Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Unreal - Colorado DEMOCRATS want gun owners to be liable for others crimes

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member tank_monkey's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    7,017

    Unreal - Colorado DEMOCRATS want gun owners to be liable for others crimes

    http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-lawma...023710615.html

    So if you own an AR-15 and are a law abiding citizen, you are LIABLE financially to pay for the costs of a crime committed by someone else with the same type of firearm.

    Sure Republicans can be dumb, but seriously. How can any of you guys compare them as being the same as the DEMOCRATS?!?!?!?! The DEMOCRATS have gone insane, literally.

  2. #2
    Team Gunsnet Platinum 06/2016 ltorlo64's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Back in the Pacific Northwest!
    Posts
    8,174
    Wow. There is nothing more to say about that. This cannot be constitutional, though I am not sure what it violates. Making law abiding citizens liable for a criminals actions. Only a Democrat could think of something this diabolical.
    "Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014

    "HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012

    I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.

    Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!

    NRA Endowment Member

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by tank_monkey View Post

    So if you own an AR-15 and are a law abiding citizen, you are LIABLE financially to pay for the costs of a crime committed by someone else with the same type of firearm.
    I don't think you are reading that correctly.

    It says "Owners of semi-automatic rifles would be subject to strict liability for civil damages caused by their weapons"

    Which in my opinion is generally how it should be.

    Although I wouldn't exempt any type of weapon from that.

    I do think there should be a few exceptions of course, such as limited liability for unintended damage caused by shots fired in self defense...although I wouldn't give complete amnesty for that, if you unload 300 rounds of full auto fire into one guy coming at you and take out the entire marching band who happens to be behind him then your liability should be higher.

    Another exception might be if the weapon was stolen, with the amount of liability limited by your attempt to properly secure the weapon from theft

  5. #5
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    15,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    I don't think you are reading that correctly.

    It says "Owners of semi-automatic rifles would be subject to strict liability for civil damages caused by their weapons"

    Which in my opinion is generally how it should be.

    Although I wouldn't exempt any type of weapon from that.

    I do think there should be a few exceptions of course, such as limited liability for unintended damage caused by shots fired in self defense...although I wouldn't give complete amnesty for that, if you unload 300 rounds of full auto fire into one guy coming at you and take out the entire marching band who happens to be behind him then your liability should be higher.

    Another exception might be if the weapon was stolen, with the amount of liability limited by your attempt to properly secure the weapon from theft
    Would that apply to everyone (including cops who spray dozens of rounds at a fleeing car and hit innocent bystanders)?
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  6. #6
    Senior Member tank_monkey's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    7,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Krupski View Post
    Would that apply to everyone (including cops who spray dozens of rounds at a fleeing car and hit innocent bystanders)?
    Well I would not have seen Kadmos' latest stupid comment if it were not for your re-quote, so I suppose I must thank you Krupski.....

    He intentionally misreads the line "It says "Owners of semi-automatic rifles would be subject to strict liability for civil damages caused by their weapons"" Who or how is this misread? Because liability for YOUR actions is already the case. Me as a gun owner are ALREADY LIABLE if I do harm or property damage or injure or kill someone with my gun. That is already the case now. You don't need a new law to do it. Kadmos is lying again. The Democrats want blanket liability to be 'spread around' like 'social justice'. They want ALL gun owners to be liable for the actions of a few. To describe it as being 'reasonable' ignores the fact that our own liability for our own weapons by our own hands ... is already the case. One doesn't have to codify it since it's already there. I'm already liable and ready to be sued by tons of lawyers if I go nuts and shoot up the town. Doesn't matter WHAT gun I use.

    The ONLY thing here is them trying to push 'AW owner's liability insurance" which they will required all AW owners to buy or go to jail. The problem is that no insurance company will want to issue it or at the least, it will be really expensive.

    As usual Kadmos is wrong in comparing it to CAR insurance. For one, every driver i know in the state of CA has had at least ONE fender bender in their life times. Thus the liability for DRIVING is much higher. The aggregate cost is much higher on a daily basis. You can't compare that to "Assault style weapon owners". For one, I have NEVER killed anyone with my AR-15 style rifle, nor has anyone else I know in CA who has one. You can't compare gun owners to car owners. We can go our entire lives and NOT kill or injure a person or destroy other people's personal property with our guns. However just one criminal shooting by a psychopath or career criminal can incur MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars in loss and suffering. And we're supposed to bear the burden of that? For what reason? Because we own the same type of weapon?

