liable.

I was faced with a delimma in 1974 where I reported into Peterson AFB after coming down the Alcan. I had more than a few weapons under a blanket in the back of the Van. I called my new first shirt about what to do about it so I could spend the night in my new digs. He suggested I just wait until the morning. I started off on the wrong foot when I said,"What are you nutz?" Even under that blanket out of site is NOT secure. He ended up hinting that I quietly sneak the guns into the Barracks for the night and get them to the ARmory first thing in the morning.

Now, explain to me how I can secure 2 shotguns, 3 rifles and 3 handguns in that vehicle? Notice the word "Secure". I didn't have a locking trunk and it probably would have gone unnoticed until the morning. But, then again, it might not have. I didn't tell the 1Sgt but I was prepared to sleep in the van to protect the security of those weapons.

The locked trunk is the best place for guns in a car (if you have a trunk). The second is being locked in the glove box (if you have one). If you are so worried about having quick and easy access to a weapon in your car, bet a CCW license and wear the damned thing. If you have to leave your weapon in the car,secure it in the trunk is the best policy and lock the damned thing. Anything beyond that would make you subject to a civil suit.

I agree, it doesn't need to be visible. It can be under the seat, or out of view, and if the car is locked, then its considered secure.

Again, in your scenario, there is no place a firearm could be considered "secure", because thieves can get into any vehicle or house if they want. Unless you live in a bunker or something.

 

[2aguy]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

Wow...that is just fucking stupid.....

You are the victim of a crime, and then you get punished when the criminal uses your property for another crime...

Again, that is fucking stupid.

 

[2aguy]

You are confused Moon Bat.

You can own a car without any requirement including a driver's license.

There is no Consitional right to drive on a public highway and the government can pretty well regulate it how they want. However, there is a Consititional right to keep and bear arms. I shit you not. Go look it up. It is the second listed item in the Bill of Rights. It says that the government can't infringe upon that right.

Your raising the matter of potentially-lethal cars being registered, carefully regulated, and their operators required to demonstrate competence, is still a valid one. And there are numerous sensible restrictions concerning where even a duly-licensed person is allowed to operate one as well.

indeed, Sunshine, permissiveness in allowing incompetents free reign in use of their deadly devices is clearly ill-advised.

Sorry....as has been repeatedly pointed out....cars are not a Constitutionally protected Right.

The democrat party didn't want their former black slaves to be able to vote....so they placed Poll Taxes on the Right, and they placed Literacy tests on the Right........you can't do that.....that is against the law. Dittos for guns......and requirement for training, any fee to own or carry a gun is unConstitutional.......

We also know from the history of mankind, in Europe, Canada, Australia, Asia.....that any registration will later be used to confiscate guns........it happened in all of those places.......

And, dimwit.......according to the Supreme Court....actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns and can't be prosecuted for not registering their illegal guns since it violates their Right Against self incrimination....

You don't understand the issues......you think you have a point and you don't......

Here .....learn something....

You cannot place a tax on the exercise of a Constitutional Right...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. I

t is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....


... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...

Felons can't be prosecuted for not registering their illegal guns...

Haynes v United States...

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration

by Clayton Cramer

A recurring question that we are asked, not only by gun control advocates, but even by a number of gun owners is, "What's wrong with mandatory gun registration?" Usually by the time we finish telling them about the Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Haynes (1968), they are laughing -- and they understand our objection to registration.
In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. [1] His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it.

