2 Supreme Court Cases/Laws still standing.
 

There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

The first is United States v. Miller 1939.
Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected.

Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45)

Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900.

In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him.

Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.

Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.

This is the way all 20,000 of the firearms laws we enjoy today started.

With a few "common sense" solutions from people who didn't understand the problem, if there even was one.

In 1913, the ratification of the 16th Amendment formalized the Federal Income Tax, which at first, was a very small percentage on most people. The majority of Americans supported it then. And Congress set the rates. Look at what we pay now. Relatively painlessly extracted monthly or bi-weekly since 1943. If Americans had to stroke a check for the full balance in one check annually, accountability might return.

One day in the not too distant future, when you are paying $500 per background check, a 100% tax on arms and ammunition, and $5,000 per year for liability insurance, you will be able to say, "Wow, I remember when it started out as a few "common sense" fees." It is all "for the children," of course.

Right off of the Brady Campaign's wish list.

They "allow" you an ever decreasing portion of a God given Right, while in reality restricting it further, and you are expected to be thankful. Death by 20,000 cuts and counting.

TR

I appreciate your position and how it continues to evolve.

But, I also see that you are back to suggesting that a strict liability standard - as opposed to a reasonableness standard - be applied to firearm owners. That is an absolute non-starter for me, as well as most, if not all, lawful firearm owners.

LOL, more like the dreaded "finger wave" ...but the unbelievably intrusive information that underwriters of such policies - will eventually require - will feel like the whole hand -- to law abiding firearm owners. I often deal with commercial insurers through my broker. IME, one little thing that makes an underwriter feel a wee bit squeamish... results in a limited number of companies writing that particular risk...and HUGE premium increases. No thanks. I have dealt with enough insurance companies to fall for this ruse.

It does sound like your goal really is to make owning firearms so expensive, onerous and intrusive so as to effectivley regulate a God given right - out of existence. TR nailed it.

This call for liability insurance appears to me to really be a typical bureaucratic answer to what is largely a crime and mental health problem.

Thank you for taking the time to find videos of trigger locks that don't work. Still, I'm not convinced it is impossible to prevent a weapon from firing. What if we tried to or wanted to develop a locking device that is hard to defeat? We were able to get people to and from the moon using slide rules.
TSBITF. We have a thread on locks and safes. for years QPs have purchased, used, evaluated and critiqued a variety of locks and safes. I trust a QPs opinion more then Better HouseKeeping and Consumer Digest.

The most often cited reason for having a gun is home defense. The reason you have guns in your home is because you don't trust the locks on your doors and windows. Therefore, your locked home is not sufficient to protect your guns from criminals and crazies. Nancy Lanza's wasn't.
I don't get the impression you have ever actually seen a vault if you think bank vaults can be mechanically defeated from the outside. It is not nearly as easy as movies make it look (Oh, Kelly's Heroes. Yeah, that was easy . . but they needed a Tiger Tank. It's pretty hard.)

And no one is asking you to. If you use your gun negligently you are liable. If you fail to take reasonable precautions (an effective locking device) to prevent a criminal or crazy from using it to kill or injure others you are liable. This proposal assumes you can be responsible for yourself. It's your gun. It's your responsibility.

Before you post you ought to read some of the previous posts, or at least read the post you are commenting on. I am discussing guns, not Ginsu knives, or your chainsaw or your lawnmower. That has been addressed.

Lanza's mother's guns were not secured. If she had secured them, she might still be alive. Or maybe her son would have killed her with a Ginsu knife but still not gotten the guns.
Maybe, we would be calling Nancy Lanza a hero.
Or maybe she would have given the guns to her son and he would have let her live. I hope not, I like to think people faced with that choice will be courageous. In any case her gun security was negligent and she would be fully liable. Her guns, her responsibility.

I probably should not have used the phrase "Invisible Hand" for someone who may not have heard it before. The "Invisible Hand" is an economic analogy for how the marketplace sets a fair price for everything.

Quite the contrary. I want every law-abiding US citizen 18 years of age or older to be able to own as many of the currently allowed weapons (up to and including semi-automatic weapons and those special cases where permits are allowed). l want them to accept the responsibility that comes with owning them -- thatt they accept that if they do not take reasonable steps to prevent criminals and crazies from using those weapons to kill or injure innocent people.
Effective locks are a way to prevent misuse.

Insurance is how we protect ourselves from the financial effects of a catastrophic loss caused to or by something we own. I suppose one can take that risk. But due to the severity and scope of negligence in this case I think mandated insurance is appropriate. After all time and time again, events prove the ineffectiveness of voluntary programs. I wholly agree this is a criminal and mental health problem and this proposal is directed only at preventing criminals and crazies from getting a weapon.

I'm willing to listen to a better idea that prevents criminals and crazies from getting access to guns and turning them on innocent people. It's just got to work. Whatcha got?

IMO, the 8 points set forth in the original letter that is the subject of the original post in this thread is a solid step in the right direction on all fronts. I encourage everyone to go back and re-read that post. I pasted those suggestions below for readers who may have stumbled across this thread late.

