Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 22:18:00 GMT -5
And oh fuck me. I fucking hate myself for this. When I am on my goddamn death bed, I'm going to remember the time I wasted on this argument and know I deserve to regret every minute of it.
You are reading and quoting the article -- and my posts, and EVERYTHING -- extremely selectively, to say the very, very, least.
Yes, the article discusses the PLCAA, NO. it is not ascribing blame primarily to the PLCAA. From the introduction:
It mentions common law and courts in addition to and before it even gets to mentioning the PLCAA. It does it again a couple paragraphs down:
It discusses a bunch of cases that pre-date the PLCAA, some by more than 20 years. See, e.g., page 20, discussing a 1984 case, Romero v. National Rifle Ass’n of America, Inc., page 27, discussing a 1996 case, Strever v. Cline, page 29, discussing a 1999 case, McGrane v. Cline, page 45, discussing a 1978 case, Gordon v. Hoffman.
(By the way -- every one of the cases I just cited involved an unsecured gun, and yet the court didn't find liability. If the CLSA had been in place, I submit it actually would have been MORE likely that the gun owners would have been found liable (for negligence per se). But since the courts didn't find the gun owners liable for negligence when there was no CLSA or PLCAA in place yet, why on earth would they be more likely to do so now if they were repealed? This is part of why I say the focus on repealing the PLCAA is misplaced.)
Anyway. Pretty clearly, the article doesn't think the issue started with the PLCAA or is limited to the PLCAA.
ETA:
I will not point out she still hasn't addressed most of my points or any of my cases, I will not point out she still ... oh fuck me, fuck me, I don't care! gaah!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 22:22:21 GMT -5
Hey all. The reason I keep coming back and replying here is not because I'm having fun but because I really hate to leave the impression out there that I agree with Christine's argument. If I leave off replying (and I'm sure as hell going to try), please take it as exhaustion and not as agreement. Non-replies do not equal endorsement. Thank you. ETA: robeiae ? Will you ban me, please? It's for my own good. ETA: or Angie ? Now would be a really good time to blow me up or set me on fire. It is almost Christmas, you know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 2:52:09 GMT -5
Seriously, won't someone just shoot me? I am having one of my raging insomnia nights, so fuck, why not make it worse. All I did was point out that you were incorrect when you said: The article also notes that guns aren't just stolen from sellers and manufacturers, but also from individual owners (in fact, according to the article, over 90% of them are stolen from individual owners). Individual gun owners also have the "right to be negligent" in the way they secure guns, according to the author. But repealing the PLCAA wouldn't address that at all. I quoted Article 5 of the PLCAA. Basically the same protections for owners as for manufacturers and sellers. That's all. I don't think having a safety device on a gun should exempt an owner from liability for criminal acts committed with a stolen weapon. But that's what's the PLCAA says, barring state laws to the contrary. Not that this matters all that much to my point, but... No. I was not incorrect. The P LCAA has only 3 sections. It was codified at 15 USC 7901-03. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105. As you can see, no Child Safety Lock stuff in there.The Child Safety Lock Act was enacted at the same time, as part of the same bill, but was not codified as a part of the PLCAA . I believe it was codified an amendment to the gun control act at 18 USC something or other. *I think the text you're looking at with a section 5 is the bill * that included both the PLCAA and the CLSA, but it's not the final enacted code. This -- www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text(And I may be wrong here, but I have a hunch the child safety lock thing may have been something gun control advocates wanted, not NRA gun rights types.) My computer is off and it's a pain in the ass to double check this on my phone, plus I'm delirious from lack of sleep, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. The PLCAA itself is about manufacturers and dealers, not individual owners, though they enacted the child safety lock stuff at the same time. Anyway, I stand by my points about both the PLCAA and CSLA either way. But to be totally pedantic, and why the hell fucking not, I was not "incorrect" in saying the PLCAA was only about manufacturers and dealers. And this argument was about the PLCAA. For the love of Christ, please someone fucking kill me now. ETA: * 18 USC ch. 44, Sec. 922 (z) It was added to the Gun Control Act of 1968 www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44, amending the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. See www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/165www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr165/summaryThe CSLA of 2005 bill was originally sponsored by this nice Democrat lady. www.congress.gov/member/juanita-millender-mcdonald/M000714[ETA: Actually there were previous versions sponsored by other Democrats. They died. www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-bill/149 ] Whereas the PLCAA was sponsored by this meanie mcmeanie Republican guy. www.govtrack.us/congress/members/larry_craig/300029God help me. ETA It looks to me like the Child Safety Lock Act may have been pushed through at the same time as the PLCAA as part of a compromise thingee to get enough votes to pass the PLCAA. I'll see if I can look into that later. But compare the original bill to the one that passed: www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text#compare=pcsETA: Just kill me. ETA: Yep. Democrats pushed for the CSLA provisions to be added to the bill. www.congress.gov/amendment/109th-congress/senate-amendment/1606/text And it was only after it was added that the bill was passed. Kill. Me. Now. ETA: *
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 21, 2017 3:10:28 GMT -5
For the love of Christ, please someone fucking kill me now.