While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." [2] The Court concluded:

• We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851. [3]

This 8-1 decision (with only Chief Justice Earl Warren dissenting) is, depending on your view of Fifth Amendment, either a courageous application of the intent of the self-incrimination clause, or evidence that the Supreme Court had engaged in reductio ad absurdum of the Fifth Amendment. Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it. [4]
Consider a law that requires registration of firearms: a convicted felon can not be convicted for failing to register a gun, because it is illegal under Federal law for a felon to possess a firearm; but a person who can legally own a gun, and fails to register it, can be punished. In short, the person at whom, one presumes, such a registration law is aimed, is the one who cannot be punished, and yet, the person at whom such a registration law is not principally aimed (i.e., the law-abiding person), can be punished.
This is especially absurd for the statute under which Haynes was tried -- the National Firearms Act of 1934. This law was originally passed during the Depression, when heavily armed desperadoes roamed the nation, robbing banks and engaging in kidnap for ransom. The original intent of the National Firearms Act was to provide a method for locking up ex-cons that the government was unable to convict for breaking any other law. As Attorney General Homer Cummings described the purpose of the law, when testifying before Congress:

• Now, you say that it is easy for criminals to get weapons. I know it, but I want to make it easy to convict them when they have the weapons. That is the point of it. I do not expect criminals to comply with this law; I do not expect the underworld to be going around giving their fingerprints and getting permits to carry these weapons, but I want them to be in a position, when I find such a person, to convict him because he has not complied.

During the same questioning, Cummings expressed his belief that, "I have no fear of the law-abiding citizen getting into trouble." Rep. Fred Vinson of Kentucky, while agreeing with Cummings' desire to have an additional tool for locking up gangsters, pointed out that many laws that sounded like good ideas when passed, were sometimes found "in the coolness and calmness of retrospect" to be somewhat different in their consequences. [5]

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The paranoia concerning imaginary Big Blue Meanies coming to take precious shooties away, notwithstanding, if the problem were limited to "criminals in the hood" it would be comparatively easy to confront.

The tragic reality of horrific, ubiquitous, mass shootings such as at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Stoneman Douglas High School, Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Amish West Nickel Mines School, Mandalay Bay concert in Las Vegas, etc., etc., etc. cannot be avoided by pointing at scapegoats.

Except those kind of mass shootings are an anomaly, not the norm. Look at how many get shot and killed in Chicago on a holiday weekend, or any weekend for that matter.

And most of the Chitown shootings are done by legally procured guns. Just jet over about 40 or 50 miles into Indianna and you can buy a gun fairly easily. Then motor back into Chicago slums. There are people making big bucks by legally purchasing in Indy, transporting them across the Ill state line and reselling them. According to the Chicago Police Chief, that comprises over 60% of the "Illegal" guns on the street.

And most of the Chitown shootings are done by legally procured guns.

'Legally' procured?

I don't expect you to understand as it would make your head explode if you did.

I'm trying to understand how someone could 'legally' buy a firearm, especially when it is ILLEGAL to buy a firearm in a state you don't live in.

including handguns.

They can be purchased, but have to be sent to an FFL in the purchasers home state.

Unless it's a private sale, pay and go isn't allowed.

Okay, let's say you are just misinformed. A Legal Indy person can guy the guns. He goes from place to place and buys even more guns until his van is filled up. He then drives the Van and it's contents into Chitown and sells the Van and all it's cargo for a nice tidy profit. These guns were purchased legally although what happens after that isn't. BTW, many guns make it into Mexico the same way from Texas where it's even easier.

The problem isn't with Ill, it's with Indy who refuses to clean their system up and go after these gun runners. Same goes for Texas. BTW, Kansas is bitching about MJ being legally purchased in Colorado and then transported to Kansas.

LOL liar tje atf can track anyone that buys lots of firearms and there is a law against it, requiring you to register and get an ffl.

So OAN told you that, right. Newsflash: You can buy as many guns as you want in the Denny's parking lot without recording a damned thing. Plus,in Indy, you can purchase 2 or 3 at a single location but go to many locations to get the numbers you want. I can tell you are a Rumper. You don't want it fixed. It gives you something to whine around.

The law is clear it is illegal to sell to an out of state person with out sending the firearm to the stte ffl he is from it is illegal to sell with out a background chec and it is required all sales from a licensed ffl must be reported to atf.

All sales? Does that include private sales? Private sales out of a 53 Roadmaster at Denny's won't be required a background check in many states. There will be no record of the sale.

