I voted against this bill for the simple reason that it should have been fixed by adding

"if the weapon had been reported to the police as stolen"

That's all they needed to do to make this right...

Jan, except for the fact that the owner might not have been aware at the time of its use that it was stolen. But more importantly, you completely missed the point. Regardless of whether the gun was reported stolen, it's not the owner who committed the crime here. If you apply this to rape, are you suggesting that if the victi failed to report it, that its somehow more her fault that it happened? There are many reasons one might not report the theft of a gun. If they don't know the crime has occurred, if they've been threatened that they'd be killed if they said anything, if they were in the hospital because they were subsequently injured during an altercation... Do you really want to further muck up our legal system with having to deal with such a mess? No. Plain and simple: Someone else stole a gun. The THIEF is responsible. NOT the owner. Your over thinking this may have cost you your job next election.

Jonathan, 80% of the time, the gun isn't stolen, it is loaned/borrowed. Breaking & Entering/theft are the exception to the rule. So 80% of the time, the person who loaned the gun to the guy who committed the crime cannot be fined under this bill.

James,
The wording is "illegally obtained".
Loaned/borrowed is not an illegal act of procurement.

Thank you

A car is a deadly weapon when used as such. Same for a gun. Should the govt make a law that one has to lock one's car?

Do you take the key and lock your car Seamus? Do you report a stolen car?

And yes, in many states you ARE responsible.

So, if someone steals my car due to the fact that I did not lock it and left the keys in it, I am responsible for whatever they do with the car? Damage to someone else's property? Killing someone with the car? Really? Somehow, I find that difficult to believe...

Neither the stolen gun owner or the stolen car owner is held negligent in the subsequent crime because the theft supersedes the owner'd stupidity.

A car is not a deadly weapon by design. A gun is.

"A car is not a deadly weapon by design. A gun is."

Depends on how it is used. Both are potentially deadly. A gun can be used for protection even if it is never fired. Someone comes at you with a knife and you draw your weapon. They back off. Someone is trying to break into your house and you tell them you have a gun and show it to then in a window. No shots fired, No one dead.

What about a car that is loaned to someone for the express purpose of running down pedestrians. Should the car owner face a penalty?

Agreed--this bill is useless!!

"It is so broadly written [see below] that someone could leave an arsenal of loaded weapons on their open front porch and not be liable if someone grabbed one and killed someone."

Ok, for arguments sake let's just say Mr. X was outside on his front porch cleaning his guns. It's a hot day so he walks inside to get a drink of water leaving his arsenal on his front porch. Some thug runs up, swipes one of the guns and a loaded clip then runs down the road and holds up a gas station then shoots and kills someone in the process.

Clearly you feel Mr. X deserves some level of punishment because it was his gun that this thug stole and used in a crime. What punishment would you recommend?

I don't think that you can argue that your "open front porch" is under your control"!

RG,
The Dems are useless!

James,
Again, neither of the examples you provide suggest that the weapon was "illegally obtained", be it your act of loaning or your mentally ill family member.
Judges make foolish decisions all of the time which have no basis in common sense or intent of law. Sometimes, they just misinterpret for their own prejudice...they too are only human.
You may be a gun owner, as you say, but it appears as though you have to learn the hard way as to what the intentions of the anti-gun crowd has in store for responsible gun owners which is ultimately, treating us similarly to criminals!

steve - did you know that you can hit reply on the main comment in a thread and people will know what your post is about as it shows up as the next in the thread?

The you wouldn't have to cut and paste and confuse...

If the law says that you must report a stolen gun, one might assume that the law would be able to decide it wasn't your fault if it just happened.

If you actually gave or sold or made it possible for someone to take your gun - then that someone broke a law using it - then you later claimed it was stolen? Really?

Yes, you should be liable if you don't let the police know your weapons have been stolen.

A responsible gun owner secures his weapon. A stolen weapon isn't a secured one.

Fave you ever heard of money being stolen from a bank, child taken from their bed in the middle of the night, rare artifacts from a museum??? All pretty secured things to me which got stolen...
It does happen, even with the most responsible gun owners!

It's also rather frustrating that you can't reply to a reply. Maybe Jan can write me a condescending reply and tell me how to fix that too.

