SJC: Some gun owners could be liable for firearms stolen in home

[hminsky]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma..._could_be_liable_for_firearms_stolen_in_home/

BOSTON --The state's highest court ruled Friday that gun owners
may be negligent for shootings with their stolen firearms in specific
situations, if they fail to properly lock up the weapons when they
know someone with a history of violence has access to them.

The Supreme Judicial Court, however, rejected broader firearm
liability claims, dismissing the argument that gun owners should be
held responsible for harm done with their weapons in all theft cases.

The 28-page ruling arose from the 1999 fatal shooting of a Westminster
police officer by a man with a history of assaults and mental illness
who stole a .357 Magnum handgun from his father's poorly locked gun
case.

I actually agree with this -- if people in your house cannot be trusted with
firearms, you as the gun owner have a responsibility to take effective precautions against them getting hold of them, or else don't keep them in the house.

 

[LoginName]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma..._could_be_liable_for_firearms_stolen_in_home/

I actually agree with this -- if people in your house cannot be trusted with
firearms, you as the gun owner have a responsibility to take effective precautions against them getting hold of them, or else don't keep them in the house.

And had the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on all counts it would open the doors a bit wider for the antis to push and pass the gun owners insurance bill that they keep bringing up.

 

[rapture]

I was lucky. Almost a year ago someone broke into my apartment while I was at work and stole my 350lb gun safe containing a pistol, a revolver and about 1500 rounds of ammo. The revolver was then used in a shooting in Lynn by a latino gang member, and is now being held as evidence. I'm told I will be able to get it back in a year or so when the trial is over. The pistol has yet to turn up. The Chief and the Detective investigating the case both agreed that I did everything in my power to ensure that my guns were secure, so I'm not being held liable. Also, since then, I got permission from my landlord to bolt my new safe to the floor joists, and to upgrade the security in my apartment (at my own cost), to prevent further incidents.

 

[JellyFish]

The temperature of the water grows warmer...ever so slowly...warmer and warmer...when will the frogs notice?

 

[hminsky]

I was lucky. Almost a year ago someone broke into my apartment while I was at work and stole my 350lb gun safe containing a pistol, a revolver and about 1500 rounds of ammo. The revolver was then used in a shooting in Lynn by a latino gang member, and is now being held as evidence. I'm told I will be able to get it back in a year or so when the trial is over. The pistol has yet to turn up. The Chief and the Detective investigating the case both agreed that I did everything in my power to ensure that my guns were secure, so I'm not being held liable. Also, since then, I got permission from my landlord to bolt my new safe to the floor joists, and to upgrade the security in my apartment (at my own cost), to prevent further incidents.

Wow, stealing a 350 pound safe is pretty extreme. It seems like someone might have learned that it was there beforehand. A good reason to try keep a low profile about owning guns.

 

[stinx]

I agree with this also. If the guns not under your direct control,then it should be locked up.

 

[TonyD]

The temperature of the water grows warmer...ever so slowly...warmer and warmer...when will the frogs notice?

Exactly.

 

[dwarven1]

I agree with this also. If the guns not under your direct control,then it should be locked up.

Even while you're asleep? Can't have it in your bedside table?

Whatcha gonna do when someone breaks down the door in a home invasion? And please don't say it never happens - we all know that it does.

 

[Scrivener]

Even while you're asleep? Can't have it in your bedside table?

Not unless it is secured by a trigger lock. Read the statute - home defense is NOT considered.

Whatcha gonna do when someone breaks down the door in a home invasion?

Fumble, I dare say. You might consider the small safeboxes that use a keypad shaped like your hand. Little kids can't spread their fingers that far and an adult can enter the combo quite quickly.

 

[second]

sigh

 

[drgrant]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma..._could_be_liable_for_firearms_stolen_in_home/

I actually agree with this -- if people in your house cannot be trusted with
firearms, you as the gun owner have a responsibility to take effective precautions against them getting hold of them, or else don't keep them in the house.

I sure as hell don't. Why? Just the slippery slope stuff alone is
pretty scary. We're already at a point of too much liability for gun
owners. (Only a handful of states bar civil lawsuits against gun owners
who are involved in a "righteous self defense shooting"). So, you want to
extend this? So what if a violent criminal gets keys to a car, and runs
people over with it? Or takes a knife from your kitchen, and goes to stab
someone with it, should you be liable then?

Why are "guns" special? I don't get it. Let's punish the crime, not the
weapon/implement. Frankly if a person "who shouldnt be trusted
around guns" is roaming around in the public, the system FAILED miserably
once already.

I can see perhaps charging someone with negligence- in the sense of leaving a loaded
gun out, THEIR kid (a minor) picks it up, and shoots someone, I can agree
with that. But there are plenty of laws and so on that already cover
all this crap, and theres a whole civil tort system that someone can swing
like an axe over the issue, as well. The last thing we need is MORE
laws, or even an expansion of existing ones.

-Mike

 

[JellyFish]

Amen, Mike. Amen.

 

[dwarven1]

Not unless it is secured by a trigger lock. Read the statute - home defense is NOT considered.

And now the dwarf comes under fire...

Keith, I was posting the question to Stinx about his views; I'm quite aware of the statutes here in the People's Republik of MA. I was challenging Stinx's assertion that it should be locked up all the time. I still believe that the law is misguided at best and should be changed.

Fumble, I dare say. You might consider the small safeboxes that use a keypad shaped like your hand.

Hey, if you're not awake enough to grab the gun, you're probably not awake enough to work a combination lock, either.

 

[tele_mark]

Not unless it is secured by a trigger lock. Read the statute - home defense is NOT considered.



Fumble, I dare say. You might consider the small safeboxes that use a keypad shaped like your hand. Little kids can't spread their fingers that far and an adult can enter the combo quite quickly.

The "onion" concept. A home security system, a dog -- anything that slows 'em down enough and alerts you to something being wrong. Make 'em work through those layers.

 

[hminsky]

I sure as hell don't. Why? Just the slippery slope stuff alone is
pretty scary. We're already at a point of too much liability for gun
owners. (Only a handful of states bar civil lawsuits against gun owners
who are involved in a "righteous self defense shooting"). So, you want to
extend this? So what if a violent criminal gets keys to a car, and runs
people over with it? Or takes a knife from your kitchen, and goes to stab
someone with it, should you be liable then?

Why are "guns" special? I don't get it. Let's punish the crime, not the
weapon/implement. Frankly if a person "who shouldnt be trusted
around guns" is roaming around in the public, the system FAILED miserably
once already.

I can see perhaps charging someone with negligence- in the sense of leaving a loaded
gun out, THEIR kid (a minor) picks it up, and shoots someone, I can agree
with that. But there are plenty of laws and so on that already cover
all this crap, and theres a whole civil tort system that someone can swing
like an axe over the issue, as well. The last thing we need is MORE
laws, or even an expansion of existing ones.

-Mike

Only I don't think it is black and white -- if we could simply execute everyone with a tendency towards violence, we'd definitely have a safer society, but we can't do that. In the meantime, if someone deranged is involved in your life, I think it is an ethical, if not legal, duty to lock up the guns securely.

 

[dwarven1]

If someone deranged is involved in your life, I think it is an ethical, if not legal, duty to lock up the guns securely.

I certainly can't argue with that.

 

[Scrivener]

And now the dwarf comes under fire...

Not really. I was simply stating the wholly one-sided perspective of the statute.

I still believe that the law is misguided at best and should be changed.

No argument there.

Hey, if you're not awake enough to grab the gun, you're probably not awake enough to work a combination lock, either.

Except that being awake does not change the fact that the gun must be secured. If you're NOT awake, access to a gun is irrelevant.

 

[dwarven1]

Except that being awake does not change the fact that the gun must be secured. If you're NOT awake, access to a gun is irrelevant.

Keith, are you TRYING to pick a fight? I agree with you that that is what the law says. What I'm asking is if Stinx AGREES that that law is correct and we should not be able to lawfully tuck a gun into a bedside table or leave it on said bedside table while we are sleeping or if the law needs changing.

Hmm... which brings up another interesting question. Scenario: I'm sitting on the couch with my wife; she's watching The Apprentice, which puts me to sleep. Is the gun in my pocket under my direct control even though I'm asleep? Or did I break the law by falling asleep?

And if I did, can I blame Donald Trump?

 

[C-pher]

I'm going to agree with drgrant on this one.

I don't think that it should be...yes, if someone is around that you know shouldn't be handleing your guns, lock them. But, that's different than if someone comes into your house and steels a safe.

Like he said, what's the difference if someone comes over to my house in the middle of the night. Steels my car...he's drunk and gets into an accident and kills someone.

I guess that it would be my fault because it was my car? It's my safe, if that's stolen...then it's my fault? How much more would they like me to lock them up? Other than not have them at all....

It's the same principle. It's not wise to go there... This is where we start to get the people thinking that they are different than any other tool.

 

[Scrivener]

Keith, are you TRYING to pick a fight? I agree with you that that is what the law says. What I'm asking is if Stinx AGREES that that law is correct and we should not be able to lawfully tuck a gun into a bedside table or leave it on said bedside table while we are sleeping or if the law needs changing.

Ah; I see what you were trying to do, which was distinguish between what IS and what we think SHOULD BE.