Would you stop this nonsense. We already know how the weapons gets into the "Hood". But you are so busy gaslighting that you are hoping that we all will be distracted.

FFL retard you claimed legal sles from ffl

Thank you for your input, Karen.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?

Sure, if you leave it with the keys in it and maybe running while left unattended. There is no keys for a gun and it's always running. For those that don't show "Reasonable" security then they are as guilty as the person that pulled the trigger. I saw a young in a quick stop who had a gun on her hip. She was tossing her hip in that direction knowing (or unknowingly) to broadcast she was carrying an open carry. I can just see the bad guy now who decides to mug here. "Hey, jake, look a free gun and a free piece of ass".

Thats a dangerous way of thinking about it because you are going down a path that anything in your life that is not "properly secured" could lead you to legal problems.

Loan your buddy a hammer and he kills someone with it, you are on the hook. Leave your garage door open while working in the back yard and someone steals a hatchet and kills someone else with it you are on the hook.

Leave your car parked on the driveway, even though locked, its not in the garage and therefore not "secured", and someone breaks in and steals a knife and kills someone with it, you're on the hook.

Look, I agree that you should always secure your belongings, especially firearms, but trying to make a case for legal damages on behalf of the owner simply because he left his truck running while he ran into the store to grab some coffee, and someone steals his truck....that can open a can of worms that could potentially make EVERYONE a criminal.

Newsflash: that driver that runs into the store and leaves his vehicle running is already liable for anything it's used for. If not criminal, civil.

Really? I've never heard of anyone being held liable for leaving their vehicle running.

Any thoughts as to the rest of my post?

Many states have a Puffing law. Look it up. You might learn something. Or not.

I looked it up, only info I could find on it is in about 4 states it only said it was a law to keep vehicles from being stolen, but mentioned nothing about holding owners responsible for what thieves did with a stolen vehicle.

Trust me, an lawyer worth their salts will use that law to put financial burden on the car owner. It's not criminal, it's civil.

I disagree. Again, you're using an equivalency where, if the law reacted thusly, you could hold just about anyone criminally or civil liable for any crime committed using their property, such as loaning a neighbor a tool.

How about this, if you can be held liable if someone breaks into your truck and steals your gun and shoots someone with it, then wouldn't that means you'd be held liable if someone broke into your home and stole your guns and shot someone with them? I would think not. At some point, your are to be secure in your belongings and property.

Now, I agree that, if you have a gun in plain sight in your vehicle, and you leave your vehicle unlocked in a public place, there could be some liability there. Possibly negligence. However, if your gun is secure in your vehicle that is secure and you are in a state where its legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle, then if someone breaks into your vehicle, finds your gun, steals it, then commits a crime, then no, the owner of the vehicle should not be held liable.

I was faced with a delimma in 1974 where I reported into Peterson AFB after coming down the Alcan. I had more than a few weapons under a blanket in the back of the Van. I called my new first shirt about what to do about it so I could spend the night in my new digs. He suggested I just wait until the morning. I started off on the wrong foot when I said,"What are you nutz?" Even under that blanket out of site is NOT secure. He ended up hinting that I quietly sneak the guns into the Barracks for the night and get them to the ARmory first thing in the morning.

Now, explain to me how I can secure 2 shotguns, 3 rifles and 3 handguns in that vehicle? Notice the word "Secure". I didn't have a locking trunk and it probably would have gone unnoticed until the morning. But, then again, it might not have. I didn't tell the 1Sgt but I was prepared to sleep in the van to protect the security of those weapons.

The locked trunk is the best place for guns in a car (if you have a trunk). The second is being locked in the glove box (if you have one). If you are so worried about having quick and easy access to a weapon in your car, bet a CCW license and wear the damned thing. If you have to leave your weapon in the car,secure it in the trunk is the best policy and lock the damned thing. Anything beyond that would make you subject to a civil suit.

I agree, it doesn't need to be visible. It can be under the seat, or out of view, and if the car is locked, then its considered secure.

