Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[ben m]

Ben,

Have you read "The Federalist" papers? Perhaps you should. It helps explain what their intention was. I'll give you a hint: you won't like it, because it goes against what you want to believe.

Federalist 46 describes a "visionary supposition" in which Madison envisions---in terms he states, repeatedly, to be fantastical extrapolations---that if the federal government seized too much state power, the state militias would band together to overthrow the federal army (itself still hypothetical), and this would happen because the militia's members are more loyal to the state than to the Union. It discusses the importance of, e.g., where the militia's officers are recruited from.

It says, explicitly, that armed people are not enough to overthrow a government, and that's why it hadn't happened in Europe, but that armed people organized into militias by local governments could do so. This was what Madison saw as "tyranny"---the state militias standing in opposition to the federal army.

Maybe you need to read it again.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Really? Instead of putting it all on the person (people?) at the scene the NRA is to blame too? Sounds kind of woo to me. I get e-mail from the NRA and catch their sound bytes in the media at times, hasn't made me paranoid in the slightest.

Ranb

So the Purveyors of the Paranoia should get off scott free when someone does fall for their line and goes off half cocked because more rational people didn't fall for it?

Almost sounds like a suggestion that it's not the conman at fault but rather the people that fall for the con because somepeople don't fall for it.

 

[tyr_13]

So the Purveyors of the Paranoia should get off scott free when someone does fall for their line and goes off half cocked because more rational people didn't fall for it?

Almost sounds like a suggestion that it's not the conman at fault but rather the people that fall for the con because somepeople don't fall for it.

Yes, those people making everyone terrified that there is a thug with a gun around every corner... Wait a tick...

 

[Ranb]

They have to have an influence of every single person for their actions to be considered bad?

They have to at least influence you specifically for their actions to be considered bad?

Actually I was objecting to the suggestion that a group of people scarcely involved or not at the scene is responsible for anything. Claiming the NRA is responsible for this incident is just as stupid as claiming that Feinstein is responsible for a person's death because they were not able to defend themselves with the gun of their choice due to the gun control bills she supports.

Ranb

 

[squealpiggy]

From all reports this man was not responsible and does not represent me or any other gun owner. This thread is nothing more than a way to lash out against other forum members.

No TRUE responsible gun owner would do this...

 

[triforcharity]

Federalist 46 describes a "visionary supposition" in which Madison envisions---in terms he states, repeatedly, to be fantastical extrapolations---that if the federal government seized too much state power, the state militias would band together to overthrow the federal army (itself still hypothetical), and this would happen because the militia's members are more loyal to the state than to the Union. It discusses the importance of, e.g., where the militia's officers are recruited from.

It says, explicitly, that armed people are not enough to overthrow a government, and that's why it hadn't happened in Europe, but that armed people organized into militias by local governments could do so. This was what Madison saw as "tyranny"---the state militias standing in opposition to the federal army.

Maybe you need to read it again.

Nope, you just need to read more. Not just portions. Go go! It's fun to learn, even if you learn that you're wrong.

 

[Ranb]

So the Purveyors of the Paranoia should get off scott free when someone does fall for their line and goes off half cocked because more rational people didn't fall for it?

Almost sounds like a suggestion that it's not the conman at fault but rather the people that fall for the con because somepeople don't fall for it.

And your evidence that the accused murderer was ever influenced by anything the NRA said is? Have any evidence that is not woo based?

Ranb

 

[Meadmaker]

Plain and simple.

It must be nice to live in such a plain and simple place.


Hopefully, you will never be in a position to have to defend your actions in a court, but just remember if you do that the lawyers and judges aren't real fans of "plain and simple" or even "common sense".

 

[triforcharity]

Was I incorrect? Do you have some case law that shows that I'm incorrect with my conclusions? I'd honestly love to read it if so.

 

[Meadmaker]

Was I incorrect? Do you have some case law that shows that I'm incorrect with my conclusions? I'd honestly love to read it if so.

