Firearm immunity

[Marvin the Martian]

So a person leaves a gun in an unlocked vehicle. Said gun is stolen and used to kill someone. Indiana chooses to give immunity to the gun owner. Why? Leaving a weapon laying around where anyone can help themselves to it should allow for liability (I would even argue for criminal neglegence).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So a person leaves a gun in an unlocked vehicle. Said gun is stolen and used to kill someone. Indiana chooses to give immunity to the gun owner. Why? Leaving a weapon laying around where anyone can help themselves to it should allow for liability (I would even argue for criminal neglegence).

I agree. On the civil side, I'm pretty much against almost all statutory immunities from common law claims. In my view that violates the 7th Amendment (but that issue was decided against my view years ago) and also because it's another example liberal orthodoxy about more legislation being good government.

On the criminal side, I have no objection to making a crime out of of leaving an unsecured firearm in plain public view. Denver has an ordinance prohibiting "puffing" vehicles. (Leaving an unlocked and unattended vehicle running to warm it up). I have no problem with that kind of ordinance and I see the unattended unsecured firearm as the same. But I wouldn't enhance the penalty because of a death caused by that firearm. The penalty should be the same whether the gun is actually taken or is just sitting on the car seat.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

I don’t follow. Would the truck owner be held liable if someone stole his unlocked truck and killed someone with it?

If not, why would this be different?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don’t follow. Would the truck owner be held liable if someone stole his unlocked truck and killed someone with it?

Highly unlikely.

If not, why would this be different?

Because the loaded handgun is an inherently dangerous instrumentality. The loaded gun is more like an unattended box of dynamite. We have federal laws and regulations protecting the pubic from careless storage and use of explosives. The civil justice system should be allowed to develop and decide to what what extent, if any, the same duty of care should apply to the storage and use of firearms.

 

[IUXC68]

So a person leaves a gun in an unlocked vehicle. Said gun is stolen and used to kill someone. Indiana chooses to give immunity to the gun owner. Why? Leaving a weapon laying around where anyone can help themselves to it should allow for liability (I would even argue for criminal neglegence).

Is this by Indiana statute or by case law?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Is this by Indiana statute or by case law?

From a story in The Star:

The court cited a statute that basically says a person can't be held liable for acts related to the use of a firearm if the weapon was stolen.​

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don’t follow. Would the truck owner be held liable if someone stole his unlocked truck and killed someone with it?

If not, why would this be different?

What if a child climbed into an unlocked and running truck?

 

[Thyrsis]

From a story in The Star:

The court cited a statute that basically says a person can't be held liable for acts related to the use of a firearm if the weapon was stolen.​

Seems like the sorta law they ought to modify. E.g., a person can't be held liable for acts related to the use of a firearm if the weapon was stolen, so long as the person exercised due care to maintain the security of the weapon.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Seems like the sorta law they ought to modify. E.g., a person can't be held liable for acts related to the use of a firearm if the weapon was stolen, so long as the person exercised due care to maintain the security of the weapon.

I would agree 100%. If a person has a gun stolen at gunpoint, for example, they had no real control over the gun. If they took it to a playground and laid it down for anyone, then that is different.

Leaving a gun in an unlocked vehicle is taking almost no precautions.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Highly unlikely.



Because the loaded handgun is an inherently dangerous instrumentality. The loaded gun is more like an unattended box of dynamite. We have federal laws and regulations protecting the pubic from careless storage and use of explosives. The civil justice system should be allowed to develop and decide to what what extent, if any, the same duty of care should apply to the storage and use of firearms.

With all due respect, that’s nonsense.

A truck is no more or less an instrument than a firearm. In fact, as we’ve seen recently in England and France, if used properly, a truck is a far more DANGEROUS instrument than a firearm.

The difference is in how you perceive the truck and the gun. You want liability for one and not for the other.

Now, you could make the argument that the gun is created for the purpose in which it was used while the truck was not, but that doesn’t hold water either. No ones making a gun for the purpose of murder, just as no ones making the truck for that purpose. Guns are made for sport and self protection.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

With all due respect, that’s nonsense.

A truck is no more or less an instrument than a firearm. In fact, as we’ve seen recently in England and France, if used properly, a truck is a far more DANGEROUS instrument than a firearm.

The difference is in how you perceive the truck and the gun. You want liability for one and not for the other.