    So their evil plan is to make US liable for the criminal actions of others. That's the only thing I can see them doing if they are going to focus on the TYPE of gun.
    Last edited by tank_monkey; 02-06-2013 at 02:29 PM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by tank_monkey View Post
    He intentionally misreads the line "It says "Owners of semi-automatic rifles would be subject to strict liability for civil damages caused by their weapons"" Who or how is this misread?
    YOU misread it as "Owners of semi-automatic rifles would be subject to strict liability for civil damages caused by other people's weapons""[/I]


    As usual Kadmos is wrong in comparing it to CAR insurance
    Hmmm, I didn't use the words "car" or "insurance" and certainly didn't combine them into "car insurance", but somehow I compared it to car insurance?

    I made no such comparison.


    What it sounds like they are actually trying to do is add an extra burden on those who would attempt to use certain guns. The idea seems to be, and granted I've not read the legislation, is to change the law so that accidental damage, or intentional, or for that matter unintentional damage done by a certain kind of gun, would have a stricter level of liability.

    Basically, it seems, if you were to defend yourself with say, an AR15, you would be liable for any collateral damage, whereas if you used say, a single shot rifle, you would not...you would only be liable as much as the law previously allowed.

    The theory behind this would be that the AR15 is more dangerous, and likely to cause more damage, potentially unnecessary damage, than a "normal" gun.

    To a degree this is obviously true, like it or not.

    In reality, most states already have this notion to a degree, if you use a weapon that is excessive to the situation you may face additional liability. This law would simply define certain weapons into that class, rather than having judges or juries decide.

    I don't like that it bases only on certain weapons, many of which are likely overly common, but I do think parts of the idea may have some merit.

    As I said, there is such a thing as drastic overkill.

    Sure if you shoot the guy coming at you with a gun and the single bullet you shot goes through him and kills a kid it should be considered the attackers fault.

    If it takes a few bullets to take him down, then it should still be considered the attackers fault.

    But if you do pull out the Ma Deuce and fire at him for a full 30 seconds, churning him into an unrecognizable puddle while taking out the marching band behind him in the process, then you have gone too far.

    Now, what the happy medium is between those two acts, well..I do not know.

    And I think that is what this law is trying to define, albeit poorly.

    But coming up with a legal standard or test isn't necessarily a bad thing. It stops it from being a subjective issue. If you know that using a gun with a mag capacity of 10 will be considered a weapon of personal self defense, and you will not be held liable for collateral damage then you can carry accordingly, safe in that knowledge.

    Is this a way to try to get something of a backdoor ban on these guns? Absolutely! It wouldn't so much actually ban them, but it would make them less likely to be used as weapons of self defense.

    And obviously it's far from a perfect idea just using basic logic. You would be immune from increased liability on the five shots you used in self defense from the hunting rifle, but would be liable for more for the single shot you may have used from an AR15. Which makes no sense whatsoever

  8. #8
    Guns Network Lifetime Membership 01/2011 old Grump's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    A little hut in the woods near Blue River Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    I don't think you are reading that correctly.

    It says "Owners of semi-automatic rifles would be subject to strict liability for civil damages caused by their weapons"

    Which in my opinion is generally how it should be.

    Although I wouldn't exempt any type of weapon from that.

    I do think there should be a few exceptions of course, such as limited liability for unintended damage caused by shots fired in self defense...although I wouldn't give complete amnesty for that, if you unload 300 rounds of full auto fire into one guy coming at you and take out the entire marching band who happens to be behind him then your liability should be higher.

    Another exception might be if the weapon was stolen, with the amount of liability limited by your attempt to properly secure the weapon from theft
    I think you skimmed over the first line.

