Should gun owners be held lible for crimes comitted with their stolden or lost weapon

Which of its enumerated powers would congress be exercising in creating such legislation?

 

Easy. You are responsible for that which you own.

Example: Your dog bites someone, you are responsible.

In the case of the gun, reporting it as stolen would absolve you of any responsibility. Once you report it as no longer in your possession, your responsibility ends.

 

So, if I sell my gun to a gang member with a record, I have no responsibility if I report it as a theft?

 

`
"What If"....those are the kinds of questions that should be directed at your legislators whose primary job is to develop and enact legislation. "Tort Laws" regarding negligence are deliberately vague or ambiguous which is why there are some legal standards such as;

"Five elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence: the existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care; a failure to exercise reasonable care; cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damages; and proximate cause, a showing that the harm is within the scope of liability."​

 

Requiring gun owners to have such insurance is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment---which is an individual right just as the 1st.

Those gun owners who are obviously criminally negligent by selling their guns to druggies and gangstas should be punished. Those who would leave a loaded gun unattended in their front yard to be stolen or misused by a child would also be negligent.

However, what you imply is that a legal gun owner who has a gun stolen out of his locked home---and then the gun is later used in a crime----should be somehow liable, should never be allowed to fly in any court.

 

Well, currently, it's not considered high risk behavior. An NRA affiliated insurance company is offering liability insurance for a very reasonable price.

https://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/excess.htm

- - - Updated - - -

There is a big difference (in terms of basic liberty) between a recommendation and a government requirement.

Also, of course the insurance companies like the idea, they will make more money on it. Talk about crony capitalism..... Same with the Tort lawyers, they too would stand to make a lot of money on it. Have you thought that possibly something the tort lawyers and insurance companies want as a requirement, is probably not a good idea. They are just thinking about feathering their nest, not about the good of you and me.

 

Being perfectly fair and honest, I have experience with owning weapons, but never really using them, I feel that those who have used them in defense of themselves may have some perfectly legitimate reason for keeping a gun in their homes, and if it is stolen, sure you can't just leave an M4 by your door, but there are "Those times"

 

`
1 - Your opinion. Note; House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance -- H.R.2546 - Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015

2 - Agreed.

3 - Your opinion.

 

The NRA does not support a law to force liability insurance. They recommend liability insurance. There is a big difference between the two views.

 

`
And why would the NRA support buying gun insurance at all, if they don't support such the idea in the first place? Unless of course, they only want people to buy THEIR insurance.

 

As a member of the NRA, you mistake what the NRA says about demanding gun owners have liability insurance.

Your pet bill would only enrich trial lawyers, hurt legal gun owners and do nothing to the gangstas who already violate over a dozen federal gun laws whenever they use a stolen gun for their crimes.

Why don't you demand THE EXISTING gun laws be enforced with at least minimum penalties used against each criminal that violates them?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...nforcing-gun-laws-third-world/article/2575043

20 of the 22 national gun laws are not enforced
A 2003 report from Americans for Gun Safety reveals that 20 of the 22 national gun laws are not enforced. According to U.S. Department of Justice data, only 2 percent of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted, and 85 percent of those cases were crimes of possession. That means the people illegally selling or transporting guns are almost never being charged under the firearms statutes.
https://www.minnpost.com/community-...er-business-enforce-existing-federal-gun-laws

 

Because its not about safety and its not really about gun control. They want to make a set of conditions and laws so convoluted that they will eventually be able to arrest anyone for just about anything. How else are they going to get their socialist agenda in place without arresting all the free radical thinking mass murdering gun owners?

 

No! The criminals are the ones who should be held responsible. Period.

 

NRA folks are cautious people. They are the kind of people who have fire extinguishers, jumper cables, and tow straps in their cars. The NRA is going to advocate on the side of caution. That said, there is a big difference between a recommendation and a mandate. I guess people like you are so single-minded that you don't grasp the concept of basic liberty, you'd rather have things be forced on us by the threat of deadly force (aka the government).

 

`
Who is "they? This is MY idea. I represent no one except myself. I'm not part of some conspiratorial fantasy that keeps you awake every night. Get over it. Life is not a dichotomy and there is a lot of gray area. Liability insurance is not a precursor to your nightmare that eventually, this will lead to the banning and confiscation of all guns.That's crazy talk.

 

Banning the 2nd Amendment is their prime goal, but the Lib-Coms will try anything to limit or remove individual rights of gun owners.

 

Gun bans of certain types of weapons with mandatory confiscations have already been in place in many US states. and cities as they have been in other nations.

Are you some kind of wizard that can predict and say that all, or almost all private firearms will be banned in the same way in the US?

 

We have quote after quote from your Socialist fascist buddies that says very specifically that they want to ban guns. Its not crazy talk at all. What is crazy is that the socialist continue to keep up the pretense that what they want to do has anything to do with safety.

 

For the simple reason that it will assist someone should they ever have to defend their actions in a court of law, and perhaps help them avert losing their entire life savings just to prove that their actions were justified. During the trial for killing Trayvon Martin in self defense, George Zimmerman faced a legal defense bill in excess of one million dollars, over an incident that many believe should have never gone to court in the first place.

 

Any politician who has ever voiced support for prohibiting the private ownership of firearms in one form or another. There are a great many of them. Take your pick.

You merely support the political candidates who do.

Why should anyone believe, for even one moment, that it would not come to pass? Explain it.

 

`
In other words, they see the importance of gun owners insurance and so do I....so much so that I feel it should be mandatory.

 

Its not apples and oranges. He's correct, and if you let one law go down that road it will be used in court to argue other cases like he mentioned.

 

I'm in no way supporting Pax but there could actually be a good outcome long term from firearm insurance if it's combined with something like homeowners/renters/personal property insurance. Insurance companies really only care about the numbers thus it's likely they will tabulate how safe guns actually are, in the process doing two things. Providing real reliable numbers and probably lowering costs for gun owners. Just like how a home security system lowers your rates in time so should gun ownership. Currently my guns increase my insurance simply due to there value, this could be turned around. Things like gun ownership, a CCW, and a safe should lower rates not raise them.

 

Your notion is that constitutionally recognized rights be made contingent upon fulfilling arbitrary governmental mandates, with severe legal consequences for those that choose to exercise noncompliance with your desired mandate.

All the while those who are responsible for the majority of firearm-related injuries, attacks, and deaths, will choose to forego the requirement of insurance due to them being legally prohibited from possessing a firearm to begin with. Therefore nothing beneficial nor constructive will come from your established position.

How would you even propose enforcement of such a requirement? There is no way of identifying who does or does not possess a firearm at any given time. The police do not have the authority to randomly stop individuals who are out in public, to conduct checks for the presence of firearms and firearms insurance. There is no centralized registration database to tell who does and does not own firearms. Your notion is nothing more than an unenforceable mandate from government that many will either ignore, or outright refuse to comply with. On top of which a number of police officers have declared that they will not enforce any new firearm control laws, even if they witness violations of such laws being committed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html

What will your recommendation be then, if the people required to obey the law refuse to do such, and those tasked with enforcing the law refuse to do such?

 

I think you're confused, the type of insurance currently offered to gun owners and the type you're advocating for are NOT the same thing. You're advocating liability insurance, what gun owners sometimes get is personal protection insurance. We get insurance to cover the cost of attorneys protect to us from people like you, people who prosecute and sue gun owners who are forced to use it in self defense. Or to cover the value of firearms under a unique policy cause most insurance companies don't offer good firearm insurance against loss and theft. You are advocating mandatory liability insurance to pay a victim, or anyone who feels like suing. These are diametrically opposed.

If we want to go back to the car analogy it's like the difference between typical liability insurance from a company like Progressive and declared value insurance from a company like Hagerty.