Again, in your scenario, there is no place a firearm could be considered "secure", because thieves can get into any vehicle or house if they want. Unless you live in a bunker or something.

You didn't learn a damned think except how to Karen out on everyone. If a person makes a reasonable attempt at securing his weapon, as in, have in a locked glove box or trunk then a Criminal would have to actually work to get at it. Just don't put a sign on the outside that says, "Guns are in here". And if you lock your karen car and have it under the seat then that could be interpreted as a reasonable effort to secure the weapon. Now, leave the car unlocked, the trunk open and the glove box open and it's NOT reasonably secured. I just love dealing with the gunnuter Karens.

 

[schmidlap]

... there is a Consititional right to keep and bear arms.

The matter of potentially-lethal cars being registered, carefully regulated, and their operators required to demonstrate competence, is a valid one. And there are numerous sensible restrictions concerning where a duly-licensed person is allowed to operate one as well.

Freedom of Movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. However, to exercise that right via a motor vehicle, there are a number of reasonable requirements that must be met that are in the interest of public safety.

Public safety is not nullified by anything in the Constitution.

No Constitutional amendment is a defense of the permissiveness some may crave. (Otherwise, a gunster could, with impunity, strut into a kindergarten classroom brandishing his sawed-off shotgun and flaunting pearl-handled man-enhancers on his hips.)

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say that firearms cannot be registered, carefully regulated (In fact, it specifies a "well regulated" context), and their operators required to demonstrate competence. To require such compliance does not deny the right to keep and bear arms, no more than requiring a driver's license and compliance with rules of the road denies an American's freedom of movement.

Whether any particular public safety measure infringes upon a Constitutional right is a matter that is determined by the courts, not by zealots on either side of the issue.

As noted, all rights are circumscribed. The Constitution recognizes rights that are within reason, and none sanction the unreasonable.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Court cases establish that a Constitutional protected right can not be required to register for. And No voting is not a Constitutional right except that age and sex can not be violated. There is no constitutional right to vote for President, a State can choose to pick electors with out a vote at all.

 

[Auld Phart]

... there is a Consititional right to keep and bear arms.

The matter of potentially-lethal cars being registered, carefully regulated, and their operators required to demonstrate competence, is a valid one. And there are numerous sensible restrictions concerning where a duly-licensed person is allowed to operate one as well.

Freedom of Movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. However, to exercise that right via a motor vehicle, there are a number of reasonable requirements that must be met that are in the interest of public safety.

Public safety is not nullified by anything in the Constitution.

No Constitutional amendment is a defense of the permissiveness some may crave. (Otherwise, a gunster could, with impunity, strut into a kindergarten classroom brandishing his sawed-off shotgun and flaunting pearl-handled man-enhancers on his hips.)

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say that firearms cannot be registered, carefully regulated (In fact, it specifies a "well regulated" context), and their operators required to demonstrate competence. To require such compliance does not deny the right to keep and bear arms, no more than requiring a driver's license and compliance with rules of the road denies an American's freedom of movement.

Whether any particular public safety measure infringes upon a Constitutional right is a matter that is determined by the courts, not by zealots on either side of the issue.

As noted, all rights are circumscribed. The Constitution recognizes rights that are within reason, and none sanction the unreasonable.

(In fact, it specifies a "well regulated" context),

and what does 'well regulated' mean in the the context of the Second?

 

[Flash]

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say that firearms cannot be registered, carefully regulated (In fact, it specifies a "well regulated" context), and their operators required to demonstrate competence. To require such compliance does not deny the right to keep and bear arms, no more than requiring a driver's license and compliance with rules of the road denies an American's freedom of movement.

You are confused.

"Shall not infringe" pretty well negates your stupid test. Getting permission from government assholes with whatever they think is competency is an infringement. For instance, that shithead Obama once said that veterans that believe in God are potential terrorists so how could the government possibly consider that they are competent to own a firearm?

That is the problem with dealing with Moon Bats on Constitutional rights. They really don't understand the Bill of Rights.

You are really confused about what the phrase well regulated meant at the time the Bill of Rights was written. It meant well provisioned. Just like the term militia meant just about anybody capable of bearing arms. Infringe is pretty well understood by anybody with more than a third grade education. In order to have a well provisioned populace being necessary for the security of a free state the government cannot regulate the right to keep and bear arms.

You cannot say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed on one hand and then say that it is OK to infringe the hell out of it on another.

If Liberals weren't so bat shit shit crazy and if their agenda wasn't really to do away with the right then maybe we could come together on a few minor infringement like not allowing certifiable nutcases or felons convicted of violent crimes to get them. However, Liberals are crazy as hell and you can't negotiate with them.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?

Sure, if you leave it with the keys in it and maybe running while left unattended. There is no keys for a gun and it's always running. For those that don't show "Reasonable" security then they are as guilty as the person that pulled the trigger. I saw a young in a quick stop who had a gun on her hip. She was tossing her hip in that direction knowing (or unknowingly) to broadcast she was carrying an open carry. I can just see the bad guy now who decides to mug here. "Hey, jake, look a free gun and a free piece of ass".

Thats a dangerous way of thinking about it because you are going down a path that anything in your life that is not "properly secured" could lead you to legal problems.

Loan your buddy a hammer and he kills someone with it, you are on the hook. Leave your garage door open while working in the back yard and someone steals a hatchet and kills someone else with it you are on the hook.

Leave your car parked on the driveway, even though locked, its not in the garage and therefore not "secured", and someone breaks in and steals a knife and kills someone with it, you're on the hook.

Look, I agree that you should always secure your belongings, especially firearms, but trying to make a case for legal damages on behalf of the owner simply because he left his truck running while he ran into the store to grab some coffee, and someone steals his truck....that can open a can of worms that could potentially make EVERYONE a criminal.

Newsflash: that driver that runs into the store and leaves his vehicle running is already liable for anything it's used for. If not criminal, civil.

Really? I've never heard of anyone being held liable for leaving their vehicle running.

Any thoughts as to the rest of my post?

Many states have a Puffing law. Look it up. You might learn something. Or not.

I looked it up, only info I could find on it is in about 4 states it only said it was a law to keep vehicles from being stolen, but mentioned nothing about holding owners responsible for what thieves did with a stolen vehicle.

Trust me, an lawyer worth their salts will use that law to put financial burden on the car owner. It's not criminal, it's civil.

I disagree. Again, you're using an equivalency where, if the law reacted thusly, you could hold just about anyone criminally or civil liable for any crime committed using their property, such as loaning a neighbor a tool.

How about this, if you can be held liable if someone breaks into your truck and steals your gun and shoots someone with it, then wouldn't that means you'd be held liable if someone broke into your home and stole your guns and shot someone with them? I would think not. At some point, your are to be secure in your belongings and property.

Now, I agree that, if you have a gun in plain sight in your vehicle, and you leave your vehicle unlocked in a public place, there could be some liability there. Possibly negligence. However, if your gun is secure in your vehicle that is secure and you are in a state where its legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle, then if someone breaks into your vehicle, finds your gun, steals it, then commits a crime, then no, the owner of the vehicle should not be held liable.

I was faced with a delimma in 1974 where I reported into Peterson AFB after coming down the Alcan. I had more than a few weapons under a blanket in the back of the Van. I called my new first shirt about what to do about it so I could spend the night in my new digs. He suggested I just wait until the morning. I started off on the wrong foot when I said,"What are you nutz?" Even under that blanket out of site is NOT secure. He ended up hinting that I quietly sneak the guns into the Barracks for the night and get them to the ARmory first thing in the morning.

Now, explain to me how I can secure 2 shotguns, 3 rifles and 3 handguns in that vehicle? Notice the word "Secure". I didn't have a locking trunk and it probably would have gone unnoticed until the morning. But, then again, it might not have. I didn't tell the 1Sgt but I was prepared to sleep in the van to protect the security of those weapons.

The locked trunk is the best place for guns in a car (if you have a trunk). The second is being locked in the glove box (if you have one). If you are so worried about having quick and easy access to a weapon in your car, bet a CCW license and wear the damned thing. If you have to leave your weapon in the car,secure it in the trunk is the best policy and lock the damned thing. Anything beyond that would make you subject to a civil suit.

I agree, it doesn't need to be visible. It can be under the seat, or out of view, and if the car is locked, then its considered secure.

Again, in your scenario, there is no place a firearm could be considered "secure", because thieves can get into any vehicle or house if they want. Unless you live in a bunker or something.

You didn't learn a damned think except how to Karen out on everyone. If a person makes a reasonable attempt at securing his weapon, as in, have in a locked glove box or trunk then a Criminal would have to actually work to get at it. Just don't put a sign on the outside that says, "Guns are in here". And if you lock your karen car and have it under the seat then that could be interpreted as a reasonable effort to secure the weapon. Now, leave the car unlocked, the trunk open and the glove box open and it's NOT reasonably secured. I just love dealing with the gunnuter Karens.

I think you and I said the same thing. I was under the impression that some were saying that by merely having the weapon in your vehicle, it heaped some liability on you should the weapon be stolen.

Also, I think our conversation was really more about the ramifications of what happens if your vehicle gets stolen and used in a crime.

 

[Chillicothe]

"You talk about a guns destructive power, but dismiss the potential lethality of a 1 ton turbo diesel.

Not dismissing the ability to kill with any tool....even chicken bones. The point is: Guns Are Different.
They are uniquely designed to kill. Trucks ain't. Pillows ain't. Axes ain't.

And with that 'unique design and purpose'....comes a ginormous increase in responsibility for bringing that unique tool into our society.
And with responsibility comes liability.

Doesn't mean you can't own it. But if you own it.....you get a significant share of the liability.
If some moke breaks into your RamCharger and steals the SigSauer from the locked glove-box and shoots up the 7/11.....well, you ain't blameless.
If it wasn't for YOUR gun....that 17yr old clerk wouldn't have the bullet hole in her.

The shooter gets a prison sentence. You get a significant fine. And if the judge rules you were criminally negligent in HOW you secured the tool....well, maybe the gun owner would hafta do some time too. Though less than the trigger-man.
.................................................................................

Likewise, if someone is legally carrying in their vehicle, and they made an effort to hide the weapon and lock the doors, they can't be held liable.

Yes they can. It need only be a change in our laws to effect it. It is simply a choice by our society.

You seem to want to create fear and paranoia attached to the ownership of a firearm.

No, I do not. I own a safe full of 'em.
What my suggestion is intended to convey is that an increased burden ---and awareness --- of liability will help us mitigate to some yet unknown degree the plague of gun violence that seems uniquely American.

Also, its not about the amount of people an item can kill, its about the liability if said item is used in a crime.

Thank you. We have found a meeting-of-minds.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say that firearms cannot be registered, carefully regulated (In fact, it specifies a "well regulated" context), and their operators required to demonstrate competence. To require such compliance does not deny the right to keep and bear arms, no more than requiring a driver's license and compliance with rules of the road denies an American's freedom of movement.

So what you're saying is we can do the same thing with voting: Demonstrate competence. I'm good with that.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?

Sure, if you leave it with the keys in it and maybe running while left unattended. There is no keys for a gun and it's always running. For those that don't show "Reasonable" security then they are as guilty as the person that pulled the trigger. I saw a young in a quick stop who had a gun on her hip. She was tossing her hip in that direction knowing (or unknowingly) to broadcast she was carrying an open carry. I can just see the bad guy now who decides to mug here. "Hey, jake, look a free gun and a free piece of ass".

Thats a dangerous way of thinking about it because you are going down a path that anything in your life that is not "properly secured" could lead you to legal problems.

Loan your buddy a hammer and he kills someone with it, you are on the hook. Leave your garage door open while working in the back yard and someone steals a hatchet and kills someone else with it you are on the hook.

Leave your car parked on the driveway, even though locked, its not in the garage and therefore not "secured", and someone breaks in and steals a knife and kills someone with it, you're on the hook.

Look, I agree that you should always secure your belongings, especially firearms, but trying to make a case for legal damages on behalf of the owner simply because he left his truck running while he ran into the store to grab some coffee, and someone steals his truck....that can open a can of worms that could potentially make EVERYONE a criminal.

Newsflash: that driver that runs into the store and leaves his vehicle running is already liable for anything it's used for. If not criminal, civil.

Really? I've never heard of anyone being held liable for leaving their vehicle running.

Any thoughts as to the rest of my post?

Many states have a Puffing law. Look it up. You might learn something. Or not.

I looked it up, only info I could find on it is in about 4 states it only said it was a law to keep vehicles from being stolen, but mentioned nothing about holding owners responsible for what thieves did with a stolen vehicle.

Trust me, an lawyer worth their salts will use that law to put financial burden on the car owner. It's not criminal, it's civil.

I disagree. Again, you're using an equivalency where, if the law reacted thusly, you could hold just about anyone criminally or civil liable for any crime committed using their property, such as loaning a neighbor a tool.

How about this, if you can be held liable if someone breaks into your truck and steals your gun and shoots someone with it, then wouldn't that means you'd be held liable if someone broke into your home and stole your guns and shot someone with them? I would think not. At some point, your are to be secure in your belongings and property.

Now, I agree that, if you have a gun in plain sight in your vehicle, and you leave your vehicle unlocked in a public place, there could be some liability there. Possibly negligence. However, if your gun is secure in your vehicle that is secure and you are in a state where its legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle, then if someone breaks into your vehicle, finds your gun, steals it, then commits a crime, then no, the owner of the vehicle should not be held liable.

I was faced with a delimma in 1974 where I reported into Peterson AFB after coming down the Alcan. I had more than a few weapons under a blanket in the back of the Van. I called my new first shirt about what to do about it so I could spend the night in my new digs. He suggested I just wait until the morning. I started off on the wrong foot when I said,"What are you nutz?" Even under that blanket out of site is NOT secure. He ended up hinting that I quietly sneak the guns into the Barracks for the night and get them to the ARmory first thing in the morning.

Now, explain to me how I can secure 2 shotguns, 3 rifles and 3 handguns in that vehicle? Notice the word "Secure". I didn't have a locking trunk and it probably would have gone unnoticed until the morning. But, then again, it might not have. I didn't tell the 1Sgt but I was prepared to sleep in the van to protect the security of those weapons.

The locked trunk is the best place for guns in a car (if you have a trunk). The second is being locked in the glove box (if you have one). If you are so worried about having quick and easy access to a weapon in your car, bet a CCW license and wear the damned thing. If you have to leave your weapon in the car,secure it in the trunk is the best policy and lock the damned thing. Anything beyond that would make you subject to a civil suit.

I agree, it doesn't need to be visible. It can be under the seat, or out of view, and if the car is locked, then its considered secure.

Again, in your scenario, there is no place a firearm could be considered "secure", because thieves can get into any vehicle or house if they want. Unless you live in a bunker or something.

You didn't learn a damned think except how to Karen out on everyone. If a person makes a reasonable attempt at securing his weapon, as in, have in a locked glove box or trunk then a Criminal would have to actually work to get at it. Just don't put a sign on the outside that says, "Guns are in here". And if you lock your karen car and have it under the seat then that could be interpreted as a reasonable effort to secure the weapon. Now, leave the car unlocked, the trunk open and the glove box open and it's NOT reasonably secured. I just love dealing with the gunnuter Karens.

I think you and I said the same thing. I was under the impression that some were saying that by merely having the weapon in your vehicle, it heaped some liability on you should the weapon be stolen.

Also, I think our conversation was really more about the ramifications of what happens if your vehicle gets stolen and used in a crime.

I am just trying to get the "All or Nothing" out of the conversation. Both sides have the Karens. And I think it's about time for people to step up to the plate and accept responsibility for either their actions or their inaction's.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

... there is a Consititional right to keep and bear arms.

The matter of potentially-lethal cars being registered, carefully regulated, and their operators required to demonstrate competence, is a valid one. And there are numerous sensible restrictions concerning where a duly-licensed person is allowed to operate one as well.

Freedom of Movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. However, to exercise that right via a motor vehicle, there are a number of reasonable requirements that must be met that are in the interest of public safety.

Public safety is not nullified by anything in the Constitution.

No Constitutional amendment is a defense of the permissiveness some may crave. (Otherwise, a gunster could, with impunity, strut into a kindergarten classroom brandishing his sawed-off shotgun and flaunting pearl-handled man-enhancers on his hips.)

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say that firearms cannot be registered, carefully regulated (In fact, it specifies a "well regulated" context), and their operators required to demonstrate competence. To require such compliance does not deny the right to keep and bear arms, no more than requiring a driver's license and compliance with rules of the road denies an American's freedom of movement.

Whether any particular public safety measure infringes upon a Constitutional right is a matter that is determined by the courts, not by zealots on either side of the issue.

As noted, all rights are circumscribed. The Constitution recognizes rights that are within reason, and none sanction the unreasonable.

You seem confused and mindlessly willing to completely ignore the "right of the people" and "shall not be infringed."

Is one required to demonstrate the ability to speak properly before he/she/it can exercise a 1st amendment right?

Is one required to demonstrate some sort of competency before entering the voting booth?

Either way, assume you are correct (you're not) you can hardly believe the intent of the 2nd amendment gives any such authority to the FedGov. It must logically be the exact reverse. The founders deliberately intended to forbid any federal authority over arms.

So what does that mean?

The federal government EXPRESSLY has zero jurisdiction regarding the monitoring, regulating, registering, background checking, or any other action related to the manufacturer, use, sale, and/or distribution, of firearms or any weapons for that matter.

All federal firearms laws or regulations are unconstitutional on their face.

For those who would whine cry and bitch about it and pissed their pants like a little Nancy's, a.k.a. Karens, if you don't like it....


AMEND!!!!!!

Why is the goose-stepping communist left so afraid to amend the constitution?

 

[westwall]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?

Oh, don't go around using logic on these fools. Hurts their head.

 

[schmidlap]

"Shall not infringe" ...

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights. Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations.

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights | Constitutional Accountability Center

Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations. To think that the Second Amendment should be any different is absurd, writes Michael Tomasky. by Michael Tomasky Every time I write a column on guns, the howl arises that I am talking about a right that is...

www.theusconstitution.org

As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia affirmed, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written...

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

 

[Blues Man]

"Shall not infringe" ...

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights. Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations.

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights | Constitutional Accountability Center

Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations. To think that the Second Amendment should be any different is absurd, writes Michael Tomasky. by Michael Tomasky Every time I write a column on guns, the howl arises that I am talking about a right that is...

www.theusconstitution.org

As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia affirmed, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written...

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

The second amendment does not protect the right to discharge a firearm.

It only protects the right to own and carry.

So we see that there is a restriction built in to the second amendment

 

[schmidlap]

All federal firearms laws or regulations are unconstitutional on their face.

False.

Agiain, nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations.

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights | Constitutional Accountability Center

Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations. To think that the Second Amendment should be any different is absurd, writes Michael Tomasky. by Michael Tomasky Every time I write a column on guns, the howl arises that I am talking about a right that is...

www.theusconstitution.org

As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia affirmed, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written...

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia affirmed, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Yes, he did say that in dicta (you know what that means?) but "imposed" by WHOM???

The 2nd Amendment is a bar on federal authority. PERIOD.

That's all it was for and its sole intent.

Going about an interpretation that deviates from that CLEAR intent is what causes all the bullshit arguments from the left.