Please Rich,
You can't figure this out?
Do Right wing crazies not get educations?
If you click on the [Reply] on the same thread, your reply will end up below the one you are commenting on.
Duh....

(kidding)

Hmm, I must have missed that class in college.

I can't reply to a comment when on my iPhone, never mind replying to a reply...

Apljak:

> I can't reply to a comment when on my iPhone, never mind replying to a reply...

Recently, somebody at Patch Media broke something and all of our iOS devices became hit-or-miss at commenting on Patch.

Generically, the web site coding is pretty screwed-up: after enough use, both Safari and Firefox will fail to refresh after posting a reply although exiting the browser and re-starting it usually does show that the reply actually did post. And the human factors of this site need substantial work as well.

I do note that Patch Media has some "help wanted" postings for website developers; 'could be related! ;-)

Atlant,
Thanks for the heads up!

Exactly! funny there is no bill increasing penalties for the person stealing or using the stolen gun. Deal with the damn problem.

What good is a gun locked in a house when you aren't there?

The problem is that this is the exception to the rule. A little less than 20% of guns that should belong to someone else are used in a gun crime. In over 80% of the other cases, someone has loaned the firarm to a friend or relative. Furthermore, this is a very easy fix: If you file a police report, you are immune. Lastly, you have to convince a judge and/or jury that the incident is egregious enough to warrant a civil penalty. And if that penalty is only 10 bucks, who the hell cares? With this bill, victims don't even have the option when the situation is egregious.

Your gun is your responsibility.

Ugh!, more more reciting of the same facts that have nothing to do with the bill.
Who loans their guns to someone anyway?
Mine have never been lent to anyone except at the range...

These facts have EVERYTHING to do with the bill. The bill addresses _Illegally_ obtained firearms. Not all illegally obtained firearms are stolen. If I borrow a weapon but am not legally allowed to posses one due to prior convictions or a mental illness, then that weapon was illegally obtained. And to answer your question, apparently a lot of people, since that is the primary way firearms used in the commission of a crime are obtained. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Firearmsources.svg

Your 1997 poll showed 3% borrowed or given...Primary source? I think not.
Taken from Family/friend (not borrowed or given) is and should be "illegally obtained"
Hint-Don't lend your guns to your friends! Good friends know better than to ask!

If by my survey, you mean the Bureau of Justice, then yes, That is what it says. It also says that 9.1% of firearms are obtained through theft or burglary. Making my point that this isn't the only category out there. The overwhelming majority are not obtained through theft. I am guessing that borrowed or given is a category for those weapons not borrowed from a friend or family member or given to you by a friend or family member but still borrowed or given to you (Eg. Won as prize). You tried to paint these guns a stolen from a friend or family member. If they were stolen however, they would be in the theft or burglary category. I'm guessing that some of them may have been taken without asking, but family members probably don't want to admit it because who wants their son to go to jail. So either the family member should have reported the theft and was negligent in not doing so. In fact, if the police attempted to recover the weapon a murder could have been prevented or else they were loaning it to their friend or family member. As you agreed, these should be considered "illegally obtained" under the bill, which states "No person ... shall be held liable in a subsequent civil case for the criminal acts of another person who illegally obtains possession or control of such firearm and uses such firearm in the commission of a felony or a misdemeanor." which means no penalty for the family member.

I agree with you "Don't lend your guns to your friends! Good friends know better than to ask!" and I think that if you do and someone dies because of it, maybe you owe some restitution to the victims family for being a moron. If you are against that? What is your solution for shrinking that 35% of guns used in crimes? This category is responsible for the death of a first grade class in CT. If we want to keep angry people from taking our guns, we have to get serious about solving the problem. I agree banning isn't the right choice or a good option. But doing nothing isn't either. Personally, I would be for mandatory fines for this. Maybe paying a couple of grand for being irresponsible with your weapon will make you think twice about properly securing it (whatever that means in your situation. If that means a nightstand fine. If that means a gun safe, fine.)

Come on Rich, Do you really think that logic actually plays a role in these people's votes?! The president wants to impugn all gun owners, legal and criminal, and these sycophants are doing his bidding!

1) Do you think that a judge and jury can't tell the difference between this situation and someone loaning a gun to a buddy so he can go commit a crime?
2) so add a 14 day period to the bill which will give you 14 days to file the police report (adjust timeframe as necessary) - Problem solved.

How about the legislators read the bill, get a clue, and pass it as is. Illegally obtained MEANS illegally obtained...not loaned or left out in public!

Correct , the theif should be responsonsable for the theft.

That is already how the law works, so there is no need for this redundancy.

Why have Lilly Ledbetter when there are already equal rights laws on the books (if not as a gift to the attorneys, oh forgot that!)?
I prefer the added law instead of some judge who may have an agenda to push...

I have no opinion on the need for the law or not, I'm not versed enough in the details to have formed a valid one. However, I do have a valid opinion on Jan Schmidt's comment "Yes, you should be liable if you don't let the police know your weapons have been stolen." and provided examples of why I felt that you don't always know when your things have been stolen.

Really,
That actually is a good link.
And I repeat, Gun owners should secure their guns when they are no in their control.

Judges go by the law.

ForThePeople is right, Judges do go by the law. And it THIS law were passed, the law would say that no one is liable, no matter how grossly negligent they were.

Interestingly, while judges do go by the law, a jury member does not have to. They can vote however they like in the jury room. There is nothing to stop them from doing so.

Judges interpret law.
James, a little hyperbole in your comment? for a gun owner, maybe not so much a gun rights proponent, you seem intent on trying to misrepresent how the bill was written and its intent.

I think both parties have plenty of irresponsible partisans on hand...

Gun ownership isn't restricted to party, but responsibility must be made to apply to gun ownership. Lord knows Republicans won't do it.

Actually, I do agree that gun ownership comes with a huge responsibility. In fact, you shouldn't own one if you haven't committed to treating it as though someone would absolutely die if it ever left your control (either on your person, near your person, or locked away if not immediately in your possession.)
However, if you read a link above posted by @Really???, the law is explained pretty clearly as is currently in force.

Stephen,
I'll pose to you the same question I asked further above which no one has responded to yet.
What punishment would you feel is appropriate for someone who did not secure their weapon and it was stolen and later used in a crime involving a shooing?

And here's a follow up... if someone else stole a different piece of property from you that was left unsecured, like say an axe or baseball bat, and used it in a violent crime would you also feel the original item deserves punishment for not properly securing their property?

Richard,
There should be some sort of fine or loss of the right to own a gun if the gun was left unattended in a public place where a negligent discharge could occur; there will unquestionably be some civil liability if not criminal.
If some broke into a home or a locked vehicle and took the gun, that is a different story in that the gun owner should have some protections.
Unfortunately, as foolish as it sounds in that the gun was in a locked container (house, car, etc...), there will still be potential civil liability as they will most definitely end up in court defending themselves.

Apljak, the bill in question states that it only allows protection if the gun is taken from a "premises under that person’s control" so we aren't talking about leaving guns in public places like say forgetting it on a table in the food court of the mall. This is talking about a gun taken from the gun owners property.
Based on that, your argument actually favors this bill's concept.

Yes Richard, agreed. Personally, I don't mind the bill as it further protects against a judge who decides to ake and not interpret law.

And what is your idea of the proper amount of responsability in thses cases?

Steve,
I am sure that Stephen means "responsibility" in that the "responsible" decision was to never have a gun in the first place...That we should depend on the police to protect us from bad people!

MFK,
Absolutely ridiculous.
But not totally unbelievable given the progressive movement today!

Yeah, but accessory after the fact is a criminal violation. This is civil law, so it is a much different situation. This aside, Georgia's law is ridiculous. But you said it yourself, it is a slippery slope. And thus a slippery slope argument. Just because immunity is not granted doesn't mean every gun owner who's gun is stolen will wind up in prison.

Nor should any of them end up in jail if their firearm was "illegally obtained" by someone else!!!

Maybe it's best to discuss the bill on it's own merits. I don't think that we need to bring in the fringe or absurd.
The wording of the bill should suffice as it is dealing with only those firearms illegally obtained.
Let's not fall into the trappings of idiotic arguments in opposition of the bill as they are unrelated in most cases!

No one is ever "charged" with any thing in civil law. This bill deals with CIVIL immunity. If the homeowner is dead, he can't very well charge himself with the crime and neither can his family. I also fail to see why his family would and why any sane judge or jury would issue a large financial penalty for that situation since it lacks any negligence.

Agreed, the numbers are very vague!