Now, you could make the argument that the gun is created for the purpose in which it was used while the truck was not, but that doesn’t hold water either. No ones making a gun for the purpose of murder, just as no ones making the truck for that purpose. Guns are made for sport and self protection.

It's not nonsense. And yes, this issue has everything to do with how I, as well as the rest of society, perceives a truck as compared to a gun. This, as so many areas of the law, require balancing of interests. In the case of dangerous products or instrumentalities, the balance involves comparing the societal utility of the product vs. the danger from its use or misuse. This is why you need a license to sell vodka and not to sell tonic water. This is why you need a special license to own a machine gun and not a hand gun. This is why I, and I bet you do too, see a difference between a gun and a truck.

 

[twenty02]

With all due respect, that’s nonsense.

A truck is no more or less an instrument than a firearm. In fact, as we’ve seen recently in England and France, if used properly, a truck is a far more DANGEROUS instrument than a firearm.

The difference is in how you perceive the truck and the gun. You want liability for one and not for the other.

Now, you could make the argument that the gun is created for the purpose in which it was used while the truck was not, but that doesn’t hold water either. No ones making a gun for the purpose of murder, just as no ones making the truck for that purpose. Guns are made for sport and self protection.

The entire utilitarian purpose of a handgun is to shoot another human. Whether that's in defense or offense, it's still the purpose. Huge difference.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

The entire utilitarian purpose of a handgun is to shoot another human. Whether that's in defense or offense, it's still the purpose. Huge difference.

That’s pretty ridiculous and demonstrably false. Guns are made for sport and hunting. They are also made for self protection.

None of those things equal “made for shooting other humans”.

 

[twenty02]

That’s pretty ridiculous and demonstrably false. Guns are made for sport and hunting. They are also made for self protection.

None of those things equal “made for shooting other humans”.

LOL....sure man. You know anyone that hunts with a handgun? So drop that bullshit.

You have the self-defense argument remaining....but the utilitarian use in self defense of a gun is to shoot another person.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Highly unlikely.



Because the loaded handgun is an inherently dangerous instrumentality. The loaded gun is more like an unattended box of dynamite. We have federal laws and regulations protecting the pubic from careless storage and use of explosives. The civil justice system should be allowed to develop and decide to what what extent, if any, the same duty of care should apply to the storage and use of firearms.

Would your mind change if the gun was unloaded but the ammunition was near/next to it?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

So a person leaves a gun in an unlocked vehicle. Said gun is stolen and used to kill someone. Indiana chooses to give immunity to the gun owner. Why? Leaving a weapon laying around where anyone can help themselves to it should allow for liability (I would even argue for criminal neglegence).

I suppose that owner should face some type of negligent charge, specifically for the unlocked element. Would your opinion change if the vehicle was locked and/or the ammunition was not in the gun but near or in close proximity to it?

Similarly, would you hold a homeowner accountable for someone breaking into their home, getting a gun and using it to kill someone?

 

[Thyrsis]

LOL....sure man. You know anyone that hunts with a handgun? So drop that bullshit.

You have the self-defense argument remaining....but the utilitarian use in self defense of a gun is to shoot another person.

You conveniently factor out all the various sport activities, like tag, hide and go seek, and don’t park in that handicap spot.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I suppose that owner should face some type of negligent charge, specifically for the unlocked element. Would your opinion change if the vehicle was locked and/or the ammunition was not in the gun but near or in close proximity to it?

Similarly, would you hold a homeowner accountable for someone breaking into their home, getting a gun and using it to kill someone?

If the gun were secured, such as hidden from view in a locked vehicle, I would have no issue (loaded or unloaded).

A buddy compared it to a bar tender, who is now liable if someone they serve gets into a car accident. It isn't just a bar tender, I suspect you would be liable if you served a friend too much and they drove home from your house and killed someone.

If I owned a pit bull I knew was dangerous and left it tied in my front yard and a child walked over and was mauled, I would be responsible even if I had a "NO TRESPASSING" sign. How is leaving a loaded gun in plain view entirely unsecured any different?

As to the location of the ammo, if the ammo is also in an unsecured area than it is irresponsible.

We often hear gun owners explain we should not stop responsible gun owners. I await the definition of what is an irresponsible gun owner. If leaving a gun in plain view where ANYONE can take it is responsible then we are setting the bar awful low.

 

[twenty02]

Until 2nd amendment extremists can logically explain in any manner why the US has intentional homicide rates 5x to 10x higher than all our peer nations.....then any commentary from them should be met with nothing but eye rolls and total disregard.

Yay Freedom!

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Would your mind change if the gun was unloaded but the ammunition was near/next to it?

The gun being unloaded would be a factor I would consider.

This brings up a real case I posted about years ago here on the Cooler. An employee at a bar in Winter Park put lye into an empty vodka bottle (I don't remember the reason why). Diluted lye was routinely used to clean the bar. A different employee took the vodka bottle home thinking he was stealing vodka. His girlfriend drank some of the contents and suffered horrible injuries. Does the girlfriend have a claim against Winter Park because its employee was negligent in putting lye in the vodka bottle?

This issue is all about foreseeability of risk caused by a negligent act. The unattended loaded weapon is also about foreseeability of risk.

 

[Thyrsis]

The entire utilitarian purpose of a handgun is to shoot another human. Whether that's in defense or offense, it's still the purpose. Huge difference.

By the way, none of this is to say we confiscate guns. Instead, this should be about changing the culture to one of responsibility and accountability. I know plenty (understatement) of folks with guns and I genuinely believe the vast majority of people in my circle are responsible (though I bet even they could use the 'reminder'). But I think we should absolutely hold folks accountable. If you bring your gun to Ikea and it accidentally goes off, you should face a meaningful penalty. Same thing if you shoot a guy for parking in a handicap spot. Or if you leave it untended where others can easily get access to it. Or if you lose your shite in traffic. Etc. Etc. Those penalties should range from fines to jail to temporary or permanent forfeiture of right to own (all depending on the nature and severity). We should expect owners to have security front of mind with full knowledge they absolutely could face meaningful consequences for failure to do so. We absolutely don't have that now.

 

[Thyrsis]

If the gun were secured, such as hidden from view in a locked vehicle, I would have no issue (loaded or unloaded).

Probably, but not necessarily.

When data breach and security threats first started becoming a meaningful corporate risk, I know some employers started more actively setting rules for employees' laptops, including not leaving laptop in a vehicle unless locked in a trunk or other protected area. Smash and grabs made the risk of just "hiding" it in the car insufficient. The same type of reasoning might apply to a weapon.

I think I'd probably land where you did and fret that we run the risk of going too far with this, but at the same time I do wonder about consistent messaging around responsibility and accountability. E.g., is hiding it under a newspaper in the front seat of a locked car enough? I don't think so.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

It's not nonsense. And yes, this issue has everything to do with how I, as well as the rest of society, perceives a truck as compared to a gun.

I take issue with the “the rest of society” part. There are still many of us who haven’t completely lost our minds when it comes to guns. Those of us who recognize that guns(particularly those that are most used in crimes) haven’t changed a whole lot in 200 plus years and probably won’t for another 200. Yet now, even though all crime, and gun crimes in particular, are falling across the board, we wanna go after them through the back door by targeting the manufacturers.

This, as so many areas of the law, require balancing of interests. In the case of dangerous products or instrumentalities, the balance involves comparing the societal utility of the product vs. the danger from its use or misuse. This is why you need a license to sell vodka and not to sell tonic water. This is why you need a special license to own a machine gun and not a hand gun. This is why I, and I bet you do too, see a difference between a gun and a truck.

If we really wanna save lives, we’d go after the alcohol manufacturers, whose products cost trillions of dollars a year in health care costs and impact 1000 times the number of lives that gun violence does.

But saving lives has never been what any of this is about.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Probably, but not necessarily.

When data breach and security threats first started becoming a meaningful corporate risk, I know some employers started more actively setting rules for employees' laptops, including not leaving laptop in a vehicle unless locked in a trunk or other protected area. Smash and grabs made the risk of just "hiding" it in the car insufficient. The same type of reasoning might apply to a weapon.

I think I'd probably land where you did and fret that we run the risk of going too far with this, but at the same time I do wonder about consistent messaging around responsibility and accountability. E.g., is hiding it under a newspaper in the front seat of a locked car enough? I don't think so.

Fair point, which is why I have to encrypt all our laptops at work. And if anyone uses a personal laptop or cell phone just to check email, they have to encrypt their personal device.

But locking the car and hiding the weapon is a start to a minimal standard. Maybe a trigger lock should be required, but an unlocked gun in plain view is self evidently failing.