There are fiftyone sets of laws which might be at work in the United States, so it's hard to give an exact answer. Let's go back to the history of the quotes. It started with...

No one is responsible for your safety but you.

I am not responsible for your lack of safety even if my guns are stolen and they are used to kill you.

As a statement of personal philosophy, that's all well and good. As a legal statement, he's wrong. You appear to be siding with Xulld.


Your similar statement was...

Both of those situations are caused directly by someone's actions. If someone breaks into my secured home and takes my gun and shoots the neighbor, I am in NO way responsible because they were secured in my HOME. Someplace that the bad guy shouldn't have been to begin with. Plain and simple.

The key legal question is whether you can be held responsible if someone takes your gun and shoots the neighbor. The answer is that it depends on the exact circumstances, and the laws of your state.

In general, if they were secured to the state's standards (not your standards, but the state's standards) you are probably safe. If, on the other hand, you failed to follow the laws of the state, then you could very easily be held liable.

It's a bit like swimming pools. If a neighbor kid trespasses on your property and drowns in your pool, are you responsible? That's an easy one. Yes...if you failed to secure the pool in accordance with local and state regulations. Trespassing children are a foreseeable consequence and you are responsible for failing to take the required steps to mitigate the danger. If you try to use the "but he shouldn't have been there in the first place" defense, you will lose. Plain and simple.

And that's what I was getting at with your argument about your guns. If they are secure and you follow all laws, you're probably ok. If not, then you seem to think that "he shouldn't have been there in the first place" will somehow protect you from liability. Good luck with that.





ETA: Here's the first hit from google with the phrase, "liability for stolen guns".

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/11/how_liable_is_the_owner_of_a_s.html

5 second summary: You could be held liable, but only if he accidentally shoots your neighbor. If he does it on purpose, you're ok.

 

[triforcharity]

There are fiftyone sets of laws which might be at work in the United States, so it's hard to give an exact answer. Let's go back to the history of the quotes. It started with...

Thank you, now we're both on the same page.

As a statement of personal philosophy, that's all well and good. As a legal statement, he's wrong. You appear to be siding with Xulld.

Actually, IIRC, the SCOTUS ruled that the police cannot be held liable if they fail to protect you. I could be wrong on this, but I don't believe so.

Your similar statement was...


The key legal question is whether you can be held responsible if someone takes your gun and shoots the neighbor. The answer is that it depends on the exact circumstances, and the laws of your state.

In general, if they were secured to the state's standards (not your standards, but the state's standards) you are probably safe. If, on the other hand, you failed to follow the laws of the state, then you could very easily be held liable.

I don't think they're similar, but we'll go with it.

Speaking strictly on Florida law, I don't know of any law that says that a gun owner (or car owner, etc) can be held criminally or civilly liable if someone steals your property, (properly secured, for the exact reason and logic that you point out, and I also pointed out by saying "properly secured") unless there's some gross negligence.

It's a bit like swimming pools. If a neighbor kid trespasses on your property and drowns in your pool, are you responsible? That's an easy one. Yes...if you failed to secure the pool in accordance with local and state regulations. Trespassing children are a foreseeable consequence and you are responsible for failing to take the required steps to mitigate the danger. If you try to use the "but he shouldn't have been there in the first place" defense, you will lose. Plain and simple.

And that's what I was getting at with your argument about your guns. If they are secure and you follow all laws, you're probably ok. If not, then you seem to think that "he shouldn't have been there in the first place" will somehow protect you from liability. Good luck with that.

Sorry I wasn't clear. Typically, something secured behind closed/locked doors, is typically agreed to be secured. Hence, someone entering that property is committing a felony. We're not really on separate pages, I just wasn't clear in my post as to what I was attempting to convey.

ETA: Here's the first hit from google with the phrase, "liability for stolen guns".

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/11/how_liable_is_the_owner_of_a_s.html

5 second summary: You could be held liable, but only if he accidentally shoots your neighbor. If he does it on purpose, you're ok.