*presses special button, granting Cass the gift/torture of eternal life.*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 3:13:09 GMT -5
For the love of Christ, please someone fucking kill me now.
*presses special button, granting Cass the gift/torture of eternal life.* Where the hell did I put my ban hammer?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 21, 2017 8:25:09 GMT -5
So, you believe people who own or sell firearms have no responsibility to prevent them from being stolen. I believe that people should be allowed to maintain their property their way, by and large, subject to some laws and rules. I have a shotgun and it's in a locked trunk in my attic. I suppose I'm covered from potential liability/blame/guilt--assuming the author of the article had his way--if someone broke into my attic, found the trunk, picked the lock, stole the shotgun, bought some shells (I don't have any), then shot someone. But I don't have my shotgun in the attic so I can be "covered." In fact, I'm thinking of putting it over my fireplace on a gun rack (it's my grandfather's and an antique). And I should be able to do that, without putting my self in legal jeopardy for potential multiple illegal actions by someone else (b&e, theft, aggravated assault, at a minimum). You do realize that's what you are arguing for, right? We are not talking standards of ordinary care here. The author's--and your--apparent expectation is that law-abiding citizens would be liable for multiple crimes committed by an unknown person, simple because they owned a gun. Well, from the standpoint of "if there was no Second, no one would own guns," sure. But that's not saying much. But from a more or less legal standard--which is how these kinds of articles are judged--he didn't make the case at all, that's my point. And that's weak on his part. Yeah...you're missing the point so badly, apparently because of your self-righteousness. I didn't make an analogy. The mugging example is hyperbole--or is it?--meant to point out the ridiculousness of utilitarianism in the law, especially here. Again, the author seems to think that gun violence can be curbed by putting the onus on victims to prevent their victimization, because of what might happen down the road (which would at that point have nothing to do with the victim). You get that, right? If someone breaks into my house and steals my stuff--whether it's a gun, a knife, or anything else--I'm a victim of a crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 9:36:32 GMT -5
*weeps uncontrollably*
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 21, 2017 12:05:03 GMT -5
I believe that people should be allowed to maintain their property their way, by and large, subject to some laws and rules. I have a shotgun and it's in a locked trunk in my attic. I suppose I'm covered from potential liability/blame/guilt--assuming the author of the article had his way--if someone broke into my attic, found the trunk, picked the lock, stole the shotgun, bought some shells (I don't have any), then shot someone. But I don't have my shotgun in the attic so I can be "covered." In fact, I'm thinking of putting it over my fireplace on a gun rack (it's my grandfather's and an antique). And I should be able to do that, without putting my self in legal jeopardy for potential multiple illegal actions by someone else (b&e, theft, aggravated assault, at a minimum). You do realize that's what you are arguing for, right? We are not talking standards of ordinary care here. The author's--and your--apparent expectation is that law-abiding citizens would be liable for multiple crimes committed by an unknown person, simple because they owned a gun. Ugh, now I hate myself because I am arguing the pro-gun control side. However, it's worth pointing out that people can and have been sued for leaving their swimming pools uncovered and a toddler wandered by and drowned in it. You can also be sued if your dog bites someone. There is also, as I understand it, the legal concept of an "attractive nuisance," which I am sure Cass understands better than I do, but as I understand it, it basically means that if you own some dangerous thing that kids might think is cool, and you leave it unsecured on your property and some kids come onto your property and hurt themselves, you can be sued even though technically the kids were trespassing. So... I don't think it's unreasonable to say "Yes, you have to take reasonable precautions to prevent your firearms from being stolen or mishandled." Now, people can disagree about what "reasonable precautions" are. To me, a reasonable precaution is not leaving them in plain sight. To some people, a reasonable precaution is requiring them to be locked in a safe separate from any ammo. I don't think you should be able to be sued because someone steals your gun and goes and commits a crime with it. But I do think if you leave guns unsecured in your house and a visiting child finds it and shoots someone, there is a case to be made for liability.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 12:30:05 GMT -5
*pours Amadan six fingers of scotch* *spikes drink with cyanide* *makes one of the same for self* Yep, that's an attractive nuisance. Attractive nuisance laws can require you to put a fence around your pool to prevent kids from accidentally drowning. And yes, if you don't fence in your pool or leave your gate open and the neighbor's kid drowns in your pool, you can be liable. But if you comply with those laws, and the kid somehow still manages to scale or break into your fence and get in (caveat-- I have not researched to see if any such cases exist), I don't believe you'd be liable because you would have taken reasonable precautions to prevent it. www.legalzoom.com/articles/attractive-nuisances-how-to-avoid-liability-for-dangerously-tempting-objectsShall we drink?
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 21, 2017 12:53:22 GMT -5
If I have an in ground pool (I do) and a kid into my fenced yard (It is fenced) and into the fenced pool area (Separate fence) while I'm not home, am I liable? I mean, I did leave the pool out for anyone to find it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 13:02:45 GMT -5
If you secured your pool in a reasonable way to prevent such a mishap, and were in compliance with any applicable laws, but the kid still managed to break in, then I doubt you would be liable for negligence. Caveat -- I have not researched to look for cases with this particular fact pattern. ETA: if you just put up a wee little fence that a kid could easily climb, or neglected to lock your gate, my hunch is you COULD be found liable. it hinges on what a reasonable person would do to prevent such a mishap (and of course any legal requirements). If your state has a law with specific requirements for securing your pool and you are in full compliance, that should demonstrate that you did what a reasonable person would do, and hence that you were not negligent. if you were NOT in compliance though, you'd be in trouble. ETA: See this on pool safety to avoid liability: www.2keller.com/library/swimming-pool-liability.cfm
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 21, 2017 13:23:36 GMT -5
It's a privacy fence that is about head level for an adult.
2 of 'em.
Plus three dogs.
Who, if a child were to trespass onto our property and the dogs got to them first, would suffer the horrible fate of being licked to death and having to deal with waggling butts and belly rub requests.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 13:26:36 GMT -5
I don't think the dogs count, so if you haven't already, you should take a look at whether there are state and local requirements for pools to make sure you're in compliance.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 21, 2017 13:48:13 GMT -5
I believe that people should be allowed to maintain their property their way, by and large, subject to some laws and rules. I have a shotgun and it's in a locked trunk in my attic. I suppose I'm covered from potential liability/blame/guilt--assuming the author of the article had his way--if someone broke into my attic, found the trunk, picked the lock, stole the shotgun, bought some shells (I don't have any), then shot someone. But I don't have my shotgun in the attic so I can be "covered." In fact, I'm thinking of putting it over my fireplace on a gun rack (it's my grandfather's and an antique). And I should be able to do that, without putting my self in legal jeopardy for potential multiple illegal actions by someone else (b&e, theft, aggravated assault, at a minimum). You do realize that's what you are arguing for, right? We are not talking standards of ordinary care here. The author's--and your--apparent expectation is that law-abiding citizens would be liable for multiple crimes committed by an unknown person, simple because they owned a gun. Ugh, now I hate myself because I am arguing the pro-gun control side. However, it's worth pointing out that people can and have been sued for leaving their swimming pools uncovered and a toddler wandered by and drowned in it. You can also be sued if your dog bites someone. There is also, as I understand it, the legal concept of an "attractive nuisance," which I am sure Cass understands better than I do, but as I understand it, it basically means that if you own some dangerous thing that kids might think is cool, and you leave it unsecured on your property and some kids come onto your property and hurt themselves, you can be sued even though technically the kids were trespassing. So... I don't think it's unreasonable to say "Yes, you have to take reasonable precautions to prevent your firearms from being stolen or mishandled." Now, people can disagree about what "reasonable precautions" are. To me, a reasonable precaution is not leaving them in plain sight. To some people, a reasonable precaution is requiring them to be locked in a safe separate from any ammo. I don't think you should be able to be sued because someone steals your gun and goes and commits a crime with it. But I do think if you leave guns unsecured in your house and a visiting child finds it and shoots someone, there is a case to be made for liability. I think all of this is perfectly reasonable, to an extent. Because as you say, if someone breaks into your house and steals your gun, that's the end of your liability right there. Again, you would be a victim of a crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 14:18:46 GMT -5
I hereby label this thread an extremely unattractive nuisance.
If you'll excuse me, I'll be drafting legislation to put a stop to it once and for all.
|
|