Tom Casady on Gun Control

[pfinn]

Blog Post from Tom Casady about the need for better storage. I certainly agree with him here, but am curious what other people's thoughts are.

http://lpd304.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-control-needed.html


What do you guys use for storage? I have a simple glass front cabinet, that I probably need to upgrade.

[RobertH]

i have a safe, but its small.  i'm the only one with knowledge of the combo and i think its in a good location at my residence.

[instag8tr]

I have two safes that are mounted and I am still paranoid

[Husker_Fan]

I think there should be some liability for gun owners who fail to secure their weapons. Not criminal, but civil.

The old case that gets cited a lot has to do with someone leaving their car with the keys in the ignition. A young kid (not the car owner's) jumps in and puts the car in gear and causes property damage. The car owner is liable for the damage along with the kid.

There should have been repercussions for the parents of the Van Maur shooter, as well as the OPD officer who's sidearm was used at Millard South.

[wallace11bravo]

Not criminal, but civil.

I honestly agree, and if the the NRA were to support such a bill, it would take the heat off of "AW's," but unfortunately the result of that bill would be expensive liability insurance for a larger percentage the of NRA membership, so they will do no such thing.

The crazy thing is, something like this MIGHT actually reduce mass shootings. AWB will do all of jack****.

[JTH]

I think there should be some liability for gun owners who fail to secure their weapons. Not criminal, but civil.

The old case that gets cited a lot has to do with someone leaving their car with the keys in the ignition. A young kid (not the car owner's) jumps in and puts the car in gear and causes property damage. The car owner is liable for the damage along with the kid.

There should have been repercussions for the parents of the Van Maur shooter, as well as the OPD officer who's sidearm was used at Millard South.

I have a significant issue with requiring one person to take responsibility for the actions of another.

Most people have a hard enough time handling their own self-control issues---expanding it to make you responsible for someone else's self-discipline (or lack thereof) seems like a bad idea.

Once you start that sort of thing, suddenly you get people judging you based on "whether or not you did ENOUGH" --- where said "enough" is based on whatever enough people vote for----and we KNOW that will be wrong.

A shop teacher in a high school has plenty of tools around.  Once, during a study hall period, a student took an exacto knife from the shop and stabbed another kid in the shop.  (This didn't happen in my current school, but a previous one.)  Is it the teacher's fault?

I leave my car with the keys in it---and indeed, a kid jumps into and takes off, and then crashes.  That is my fault?  Really?  Yeah, because kids don't know that is stupid.  Right.

I have a gun at home, and an adult offspring takes it and goes and shoots someone.  This is my fault?

No.

Oh---for those people with kids at home (where the kid is at least a teenager):  If you think they don't know the combination to your safe safe by now, you are deluding yourself.  Seriously.

Think about it----you want to make a legal precedent that says that someone else's actions are YOUR FAULT.  Someone else. 

What on earth makes you think you can control other people's actions? 

[Husker_Fan]

I can't control anyone else's actions. But  should take responsibility for my own. If someone gets into my safe using a cutting torch, that's not on me. If a kid grabs a gun out of my nightstand with no lock whatsoever, then I messed up. If you take reasonable steps to secure the weapons, you shouldn't have an issue even if someone defeats those measures.

The idea is that you can own any weapon you like, but if you are careless in how you store it you pay the price. Just like if you are careless in how you handle a gun and accidentally put a hole in someone's property.

[AAllen]

Husker Fan, if that child is yours that took the gun fro the nightstand and had a right to be there then there might be an argument.  But what if the child that took that gun from the nightstand had no right to be in your home.  What if he had to use a cutting torch to get through your front door (being a bit facetious).  At what point is the firearm "properly" secured.  Now that the gun is locked in a safe and ammo is stored under another lock elsewhere how are you going to get to it if you need it for self defense.  Wasn't a law like that struck down in DC v. Heller?

Yes we need to be responsible for our actions.  Unfortunately laws do not make us responsible, there may a small point where they can create and atmosphere of civilly responsible but in doing so they usually also make something criminally liable.

[Mudinyeri]

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.

The question at hand: Is it negligent to leave a firearm unattended and unsecured?

I grew up with firearms in an unlocked rack near the back door of my parents' home.  At the time (30-40 years ago), my parents' firearms safety practices were probably exercising "the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances".  I was taught about firearms safety from as early as I can remember.  Firearms were stored similarly in most of my friends' homes.  Again, at the time, I don't believe anyone would have accused these parents of being imprudent.  It was common behavior for a rural Nebraska town where Hunter Safety was taught in the school and kids grew up hunting from a very early age.