Good article, and it seems (face value) to be good advice. However, it only addresses the gun being left in an unlocked car, which is somewhat different than a secured home. But, you're absolutely right, it's a difficult situation to say the least. Thanks for that link, it was quite informative.

 

[fuelair]

Please tell me generally where you live, so I can avoid accidentally moving to a place where the prudent thing to do is sleep with a gun under your pillow.

Not pillow, mattress and bed frame. Under your pillow can have a disturbing effect during sleepy time. If putting it under your pillow is your plan, you should reconsider having a firearm.

 

[fuelair]

OK, good to know.

But I was responding to Ben. What made you think I was directing my comments at you?

I was under the impression from the way they were written that they were a general statement of your beliefs about persons having guns and, as I do such, thought they were inaccurate and so indicated that.

 

[Nessie]

So you don't do fire drills in the UK?

Yes, it was just an expression to say keeping away from potential trouble is the plan.

 

[Nessie]

.......


The REAL problem is that as individuals we have lost our personal responsibility.

No one is responsible for your safety but you.

No you are responsible for your own and others safety.

I am not responsible for your lack of safety even if my guns are stolen and they are used to kill you. YOU are responsible for preventing your own death, for protecting your family, for protecting your wealth and happiness.

I am not responsible for protecting any of those things for anyone else.

That attitude must be why so many guns are now in the hands of criminals, nuts and youths.

My principles are such that if some person was slaughtering helpless people I would feel compelled to get involved and stop it, but that is not the same as being responsible to stop it, no more than being responsible to prevent someone from killing you or anyone else no matter what the circumstance regarding the perpetrators decisions to use a given weapon or not.

Trying to blame everyone in the world for your own lack of responsibility is the hallmark of all such protectionist legislation.

Says the man who has been declaring everyone else needs to accept responsibility to deal with his lack of responsibility for gun security

 

[Nessie]

Except that it is not a preface.

Pre means before. Its not before, it is not a contingent factor.

A militia is not a centrally organized group of armed men, it is the people themselves, armed to protect individual liberty by coming together as a community.

It does explain its need, to prevent tyranny, but it is not exclusive, it is not restrictive, it is explanatory.

That is the modern day interpretation, needed because what is actually written does not apply any more as the British are not coming back.

 

[Belz...]

So, the US is stuck with the 2d Amendment.

Good. I don't think a 3d amendment would provide any real benefit; and we'd all have to wear those stupid glasses to read it.

 

[Belz...]

If you try to use the "but he shouldn't have been there in the first place" defense, you will lose. Plain and simple.

And yet I actually agree with that defense, though I understand that legally it doesn't work. One can't be responsible for people wandering around in their home, stealing their stuff, or drowning. My opinion.

 

[Nessie]

And yet I actually agree with that defense, though I understand that legally it doesn't work. One can't be responsible for people wandering around in their home, stealing their stuff, or drowning. My opinion.

I disagree. If you have a gun, you must do everything to keep it secure. That is where the USA has gone horribly wrong. It let any old idiot have gun and does very little to reverse that situation.

I am not asking for perfection. I am asking for gun dealers and owners to get their act together and stop irresponsible people from getting guns. Since gun owners and dealers have not been able to do that, it is hardly surprising that non gun owners have had enough and are going to do the job for you.

Unfortunately due to ignorance and anger they are going to go about it the wrong way with some badly thought through laws, such as in NY where they forgot to exempt police. But since the alternative is to leave it to gun owners and dealers who are have shown little signs of action, I am sorry but tough.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Huh? I'm not sure I follow ponderingturtle. Can you elaborate as to what you mean?

We class the political violence they were in favor of as terrorism. And we learned something they didn't that democracy does work.

We don't legalize the real weapons of an insurgency and don't need to because the military really isn't a risk to the population. They really are more loyal to the country than their generals and leaders.

We also conveniently forget that if we were on the recieving end of our founders tactics we would class them as terrorist attacks like the boston tea party.