Is this what NH gun owners get to look forward to?

[timbo]

I hope the judge who hears this case throws it (and the lawyers) out on it's/their ear...unfortunately, I don't don't he/she will. [sad2]

The libs are chipping away, chipping away...

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/336571/gunowner-not-shooter-may-be-liable

 

[Admin]

A locked dwelling is secure.

 

[Mr Weebles]

"What's at stake here are potentially many lives," Tepichin said in a phone interview last week. "The rule we're advocating for is a pretty commonsense one, that you should store firearms safely."

Secord didn't do that, he said. "If he just locked the guns up in a safe, Mr. Woodbury could not have gotten a hold of them, and we wouldn't be here today," Tepichin said.

The attorney makes no mention of the kid breaking into a locked camp and stealng the gun.

I hope the attorney dies in a fire.

 

[JuergenG]

@Derek
The lawyer from Bahsten doesn't see it this way. Send him back south, one-way ticket.

 

[timbo]

They sure are referencing an awful lot of Mass court decisions...I hope this guy gets a GOOD 2A lawyer

 

[strangenh]

Agreed with Derek. This is a basic negligence law case (really basic, right out of the Restatement of Torts, turning on its facts, not any particular element of state law); it is not a firearms law case any more than a bad guy killing someone (with a gun) is a "gun death." The facts of this one are particular to it, not to anything else.

 

[BOBKATT]

A locked dwelling is secure.

It is. But, I don't see how it should be the burden of the owner to secure a gun anymore than a hammer or a chainsaw. I'm not saying that its smart to leave it unlocked. But, we don't want to live in a society that places the burden on the owner of the stolen property, the victim.

 

[MisterHappy]

An excellent precedent. Dangerous things should be locked up.

Wait....the killer was in jail in Maine? Well, then, where the duty of Maine to keep the bad guy on their side of the border?



What it all comes down to is....someone has to pay....there has to be someone to blame. There is no such thing as "Sh!t happens" anymore.

 

[cekim]

The attorney makes no mention of the kid breaking into a locked camp and stealng the gun.

I hope the attorney dies in a fire.

Wasn't there some issue of a faulty lock and him knowing of a key? That may be why. He's planning on arguing that it wasnt locked, but it is still unlawful entry and possession by a felon. This is ridiculous, but bing heard in the first circuit, not NH courts...

 

[Climbnsink]

Have you become conditioned? There was a time when the our firearms were displayed with a sense of pride, just like art, fine china, or silver, Simpliy in racks or class cabinets.

Yup. Or just leaned against a wall in the corner like a broom.

 

[Obie1]

Whenever I hear "commonsense," I know what follows won't be.

 

[Bill Katt]

Whenever I hear "commonsense," I know what follows won't be.

What he said.^^

 

[Patriot]

Does anyone know this case and have a reference to it?

"He cited a 2006 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that ruled a homeowner was liable after her boyfriend's son, who had a history of violence and mental instability, stole a gun from a locked cabinet and used it to kill a police officer."

 

[Len-2A Training]

Whenever I hear "commonsense," I know what follows won't be.

Can we have an AMEN!

Amen!

 

[ShadeWPI]

Does anyone know this case and have a reference to it?

"He cited a 2006 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that ruled a homeowner was liable after her boyfriend's son, who had a history of violence and mental instability, stole a gun from a locked cabinet and used it to kill a police officer."

I think it's this one - http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1403427.html

 

[BOBKATT]

What it all comes down to is....someone has to pay....there has to be someone to blame. There is no such thing as "Sh!t happens" anymore.

There is someone to blame. It doesn't need to be chalked up to "shit happens". The guy who committed the crime is to blame. Plain and simple.

 

[timbo]

There is someone to blame. It doesn't need to be chalked up to "shit happens". The guy who committed the crime is to blame. Plain and simple.

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

Personal responsibility has been thrown out the window.

 

[ShadeWPI]

5. Conclusion.   Because we conclude that the doctrines of  strict liability and public nuisance are inapplicable to the storage of unloaded firearms in a private home in the circumstances here presented, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on those two counts.   However, because we conclude that the defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff relative to the storage of firearms kept in her home, to which a mentally unstable and violent person was given unsupervised access, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on that count.

Here's the conclusion of that case. It specifically states that the judgement was based on the idea that a higher degree of liability was required because a "mentally unstable and violent person" was given unsupervised access. that is NOT the case in the stolen firearm from a locked NH home.

What's more, the conclusion removes strict liability, even in MA.

- - - Updated - - -

There is someone With Money is to blame. It doesn't need to be chalked up to "shit happens" or "it's the criminal's at fault". The guy who committed the crime is to blame. Plain and simple.

Made a few edits for you

 

[terraformer]

They sure are referencing an awful lot of Mass court decisions...I hope this guy gets a GOOD 2A lawyer

Good. Because in MA this would NOT be win for the plaintiffs.

See Ryan v. Hughes-Ortiz, 2012 Mass. App. LEXIS 5, **. It's wholly on point and dispositive of the claims. The MA SJC would NOT hold the camp owner and gun owner responsible for the criminal actions of another. Once the kid had to break into the camp to get the gun, the liability gravy train stopped dead in his tracks.

ETA: The published decision is Ryan v. Hughes-Ortiz, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 90 (2012)

 

[ShadeWPI]

This is another case where the courts need to be able to award defense costs and a penalty against the plaintiff for filing frivalous lawsuits. This seems like another anti-gun lawsuit that is being filed with the financial backing of anti-gun lobby in the hope of making it such a high liability and expensive that people no longer want to own firearms.

Now that there's a federal law protecting firearms manufacturers from the illegal use of their products (several gun lobbies had stated goals of driving gun manufacturers out of business through frivalous liability lawsuits) they've switched gears to suing individuals. Even if they lose, it costs the gun owner tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves.

 

[joeendris]

Yup. Or just leaned against a wall in the corner like a broom.

I remember the shotguns and rifles standing in various corners when we lived in Alaska. Safe? What safe? Alas, that was back in the 70s...

 

[TayNinh_66]

It's a civil tort as strangenh stated. NH gun storage requirement regs are really child protection regs http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/650-C/650-C-1.htm so I can't see where a court, federal or state, is going to find any liability where the cabin was locked and no children were present. On the other hand, the legal costs for the defendant must be in the $40-50,000 range. A $100 lockbox is a bargain.

 

[ShadeWPI]

On the other hand, the legal costs for the defendant must be in the $40-50,000 range.

This is why plantiff's lawyers need to be liable for defense costs in frivalous lawsuits filed without a basis in law.

 

[Mr Weebles]

This is why plantiff's lawyers need to be liable for defense costs in frivalous lawsuits filed without a basis in law.

A "Loser Pays" system will never be implemented in the U.S.

Not with Congress made up of attorneys and/or legislators in their pockets.

 

[timbo]

...

 

[timbo]

A "Loser Pays" system will never be implemented in the U.S.

Not with Congress made up of attorneys and/or legislators in their pockets.

I agree...

 

[Woodstock]

Yup. Or just leaned against a wall in the corner like a broom.

Like my first .22 was stored in my bedroom, with the ammo in my dresser drawer. I was 7. The old man's guns were in a room off the kitchen, leaning here and there.

 

[ShadeWPI]

Oh, I agree that it's highly unlikely that we'd ever actually see a law that would allow a judge to require the plantiff pay defense costs on a frivalious lawsuit, let alone a loser pays system - it's still one of the things we need.

 

[BOBKATT]

Have you become conditioned? There was a time when the our firearms were displayed with a sense of pride, just like art, fine china, or silver, Simpliy in racks or class cabinets.

Conditioned? I think you need to respect that some people, like myself, don't like to display their valuables. I don't think its smart, for me, to display a gun collection anymore than a coin or a jewelry collection. I don't think its smart, for me, to leave the doors unlocked.

I don't care what you do, and I don't think there should be any law or entity, other than yourself, to make that decision.

But don't for a second question whether I've become "conditioned", simply because I don't think it would be smart to leave my doors unlocked and to display my valuables.

And if, as you state, "there was a time when our firearms were displayed with a sense of pride", why isn't that time right now? I don't understand why you think there was a time when all of that was happening, but that time isn't still happening? You're free to do whatever you want. Who cares what anyone else is doing, so long as you aren't allowing them authority over what you do?

And by the way the locked comment was referring to a locked dwelling. I don't think you would argue with the statement that it is not smart to lock your doors when you leave the house, would you?

And I mean to post this in a respectful tone, incase that was lost somewhere in translation.

 

[Len-2A Training]

It's a civil tort as strangenh stated. NH gun storage requirement regs are really child protection regs http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/650-C/650-C-1.htm so I can't see where a court, federal or state, is going to find any liability where the cabin was locked and no children were present. On the other hand, the legal costs for the defendant must be in the $40-50,000 range. A $100 lockbox is a bargain.

In a civil case such as this, I'd bet they still would have sued even if it was in a lockbox and the perp stole the lockbox. I haven't seen a $100 (or less) lockbox that would stand up to a pry-bar. So if the perp stole the box, took his time to break in to get the gun, the results would be the same. A multi-thousand dollar safe might work, but this is an action looking for deep pockets, nothing more or less.

A "Loser Pays" system will never be implemented in the U.S.

Not with Congress made up of attorneys and/or legislators in their pockets.

Amen!