Times have changed.  Given the current circumstances of the average urban or suburban family, what is prudent?  Should an individual be held accountable for imprudent actions (or inaction)?  Moreover, are parents, in particular, responsible for the actions of their children?

Contemporary society, it seems, would push aside the responsibility of the parents as well as that of the children.  My belief is that such abdication of responsibility is one of the many things wrong with our country and much of the world.

[AAllen]

Mudinyeri, I wish there was a like button.

[Husker_Fan]

Mudinyeri, I agree.

Andy, like any civil liability, it will depend on the facts. Mudinyeri laid out negligence pretty well. If I live alone and keep a gun in an unsecured nightstand but lock my doors when I leave the house, I think that would not be negligent. If I am leaving a gun in a home with a kid who couldn't legally purchase a weapon and I don't take steps to secure the weapon, that's negligent.

[wallace11bravo]

Also negligent: (IMO)

If your kid is manufacturing explosives in your basement, and you somehow don't know. (Columbine)
If you leave a .22 revolver in your BARN, and some kid, any kid, gets ahold of it. (Ohio)

Just providing some examples from mass murders perpetrated by youth.

Other real world examples in the form of questions:

If a government official fails to report the judgement of a court that someone is mentally unfit to stand trial to the NCIS? (VT)

If a parent of a mentally disabled adult [who has displayed violent and/or dangerous tendencies] allows that individual access to those firearms? (Recent, and this one is probably not at all accurate with how much the story keeps changing)

Just a discussion.

[GreyGeek]

A safe.
I don't want my grand kids, who visit  my wife and I frequently, to get their hands on my  handgun.

[unfy]

Either AU or NZ has strict laws about storage. Hand guns are a no-no afaik, and long guns have to be kept in a large gun safe (no wooden curios or stackon's).

So, in effect, you can keep a long gun in your home, but it has to always be in this locked safe.  Makes it rather useless for self defense.

Then there's that YT video someone posted about a mock setup for 'storage laws' taken to an extreme in say Cali.  I don't have it handy, but the jist of it was it connected you to an operator and you had to prove you needed it for a self defense thing before it would be remotely unlocked.  Obviously it ended badly for the poor guy trying to protect his home.


Synopsis: storage laws are silly because you can't write a single law that is concise, clear, and applicable to every situation without making self defense nigh impossible.

Skip the storage laws.  If you must funnel money into something, how about public education concerning firearms.  Better yet, don't spend the money.

Civil liability is always a rough one.  If a criminal can sue you for something unsafe in your home when they hurt themselves on it while committing a crime, you're just ****ed to begin with.

Criminal liability ... they're going to press charges against you no matter what, you just gotta hope you get a decent judge/lawyer/jury.

[bullit]

"If a government official fails to report the judgement of a court that someone is mentally unfit to stand trial to the NCIS?"

Hey Army boy....its "NICS", not "NCIS", but again that's why we've beat you in football the last 11 years....GO NAVY !!!! 

[AAllen]

bullit that is just funny right there.

Back on topic, Husker_Fan I think we are picking a straws.  Yes people need to be responsible for their actions, or when it comes to storage inaction.  But there is a problem with making laws that apply, what is the appropriate storage solution for me in my home is not necessarily the correct solution for you.  If the laws are written for my situation then it may hinder your ability to defend yourself in your home, but in my home I need to make those adjustments because of other dangers.

I will take my premise one step further, what if the neighbor child (teen) that was not supposed to be in a position to have access to your firearm for some unforeseen reason was.  At that time there was a home invasion robbery and that teen used your gun to defend you from the criminal that was beating you to death.  His actions are not a crime because it is valid defense of others, but did you commit a crime because he had access to your firearm that he should not have?  Should that criminal be able to take you to civil court over it?

I know it is all speculative and we can come up with scenarios all day, but if there is to be a law it needs to fit all these possibilities.

[Mudinyeri]

We already have negligence laws on the books.  No need for new laws.

[Husker_Fan]

Andy,
You are right. I went back and looked at my earlier post and, while I didn't say anything about a new law, I think people have assumed that's what I meant. Civil liability can be imposed under the common law tort of negligence.

I don't think there is a way to legislate that takes into account every person's unique situation. I do think a gun owner should be on the hook for damages if they are not reasonably careful in the storage of a weapon and someone or something is hurt by the weapon.

[AAllen]

I agree, I was getting some practice in.  I fought this a couple of years ago by being the friend that would help make a good law, picked it apart by finding these situations that no law can account for.  Ashford's bill died in his committee.

[DanClrk51]

I have a significant issue with requiring one person to take responsibility for the actions of another.

What on earth makes you think you can control other people's actions? 

+1

Any law that limits freedom in the name of security is not good for America.