"Secure" in a house with one or two responsible adults is not the same as "secure" in a house with kids. A house with a mentally disturbed adult is a whole order of magnitude beyond that.

So, the law goes way overboard by requiring EVERYONE to treat their firearms as if there were kids residing with them. All to save the children, of course......

 

[depicts]

Scrivener, I know I can wear a firearm in my home. According to what I think you're saying about the statute, I cannot leave a loaded gun on my bedstand while I sleep (I have no children in the home).

So if I use a loaded weapon that I keep tucked into my bed and God forbid I have to use it, there had better be a lock right there when the police come to take the intruder away. Do I have that right?

If I used a firearm that resulted in the police responding, and they asked me..."Where is the lock you had this gun locked with?", there had better be a lock, correct?

(Darn, now I'm ending sentences with prepositions, Scrivener will never answer me)

 

[depicts]

Hmmmmm I just had a thought! Thunderwear sells underwear that carries concealed. I wonder if I start marketing Slumber-wear concealed carry Pajama's, to sell in Massachusetts, it would cover me with this statute. I would be "IN POSSESSION", and therefore wouldn't need a lock.

This would be a very comfortable solution as well, especially combined with my soft Hooker-Wear blow up sleeping companion.

Man Massachusetts drives me crazy...and it isn't a long ride!!!

(And the fact that my spell check is broken and I have to check the dictionary every time I know Scrivener is watching!)

 

[KMaurer]

No disputation, no ruminations on what should be, simply pondering the seemingly impenetrable mysteries of what the law actually demands:

Situation: I'm wearing a Glock 27 on my hip as I type this message. Now suppose that I decide that, having done my fair share of yard work for the day I should go upstairs and take a shower. Being the relaxed, complacent sort that I am, I rarely feel the need to take my Glock into the shower with me, preferring to leave it hanging on the bathroom door along with my pants and shirt. Now that situation would leave the gun roughly the same physical distance from me that it would be on my nightstand while I'm in bed asleep. In case of an emergency it would probably take me slightly longer to read the gun in the shower scenario than it would when I'm in bed sleeping, because my conscience mind would likely insist on inserting itself into the process more than would be required.
Question: does Massachusetts law require that I lock my gun before taking a shower as described above? (There are neither children nor other licensed individuals in the household, but there are unlicensed adults.) How if any might the answer to this question differ, if instead of showering I were meditating upon the porcelain throne, with my pants and gun on the floor?

Ahhhhh, the intellectual challenges of life so close to the Hub of the Universe.

Ken

 

[dwarven1]

Now suppose that I decide that, having done my fair share of yard work for the day I should go upstairs and take a shower. Being the relaxed, complacent sort that I am, I rarely feel the need to take my Glock into the shower with me, preferring to leave it hanging on the bathroom door along with my pants and shirt. Now that situation would leave the gun roughly the same physical distance from me that it would be on my nightstand while I'm in bed asleep. In case of an emergency it would probably take me slightly longer to read the gun in the shower scenario than it would when I'm in bed sleeping, because my conscience mind would likely insist on inserting itself into the process more than would be required.
Question: does Massachusetts law require that I lock my gun before taking a shower as described above?

Let me make it more complicated for you. What if you have a lock on your bathroom door? Can you lock it and be compliant (if, indeed, leaving it hung up with your clothes is against the law)?

 

[dwarven1]

Ah; I see what you were trying to do, which was distinguish between what IS and what we think SHOULD BE.

Exactly.

So, the law goes way overboard by requiring EVERYONE to treat their firearms as if there were kids residing with them. All to save the children, of course......

Of course.

 

[KMaurer]

Let me make it more complicated for you. What if you have a lock on your bathroom door? Can you lock it and be compliant (if, indeed, leaving it hung up with your clothes is against the law)?

Yeah, but it's one of those silly bathroom door locks that anybody can open with a paperclip, so ir probably wouldn't affect the answer.

Ken

 

[Amicus]

What is a 'poorly locked gun case'?

 

[dwarven1]

Yeah, but it's one of those silly bathroom door locks that anybody can open with a paperclip, so ir probably wouldn't affect the answer.

Hey, the law doesn't say how good the lock has to be, just that it has to be locked.

 

[JimB]

publicizing gun ownership

Somehwhere in here there is a thread about what you do to publicize
membership or gun ownership. The usual is discussed, stickers on your
vehicles windows, hats, tshirts and so on... for me its a hat i wear to
the range or IDPA shoots.... I'm not interested in being a target..

The less folks that know you have them the better.

JimB

 

[depicts]

dwarven1, the law says the gun must be locked, but does it say the key has to be out of the lock?? I could pick up a couple of seconds right there!!