In addition to the 8 recommendations below - I believe that as much gun violence is gang/drug/crime related - that saturation patrols of known gang shooting areas be considered. I will leave it to the law enforcement experts to devise a strategy to accomplish the mission of getting guns out of the hands of criminals. Consider tougher sentencing for those already with a criminal record and stick to it...have a criminal record and use a gun in a crime and add a mandatory 20 years...no chance at parole...second offense...40 years...shooters be off da street like Chi-town voters...early and often.

Simply stated, read and heed the steps below and I suggest that politicians and others focus time, money and effort on stopping criminals and the mentally ill and not further burdening the law abiding. If anyone wants to voluntarily buy more insurance, to "protect themselves from the risk of catastrophic loss..." please have at it.

IMO, mandating the purchase of firearms insurance by an otherwise sane, law abiding citizen will not stop a criminal or a crazy from obtaining and misusing a firearm.

YMMV.

From the letter in the OP:

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful "Eddie the Eagle" program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be "sold" as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

Thank you Tony.

That's a lot of maybes. Also, I would call guns put away in a closet in a large locked up home in a good neighborhood reasonably secured. Not everyone knows someone is going to be a mass murderer. It's easy to point fingers after the fact, but if all the so called family friends really thought this boy was a killer then why aren't they liable for their negligence.

Remember it was your premise that gun owners should be held liable for the criminal actions of a third party even if the guns were stolen from your home. The courts disagree with you.


I agree with what others have said that this is just a stepping stone to making gun ownership essentially unaffordable for the common man.

Do you honestly think the founding fathers would have agreed with this conversation? That if someone broke into your home and stole your shotgun and then shot someone with it you were liable?

Insurance generally protects us from financially significant losses due to accidents or unintentional acts.


Your very assertion here that ties gun owner liability insurance to preventing "criminals and crazies" from getting a weapon doesn't make any sense and is the sort of punitive nonsense directed at law abiding gun owners, which has nothing to do with lowering the incidence of gun violence and everything to do with making gun ownership prohibitively expensive and financially onerous.


To tie your call for liability insurance for law abiding gun owners to the future unknowable acts of "criminals and crazies" who procure those weapons through the commission of a criminal act (burglary/theft) in the first place is laughable...


This is the same sort of thinking that has been extrapolated out to the nth degree in that now there are some people calling for the legal seller of a weapon (gun shop owner, etc.) to carry liability insurance to "pay" for any illegal acts or injury committed by any buyer and/or weapon sold and used in the commission of a crime in the future...madness


In this same vein are the ammunition taxes that some states have contemplated, which would cause the price of ammunition to rise astronomically and be cost prohibitive for many law abiding gun owners to buy in any meaningful quantities (Massachusetts: 25% tax; Maryland: 50% tax, etc.).

So who would determine the rates for this "liability" insurance? Will it be required on each weapon or the whole collection?

Do I get a discount if I only have 10-round mags, and do I have to pay more to own 15, 20, or 30-round mags?

Is it dependent on where I live, what state, what neighborhood I live in - high crime or low crime rate? Will my costs be prorated (adjusted) to cover other areas of the country as flood and hurricane insurance is done?

Is a .22 less than .223, or a .38 less than a .357-Magnum?

If they are all locked up in a GSA approved class III or IV safe bolted to the ground do I get a 10% discount yearly? Multi-Weapon discount? Discounts for military service, law enforcement training or classes taught by other professionals?

This whole idea is ludicrous and flies in the face of Constitutional rights.

Dozer you are making the argument that freely owning the weapons one can afford is a privilege and not a right.

The courts have agreed and supported that an individual has the inaliable right to self-defense under the reasonableness standard of law. Therefore "liability" rests with the court decision to find a person guilty or not guilty of a crime. It does not however protect a person from civil liability and he may be on the hook for any and all damages incurred to the victim or property.

Which only logically means that someone who choses to carry outside the home a gun for personal defense or professionally should invest in personal liability insurance should the need arise. A home owner protecting his castle should not be burdened by such nonsense as laws and doctrine are well established to provide the protections necessary for the homeowner or renter.

I just can't see where you are going with forcing otherwise law abiding people with another hurdle to jump over to exercise a right granted in the BOR.

I'm fed up with paying auto insurance for five different vehicles when I, or my wife can only operate one or two at the same time while the others sit patiently by waiting for their turn to be operated. It's the same racketeering that would be used if something like this would be passed in legislation by lobbyists for the insurance companies and foisted upon an unsuspecting populace. Give an inch and soon it will be unaffordable to own or possess any weapons by the common man. And then you will have created - the uninsured firearms owner...which means all the others will pay extra to cover the costs of all criminal use of a gun.

JMHO

OR:

We should make our elected officials carry liability insurance in case they SCREW UP the country.

OOPS! No one wold underwrite that one. :D

Better yet make everyone who doesn't have a gun in their home carry liability insurance. Then make them liable when someone breaks in their house and beats the crap out of them or worse and that person/persons get away with it. Once they get away with it the offending individuals are going to do the same thing to someone else most likely and they should be liable for that right?.

Locking a firearm is prudent and practical.
Insuring for liability is prudent but not practicable.

Were having a Humphrey Bogart - Claude Raines moment.Dusty is ri. . . correct. Oh heck he's Right too.

Well said, BKK and ODNT.

This is merely another step in the march toward making firearms ownership unaffordable for all but the very wealthy, and the eventual total disarmament of the American people.

TR