< Back to the Main Site

Author Topic: Ashford filed a civil liability bill  (Read 2899 times)

Offline Dtrain323i

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 136
Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« on: January 10, 2013, 08:18:03 PM »
http://www.ketv.com/news/local-news/Neb-senators-introduce-gun-control-laws/-/9674510/18089438/-/12ihci6z/-/index.html

Quote
Sen. Brad Ashford and the chair of the Judiciary Committee introduced a bill Thursday that would hold gun owners civilly liable if a minor or mentally ill person gets ahold of their firearms to commit a crime.

“Having a firearm is fine. It's a constitutional right, but it doesn't create an exception to personal responsibility,” Ashford said. “What we are asking is similar to the laws on children and liquor.”

Ashford said banning assault weapons or high-capacity ammo clips is a national issue, and his proposal is something the state can do, but gun rights advocates urge caution.

“You can't have them locked up all the time or you can't defend yourself,” said Sen. Mark Christensen.

Christensen believes there is a better way to keep kids safe in school. He is considering reintroducing his proposal to allow trained gun owners to carry a concealed gun in schools.

“Truth is guns protect. People kill. Guns protect,” Christensen said.

Attorney General Jon Bruning said he questions whether more guns in schools is the answer.

“We want to protect our kids, but I'm not sure we want to create an armed encampment,” Bruning said.

Christensen said he has eight days to decide whether he will introduce his guns-in-schools bill as well as a bill that would place the "castle doctrine" in the state's self-defense law, which would make it easier for homeowners to legally use lethal force to defend their property from intruders.


Offline Wymore Wrangler

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 251
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2013, 08:57:20 PM »
I for one hope he reintroduces both of them...

Offline Phantom

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2012
  • Location: Omaha/Bellevue
  • Posts: 503
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2013, 09:08:49 PM »
Attorney General Jon Bruning said he questions whether more guns in schools is the answer.

“We want to protect our kids, but I'm not sure we want to create an armed encampment,” Bruning said.


Well I think we can safely say Gun free zones are sure not the answer to keeping them safe.

Maybe Modifying laws to allow for concealed carry Holders to carry in those Zones is one step closer to a solution.

 
"If the primates that we came from had known that someday politicians would come out of the...the gene pool, they'd a stayed up in the trees and written evolution off as a bad idea.....Hell, I always thought the opposable thumb was overrated.  "-- Sheridan, "Babylon 5"

Offline GreyGeek

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 1687
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2013, 09:34:57 PM »
The Anti-Constitution crowd  mocked  the NRA president when  he  suggested that armed guards  in schools would be a good idea.   The mockers were ignorant of or dismissed the  fact  that the media and government elite in Washington send their children to a school that has ELEVEN armed guards in full battle gear, and who knows what kind of heavy weapons are hidden behind the walls?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/12/24/sidwellfriendsSecretService.jpg
Quote
The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.
If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.

The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).

Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed. 


Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2013, 10:26:33 PM »
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline Chris Z

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 2496
    • Nebraska Concealed Carry Training
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2013, 11:17:17 PM »
Funny how Ashford and his committee.... Keep in mind who the Vice Chair is.......... Don't want to give Civil Immunity to citizens who lawfully defend themselves..... But boy here they are right away introducing a bill to hold a gun owner civilly liable if you don't keep your gun stored properly...... Sounds like trying to keep the Civil Lawyers in business if you ask me.

Offline Lorimor

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Location: Platte County
  • Posts: 1077
  • Relay 2
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2013, 06:16:26 AM »
I'm not sure but do we hold parents responsible when kids break into their liquor cabinet and subsequently do something stupid?
"It is better to avoid than to run; better to run than to de-escalate; better to de-escalate than to fight; better to fight than to die. The very essence of self-defense is a thin list of things that might get you out alive when you are already screwed." – Rory Miller

Offline Husker_Fan

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2010
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 717
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2013, 09:02:18 AM »
Yes, we do. We just don't have a separate statute for it. It's a tort issue and is addressed in case law. I'm not sure what the case law is for firearms, but it should be worked out as a matter of common law (case by case).

I'm all for holding gun owners responsible for not taking reasonable measures to secure their weapons, I just don't think a new statute will help.

Offline NENick

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Posts: 661
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2013, 09:19:12 AM »
Just another thing that I'll be held accountable for that I didn't do. When are we going to start holding people accountable for what they do?

You’re too lazy to find job – don’t worry, we’ve got money for you.
You’re too careless to keep your pants on – don’t worry, we’ll abort it for you.
Oh, you stole some liquor or did something stupid with a gun? – don’t worry, we’ll sue the **** out of your family for it.
The list just keeps going. It's similar to how the commerce clause has been morphed into the Federal governments way to get to you no matter where you are and what you're doing.

Yay, lets keep the lawyers working hard.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 11:53:53 AM by NENick »

Offline CitizenClark

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
  • Posts: 702
  • Live free or die!
    • Silencer News
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2013, 11:31:04 AM »
Funny how Ashford and his committee.... Keep in mind who the Vice Chair is.......... Don't want to give Civil Immunity to citizens who lawfully defend themselves..... But boy here they are right away introducing a bill to hold a gun owner civilly liable if you don't keep your gun stored properly...... Sounds like trying to keep the Civil Lawyers in business if you ask me.

Yep, plus this will have a disproportionate effect on poor people who can't just drive over to Wal-Mart and spring for a $300 safe.

Offline CitizenClark

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
  • Posts: 702
  • Live free or die!
    • Silencer News
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2013, 11:33:35 AM »
Yes, we do. We just don't have a separate statute for it. It's a tort issue and is addressed in case law. I'm not sure what the case law is for firearms, but it should be worked out as a matter of common law (case by case).

I'm all for holding gun owners responsible for not taking reasonable measures to secure their weapons, I just don't think a new statute will help.

What it does is exactly what Chris suggested: it makes it easier for plaintiff's attorneys to make out their prima facie case for negligence. The explicit language in the bill would allow attorneys to argue that leaving a firearm unsecured is negligence per se, something that offers a major shortcut for lawyers trying to prove all the elements of a negligence claim (i.e., duty, breach, causation, and damages).
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 11:40:25 AM by CitizenClark »

Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2013, 12:15:12 PM »
This is what we get when self-serving lawyers are elected to craft the laws that govern the citizens.

No offense to any attorneys here...  ;)
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline CitizenClark

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
  • Posts: 702
  • Live free or die!
    • Silencer News
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2013, 01:09:01 PM »
This is what we get when self-serving lawyers are elected to craft the laws that govern the citizens.

No offense to any attorneys here...  ;)

As an attorney, I hereby absolve you! :)

The same is true for "self-serving" anything, and of course it is true for the altruistic do-gooders, too. This is why government needs to be drastically reduced from it current bloated size. There should be a lot fewer laws and lot more reliance on free market solutions.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 01:19:15 PM by CitizenClark »

Offline 66bigblock

  • Lead Benefactor
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2011
  • Location: Lincoln
  • Posts: 235
  • When SHTF, which side of the Fan will you be on?
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2013, 02:20:02 PM »
Yep, plus this will have a disproportionate effect on poor people who can't just drive over to Wal-Mart and spring for a $300 safe.



The words "safe"  and "$300" cannot be used in the same sentence...


66bigblock


I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.  I carry a lot of ammo because I cant run very fast.

Offline CitizenClark

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
  • Posts: 702
  • Live free or die!
    • Silencer News
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2013, 04:17:39 PM »

The words "safe"  and "$300" cannot be used in the same sentence...


66bigblock

Meh. No protective measure is so secure that a determined person couldn't eventually bypass it. If you have enough goodies to warrant spending lots of money on a safe, good for you.

Offline GreyGeek

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 1687
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2013, 07:43:48 PM »
Brad Ashford's Bill ... here are the affected laws:

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1204
Quote
28-1204. Unlawful possession of a handgun; exceptions; penalty.
(1) Any person under the age of eighteen years who possesses a handgun commits the offense of unlawful possession of a handgun.

(2) This section does not apply to the issuance of handguns to members of the armed forces of the United States, active or reserve, National Guard of this state, or Reserve Officers Training Corps, when on duty or training, or to the temporary loan of handguns for instruction under the immediate supervision of a parent or guardian or adult instructor.

(3) Unlawful possession of a handgun is a Class I misdemeanor.
and

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1204.01
Quote
Nebraska Revised Statute 28-1204.01

Revised Statutes » Chapter 28 » 28-1204.01

Unlawful transfer of a firearm to a juvenile; exceptions; penalty; county attorney; duty.
(1) Any person who knowingly and intentionally does or attempts to sell, provide, loan, deliver, or in any other way transfer the possession of a firearm to a juvenile commits the offense of unlawful transfer of a firearm to a juvenile. The county attorney shall have a copy of the petition served upon the owner of the firearm, if known, in person or by registered or certified mail at his or her last-known address.

(2) This section does not apply to the transfer of a firearm, other than a handgun, to a juvenile:

(a) From a person related to such juvenile within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity if the transfer of physical possession of such firearm does not occur until such time as express permission has been obtained from the juvenile's parent or guardian;

(b) For a legitimate and lawful sporting purpose; or

(c) Who is under direct adult supervision in an appropriate educational program.

(3) This section applies to the transfer of a handgun except as specifically provided in subsection (2) of section 28-1204.

(4) Unlawful transfer of a firearm to a juvenile is a Class III felony.

Brad Ashford's change, LB50,  is as follows:

http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB50.pdf
Quote
Section 1. Section 28-101, Revised Statutes Cumulative
Supplement, 2012, is amended to read:
2
3 28-101 Sections 28-101 to 28-1356 and section 2 of this
4 act shall be known and may be cited as the Nebraska Criminal Code.
5           Sec. 2.  Any person nineteen years of age or older in
6 possession of a firearm shall be subject to liability for civil
7 damages if such person unreasonably leaves the firearm in a place in
8 which a person under the age of nineteen years or a mentally
9 incompetent person may take possession of it. This section does not
10 apply to firearm activities in which a person under the age of
11 nineteen years or a mentally incompetent person may otherwise
12 lawfully engage in, while being supervised by a person nineteen years
13 of age or older and not mentally incompetent, such as, but not
14 limited to, hunting and target shooting.
15          Sec. 3. Original section 28-101, Revised Statutes
16 Cumulative Supplement, 2012, is repealed.

Except for the age discrepancy (19 instead of 18), it makes an adult liable  to civil damages if  they allow the firearms in their home to come into the possession of a juvenile without adult  supervision.   

This  implies that that both handguns and long guns have to be concealed out  of their reach  or locked up.   A trigger lock would not do because  the juvenile only has to  "take possession", even  if the gun is not operable.   A sure-fire  solution  would be to forbid  any person under the age of 19 years from  entering your home.

The law does not distinguish between a handgun or a  long gun.  It appears to me that the Class  III felony penalty carries over  from the 28-1204.01 law.  If a kid in your house got his hands on a gun and you were accused under LB50 and convicted you'd be a convicted felon and unable to possess firearms or a hold a CCW permit.   It would also give "ammo" to a mad ex-significant other to claim that your/their child was waving your gun around without  your knowledge.   If a kid was hurt or hurt someone else with a gun you left exposed you'd be exposed to civil lawsuits even  if you weren't convicted of violating LB50.   

The law would certainly remove the "instant access" capability which is probably the major reason why you would want to have a handgun at home for protection from home invasion.  Perhaps  a vault with a rapid bio-metric  lock using either a print or retinal  scan?  Expensive!  Conceal carry  inside your home?  Even  in bed?

I keep my handgun locked in a mini gun vault in a location  my grandchildren can't access.  And, they don't know of its existence or  location.  Not  even  their parents know.  I live in a section of town where home invasion has never been a problem and I  don't anticipate  any  changes in that  trend any time soon.   But, if I lived where I used to live  this law would  be a concern if my grandchildren visited, as they often did.   

CitizenClark can correct me if I have interpreted  these laws and LB50 wrongly.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 07:49:07 PM by GreyGeek »

Offline JimP

  • Steel Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2013, 07:56:55 PM »
Quote
Meh. No protective measure is so secure that a determined person couldn't eventually bypass it. If you have enough goodies to warrant spending lots of money on a safe, good for you.

"All a safe can do is buy you some time." is the best quote I've heard about the subject.

Given sufficient time and privacy, most anybody with common tools can break into even the most expensive safes.
The Right to Keep and BEAR Arms is enshrined explicitly in both our State and Federal Constitutions, yet most of us are afraid to actually excercise that Right, for very good reason: there is a good chance of being arrested........ and  THAT is a damned shame.  III.

Offline Husker_Fan

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2010
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 717
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2013, 10:45:34 AM »
Jim, that's true but it's not an excuse to not use one. A safe, even a basic RSC can deter someone from trying.

Offline DanClrk51

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Location: Bellevue
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2013, 01:04:06 PM »
"All a safe can do is buy you some time." is the best quote I've heard about the subject.

And it also will cost me time....precious time I can't afford in a life and death situation.

We need to kill this bill........again....using probably the same arguments against his last storage bill (unconstitutional b.c of Supreme Court ruling, prevents self defense etc.)

Offline JimP

  • Steel Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Ashford filed a civil liability bill
« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2013, 01:36:39 PM »
Quote
Jim, that's true but it's not an excuse to not use one. A safe, even a basic RSC can deter someone from trying.

This maxim is also true:

If you want less of a thing or behavior, you make it more expensive, hazardous and inconvenient.

People of limited means will be further deterred from owning a gun if they are subject to such liability issues, and further security requirements that cost as much as, or more, than the gun itself.
The Right to Keep and BEAR Arms is enshrined explicitly in both our State and Federal Constitutions, yet most of us are afraid to actually excercise that Right, for very good reason: there is a good chance of being arrested........ and  THAT is a damned shame.  III.