    DENVER (Reuters) - Owners and makers of assault-style weapons would face civil liability under a package of measures unveiled on Tuesday by top lawmakers in Colorado, a state shaken by some of the deadliest shootings in U.S. history.
    This panty wearing douche tube is ascribing causation to any owner or maker of assault weapons if some third party commits a crime with one. I cannot see any lawyer making a good argument for just cause to penalize lawful owners and manufacturers for a crime. If that ever became law in this country then every single one of us would be guilty of something every single time somebody else committed a crime. This is Socialism amok and I believe that a good number of Colorado Democrats need a refresher in the constitution especially as it pertains to the limitations of their powers and the rest of the Democrats need to be put in custody and hooked up to a Thorazine IV because they are nuttier than a tree full acorns.

    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA


    "THE STATE THAT SEPARATES ITS SCHOLARS FROM IT WARRIORS WILL HAVE ITS THINKING DONE BY COWARDS AND ITS FIGHTING DONE BY FOOLS"

    THUCYDIDES.



  9. #9
    Senior Member tank_monkey's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    7,017
    Quote Originally Posted by old Grump View Post
    I think you skimmed over the first line.
    .
    He does that a lot. Par for the course as far as I'm concerned.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Diesel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    896
    Registering any firearm with the government can logically be counted an act of treason against US all.

    Diesel 88888888


  11. #11
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by tank_monkey View Post
    He does that a lot. Par for the course as far as I'm concerned.
    Mary had a little lamb.


    Given that he has no idea what I'm saying it's a bit ridiculous for him to complain that I skip over what is written...

  12. #12
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by old Grump View Post
    I think you skimmed over the first line.

    This panty wearing douche tube is ascribing causation to any owner or maker of assault weapons if some third party commits a crime with one. I cannot see any lawyer making a good argument for just cause to penalize lawful owners and manufacturers for a crime. If that ever became law in this country then every single one of us would be guilty of something every single time somebody else committed a crime. This is Socialism amok and I believe that a good number of Colorado Democrats need a refresher in the constitution especially as it pertains to the limitations of their powers and the rest of the Democrats need to be put in custody and hooked up to a Thorazine IV because they are nuttier than a tree full acorns.
    I didn't skip over it at all, I read it and understood it to mean the owners of the weapons used, and the manufacturer, would be held liable for the actions of their own arms.

    Tank's reading of it is not supported by anything else in the article, no where does it say uninvolved 3rd party owners of the same type of weapon would be held responsible.

    Granted, the language could have been clearer, but it takes a really poor reading to think it says what Tank said it says.

    I didn't comment at all on the manufacturers responsibility. Personally I'm just fine with a basic shield law to protect manufacturers from liability for correctly functioning guns that were poorly used.

    I do think the shield laws may have gone to far and protect against liability due to unsafe designs, and other flaws. Gun manufacturers should have the same general product liability on that score.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by nitewatcher View Post
    How much crack have you smoked tonite? 300 rounds from a full auto?? can you dream up anything else??
    I wasn't the one who designed the M1919...

  14. #14
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    I wasn't the one who designed the M1919...
    have fun troll

  15. #15
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by nitewatcher View Post
    have fun troll
    I'm not the one spouting nonsense and then going back and deleting my posts when I realize I was wrong.

    As a responsible gun owner I know I am liable for every shot fired from my guns, I accept that fact. Acknowledging that fact is a huge part of what makes me respect the guns and use them safely.

  16. #16
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    15,653
    Quote Originally Posted by nitewatcher View Post
    have fun troll
    The reply you deleted was MUCH better....
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  17. #17
    Senior Member Helen Keller's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Rockin' a Piss
    Posts
    8,394
    once I read "DEMOCRATS WANT" my brain shuts off.
    PRAISE KEK
    FATHER OF CHAOS
    BRINGER OF DAY
    IN THY WEBBED HANDS WE PLACE OUR FAITH
    SHADILAY, SHADILAY!

  18. #18
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by Krupski View Post
    The reply you deleted was MUCH better....
    Thanks but im not going to help feed that troll

  19. #19
    Contributor 02/2014 FunkyPertwee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    11,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    I wasn't the one who designed the M1919...
    Your shooting buddies must have gotten that from the same gun show that sells those nuclear bombs your so worried about gun owners getting their hands on.
    "I'm fucking furious, I'm violently angry, and I like it. If you don't know what that feels like then I feel bad for you"

  20. #20
    Contributor 05/2012 TomO's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Central Florida, United States
    Posts
    250
    Ahhh...The government always keeps back ups handy. Even back-up registration lists.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •