How liable are you for your gun?

[kiladonut]

quick question. say you have your gun in you car or house and someone steals the weapon and uses it to commit a crime. Are you in anyway liable for them getting ahold of your gun?

[Statkowski]

Say you have your car parked in front of your house and someone steals the vehicle and uses it to commit a crime. Are you in anyway liable for them getting ahold of your car?

[imperialism2024]

Mods, are we allowed to bet on how quickly someone with fewer than 50 posts is going to jump into the thread and tell the OP that an overzealous DA might charge a gunowner with conspiracy charges if their gun is stolen and used in a crime? Or how the gunowner will lose his LTCF for life?

[GunLawyer001]

Mods, are we allowed to bet on how quickly someone with fewer than 50 posts is going to jump into the thread and tell the OP that an overzealous DA might charge a gunowner with conspiracy charges if their gun is stolen and used in a crime? Or how the gunowner will lose his LTCF for life?

I think that I have more than 50 posts, and I'll tell you that you are as liable as the plaintiff's attorney (or the DA) can convince a jury you are. If you are negligent, you are liable. If you could have foreseen that your negligence would cause harm to someone, you're liable. For criminal negligence and for civil tort.

And in Philadelphia, they will pull your permit, because they've made up a rule that they will, and wrote it down, and the resident dimwits in City Hall believe that anything they put in writing is The Law, even when they completely lack the authority to enact it. They didn't even bother to enact a local ordinance criminalizing having your gun stolen, the police apparently just added it to the LTCF application "instructions" and treat it as superseding PA state law.

Added: Link to the Philadelphia form. Count the errors of law:
http://www.ppdonline.org/pdf/hq/sp4-127-uponreceipt.pdf

[kiladonut]

Say you have your car parked in front of your house and someone steals the vehicle and uses it to commit a crime. Are you in anyway liable for them getting ahold of your car?

I think the idea behind your post is valid in theory, but guns are a touchy subject unlike cars. Firearm ownership is a responsibility that shouldn't be taken lightly. If you put yourself in a situation where a gun can be easily stolen, I can see you being penalized. I remember hearing a story of some guy that stole a gun from a guys car and murdered someone. The legit gun owner ended up getting charged with assisted murder or something along those lines. I'm not sure if that's an actual story or not, I have just heard it somewhere before.

I'm not concerned about the issue as its more of a just wondering thing.

[TaePo]

I think that I have more than 50 posts, and I'll tell you that you are as liable as the plaintiff's attorney (or the DA) can convince a jury you are. If you are negligent, you are liable. If you could have foreseen that your negligence would cause harm to someone, you're liable. For criminal negligence and for civil tort.

Thanks GunLawyer.

You, sir, are one of the great assets here.

So, this would point out how crucial the public relations war regarding the keeping and bearing of arms and terminology really is.

If we cannot effectively counter the anti-gun propaganda, the average jurist (our fellow sheeples) may see your losing track of a firearm as a negligent issue as opposed to leaving your keys in the car.

We all know that we can face civil charges/trial for a just about anything, and that the burden of proof is less than a criminal trial. (Civil = preponderance of the evidence vs. criminal = beyond reasonable doubt.)

But the added danger is the addition of criminal charges such as criminal negligence et al, even when the 'negligence' to a gun owner would seem normal and not grossly negligent but to an antigunner, or even a neutral citizen in ignorance or who has been adversely and subconciously affected by the anti-gun propaganda machine and the media, who would vote guilty.

So kudos to the forum members and this site for trying to get the good word out and to protecting our rights and keeping them pure, but also for winning back the hearts and minds of the people who are being led astray.

[PennsyPlinker]

I think the idea behind your post is valid in theory, but guns are a touchy subject unlike cars. Firearm ownership is a responsibility that shouldn't be taken lightly.

Really? More people are killed with cars than with guns. And a lot of the time, if not most of the time, they are killed because someone is acting in an irresponsible way. Slinging two tons of metal around in close quarters to your fellow man is behavior that demands a lot of responsibility. Unfortunately, irresponsible activity with regard to operating a motor vehicle is so prevalent we have become inured to it.

[GunLawyer001]

.....Unfortunately, irresponsible activity with regard to operating a motor vehicle is so prevalent we have become inured to it.

Sadly, the same is true of cell phone use while operating a motor vehicle. So many dimwits are now in the habit of dialing their friends as part of starting their cars, that I actually hope for the government to intervene and make it illegal. The ONLY thing that stops a moving car from killing other drivers or pedestrians is the attention of the driver, her skill, and her dexterity. It's criminal negligence to reduce your available hands by 50%, while distracting yourself with inane chatter about the petty gossip of the day.

[knight0334]

Sadly, the same is true of cell phone use while operating a motor vehicle. So many dimwits are now in the habit of dialing their friends as part of starting their cars, that I actually hope for the government to intervene and make it illegal. The ONLY thing that stops a moving car from killing other drivers or pedestrians is the attention of the driver, her skill, and her dexterity. It's criminal negligence to reduce your available hands by 50%, while distracting yourself with inane chatter about the petty gossip of the day.

I see you have a similar grip too.. cellphone and drivers.

People cant drive to begin with... ...just add a phone, or some idiot phucking with radio knobs/buttons and you have a recipe for disaster.

I'm all for public shootings of those who cause an accident and a cellphone is found to have been in use, on, or in the hands of any party of the accident.

I mean, officer walks up to see if they need help, sees "hey baby, lets...." half keyed into a text message, then pulls his pistol and drills them twice in the chest and once in the melon RIGHT THERE!

[tl_3237]

If you have the gun stored in a safe or an approved gun lock on the handgun, you can use this if you are sued:

18 USC 922(z)(3)
(3) Liability for use.—
(A) In general.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action.
(B) Prospective actions.— A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. (C) Defined term.— As used in this paragraph, the term “qualified civil liability action”—
(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, if—
(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access to it; and
(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and
(ii) shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se. [APPENDIX A Repealed. Pub. L. 103–322, title XI, § 110105(2), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2000]