 

[hoot1]

Seems to me a person with a permit to carry should be responsible for taking some precautions to avoid the weapon from being stolen.

Indiana has no laws requiring a person to take such precautions. Furthermore given the attitudes of the majority in the state legislature whereby any restrictions or regulations on gun owners are treated as a step toward government confiscation, I doubt Indiana would require gun owners to take such precautions.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

LOL....sure man. You know anyone that hunts with a handgun? So drop that bullshit.

You have the self-defense argument remaining....but the utilitarian use in self defense of a gun is to shoot another person.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Lots of people hunt with handguns.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_hunting

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Lots of people hunt with handguns.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_hunting

To be a responsible gun owner, what is the minimum care you expect? If the gun were laid on the sidewalk next to the unlocked car with a "do not touch" sign, would that suffice?

 

[twenty02]

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Lots of people hunt with handguns.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_hunting

Quit being obtuse, it's not cute. We are talking about semi-auto handguns (the most prevalent gun purchased). Good grief.

Nobody gives a rip about some single shot, long barrel hunting handgun, and you know it. And no, even that is not a common hunting item.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Quit being obtuse, it's not cute. We are talking about semi-auto handguns (the most prevalent gun purchased). Good grief.

Nobody gives a rip about some single shot, long barrel hunting handgun, and you know it. And no, even that is not a common hunting item.

*sigh

I’m not talking about muzzle loaders. I’m talking about modern pistols, which are legal to use for hunting, and which lots of people do.

 

[twenty02]

*sigh

I’m not talking about muzzle loaders. I’m talking about modern pistols, which are legal to use for hunting, and which lots of people do.

Whatever dude.... is a 9mm a good hunting weapon? LOL.

How about any off the list of top selling handguns of last year?

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/16/the-5-best-selling-handguns-of-2018.aspx

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Whatever dude.... is a 9mm a good hunting weapon? LOL.

How about any off the list of top selling handguns of last year?

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/16/the-5-best-selling-handguns-of-2018.aspx

I don’t recall arguing that hunting with handguns is common. I just noted that they are used for that purpose.

Your assertion that they are made only for shooting people was ridiculous either way.

 

[twenty02]

I don’t recall arguing that hunting with handguns is common. I just noted that they are used for that purpose.

Your assertion that they are made only for shooting people was ridiculous either way.

The article was about a semi-auto handgun.

Semi auto handguns are made to shoot people in fairly close range. That is the primary utility. Arguing anything else is nonsense. Equating them to vehicles is even more nonsensical.

But there is ZERO common sense ever used when defending US gun policy, so I might as well go piss in the wind. The ship has long sailed, we all have to live with the consequences, which include having homicide rates 5-10x what they should be..... carry on celebrating your "freedoms"

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

The article was about a semi-auto handgun.

Semi auto handguns are made to shoot people in fairly close range. That is the primary utility. Arguing anything else is nonsense. Equating them to vehicles is even more nonsensical.

But there is ZERO common sense ever used when defending US gun policy, so I might as well go piss in the wind. The ship has long sailed, we all have to live with the consequences, which include having homicide rates 5-10x what they should be..... carry on celebrating your "freedoms"

You said something stupid and I corrected you. Now you insist on doubling down.

No need to get all pissy about it.

Also, why do you keep referring to them as “semi automatic” handguns? Automatic handguns are illegal and muzzle loaders are very rare. Everything else is “semi automatic”.

It’s almost as if you know very little about firearms.

 

[twenty02]

You said something stupid and I corrected you. Now you insist on doubling down.

No need to get all pissy about it.

Also, why do you keep referring to them as “semi automatic” handguns? Automatic handguns are illegal and muzzle loaders are very rare. Everything else is “semi automatic”.

It’s almost as if you know very little about firearms.

You corrected me on what?

I used handgun in my first reply to this topic.. and then you dug up some obscure bullshit about handgun hunting weapons (and sure they exist, but let's not kid ourselves, they are not prevalent).

And now you've got insults about that? No shit, most every handgun is semi-auto. That's really pointless and without saying....which is why I didn't.

You equated a truck to a handgun. You shouldn't be calling anyone stupid. I can shoot pool with a golf club.....doesn't mean the intended utility of a golf club isn't to hit golf balls. Just as a trucks intended utility is transportation....and a handgun's - as described in the story - intended utility is to shoot a person (either in offense or defense).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I take issue with the “the rest of society” part. There are still many of us who haven’t completely lost our minds when it comes to guns. Those of us who recognize that guns(particularly those that are most used in crimes) haven’t changed a whole lot in 200 plus years and probably won’t for another 200. Yet now, even though all crime, and gun crimes in particular, are falling across the board, we wanna go after them through the back door by targeting the manufacturers.

What does this have to do with a truck?

If we really wanna save lives, we’d go after the alcohol manufacturers, whose products cost trillions of dollars a year in health care costs and impact 1000 times the number of lives that gun violence does.

We have stronger laws about liquor now. For example a liquor provider can face criminal penalties and civil liability for overserving alcohol to an individual. I’d like to see gun dealers responsible for selling too many guns to an individual.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

You corrected me on what?

I used handgun in my first reply to this topic.. and then you dug up some obscure bullshit about handgun hunting weapons. So for the feeble minded, I clarified I meant semi-auto handguns....you know....what the damn TOPIC was about. And was clearly not a hunting type handgun.

And now you've got insults about that? No shit, most every handgun is semi-auto.

You equated a truck to a handgun. You shouldn't be calling anyone stupid. I can shoot pool with a golf club.....doesn't mean the intended utility of a golf club isn't to hit golf balls. Just as a trucks intended utility is transportation....and a handgun's - as described in the story - intended utility is to shoot a person (either in offense or defense).


So I'm done with this nonsense.... carry on all you want.

You know what, you are correct. The insults were unwarranted on my part.

I sincerely apologize for that.

Handguns are not made specifically to shoot human beings. As I said before, they are made mainly for sport shooting, self defense(which in the vast majority of cases does not involve discharging the weapon. 99 percent of the time, the presence of the weapon itself is deterrent enough) and hunting.

None of those things are “shooting people”.

That’s not my opinion. That’s fact.

 

[twenty02]

You know what, you are correct. The insults were unwarranted on my part.

I sincerely apologize for that.

Handguns are not made specifically to shoot human beings. As I said before, they are made mainly for sport shooting, self defense(which in the vast majority of cases does not involve discharging the weapon. 99 percent of the time, the presence of the weapon itself is deterrent enough) and hunting.

None of those things are “shooting people”.

That’s not my opinion. That’s fact.

We'll just disagree then. Our gun culture in this country is so far off the reservation, it's pointless.

As to sporting/hunting.....I say so what? If golf clubs were responsible for the deaths of 40,000 citizens per year, I'd be ok with giving up the game and severely restricting the ownership of golf clubs.

Gun nuts don't GAFF. They'd think we would just need more Callaways in the closet. (Oh, and Callaway needs federal immunity too).

 

[hoot1]

You know what, you are correct. The insults were unwarranted on my part.

I sincerely apologize for that.

Handguns are not made specifically to shoot human beings. As I said before, they are made mainly for sport shooting, self defense(which in the vast majority of cases does not involve discharging the weapon. 99 percent of the time, the presence of the weapon itself is deterrent enough) and hunting.

None of those things are “shooting people”.

That’s not my opinion. That’s fact.

My four friends who own and carry guns say the weapons are for protection. No hunters or sportsmen among those I know. When going into situations or neighborhoods in which they think there might be a threat to personal safety or a person using physical intimidation, they take their piece.

So far, none of them has shot at or killed someone. One did say she fired in the vicinity of someone to prove her willingness to take action.

All strongly believe in being able to stand their ground and kill if they or their family are threatened.

My fear on behalf of my friends is that they are too confident in having the protection of their weapon and will end up the victim of a confrontation which could have been avoided.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

We'll just disagree then. Our gun culture in this country is so far off the reservation, it's pointless.

As to sporting/hunting.....I say so what? If golf clubs were responsible for the deaths of 40,000 citizens per year, I'd be ok with giving up the game and severely restricting the ownership of golf clubs.

Gun nuts don't GAFF. They'd think we would just need more Callaways in the closet. (Oh, and Callaway needs federal immunity too).

Gun culture is no different now in this country than it ever has been.

 

[twenty02]

Gun culture is no different now in this country than it ever has been.

I agree with that, to some extent.

Don't agree that the political gun culture is the same, however. That changed drastically in the late 70s.

http://theconversation.com/the-nras-journey-from-marksmanship-to-political-brinkmanship-92160