Crime What is the thought process behind unattended guns in gloveboxes?

[panamaican]

I don't. Though I would if leaving a gun in it.




That's incorrect. Very few states have a registry. So tracing a firearm will mostly rely on the trail of form 4473s, which is what people fill out when purchasing from a licensed dealer and getting a background check. When sales are conducted privately they are subject to state laws only. Those vary greatly, and a sizable percentage of states require no background check. So if I buy new from a dealer and sell to some guy who answered my Armslist ad then the trail goes cold with no record of their personal information.

If I'm going to be punished for having been victimized by theft then for sure I sold the gun in a private sale and kept no record of the buyer. Sorry, pigs. Bye.

And the last known buyer is going to be the person to whom liability is attributed.

So you can walk into court and say "I sold it." The attorney on the other side will say "We don't believe you. I have proof that you acquired it but there's no proof you transferred it." And you can leave it in the hands of the jury or the judge to decide how credible they think you are.

 

[panamaican]

Also how he just makes some funny points.

Like if you want gun control again then have a mass movement of african americans owning firearms. That scares legislators who are white to take action. He also says that school shooting drills just tell all the places to hide to a possible school shooter and how school shooters are sitting in class hearing all the emergency plans so it defeats the purpose. And how odd it is that at every parent teacher meeting statiatically one of the parents will have a kid who is a school shooter. A symptom of the sickness of our society "not my kid"

Yeah, I'd seen it before. The 2A thing is something that I joke about offline. That most of the most vocal 2A open carry proponents suddenly forget their support when it's the wrong people walking down the street with the firearm. Or how their 2A positions should protect them from 4A violations while not holding that position for others.

I stand behind the 2A but there's a lot of doublespeak out there when it comes to practical application.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

And the last known buyer is going to be the person to whom liability is attributed.

So you can walk into court and say "I sold it." The attorney on the other side will say "We don't believe you. I have proof that you acquired it but there's no proof you transferred it." And you can leave it in the hands of the jury or the judge to decide how credible they think you are.

Or not, because that'll be a waste of taxpayer dollars so prosecutors wouldn't be bringing these charges. Not only is it reasonable to believe someone sold a firearm, the prosecution would have no evidence that the gun was stolen from you due to negligent storage. lol at this guilty until proven innocent approach and the state assuming a crime took place.

 

[blaseblah]

My mind is blown by the fact that people don't lock their cars.

Depends where you live. I live in a safe neighborhood where I could leave my house and car unlocked with little worry. However if I go to certain cities I can't leave any bag or backpack in a locked car or my windows will be broken.

 

[blaseblah]

Also how he just makes some funny points.

Like if you want gun control again then have a mass movement of african americans owning firearms. That scares legislators who are white to take action.

Like when Reagan and Republicans enacted gun control in California because the Black Panthers were arming themselves.

 

[panamaican]

Or not, because that'll be a waste of taxpayer dollars so prosecutors wouldn't be bringing these charges. Not only is it reasonable to believe someone sold a firearm, the prosecution would have no evidence that the gun was stolen from you due to negligent storage. lol at this guilty until proven innocent approach and the state assuming a crime took place.

No, it won't be a waste of taxpayer dollars. They're already prosecuting the primary criminal. They're going to have to establish that the gun was in the criminal's possession, that he didn't acquire through legal channels, etc. to convict the criminal.

And liability can be both civil and criminal. The family of the deceased will certainly have an incentive to pursue a wrongful death civil action.

You want to know the easiest way to avoid liability, present evidence that you transferred the weapon to another person legally and they are person who negligently secured it, not you. Or that you properly secured your firearm and thus haven't breached any of your legal responsibilities to society. Because without that, you're the last known owner of the weapon. That's not "guilty until proven innocent", that's what you're signing off on when you acquire the weapon in the first place, that you are a responsible gun owner. You take on that duty at the moment of acquisition and it doesn't disappear just because the individual doesn't feel like it anymore.

I'm against gun restrictions but doesn't mean that we sign off on negligent behavior if and when it occurs.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

No, it won't be a waste of taxpayer dollars. They're already prosecuting the primary criminal. They're going to have to establish that the gun was in the criminal's possession, that he didn't acquire through legal channels, etc. to convict the criminal.

What are you talking about? What is this supposed criminal getting charged with exactly? Not theft, since the gun in question wasn't reported stolen. Maybe your last use of the word "criminal" is referring to the person you wish to charge for being the victim of theft? In that case then you're agreeing with me and what you say below about assuming the guilt of the last guy who filled out a 4473 is insufficient.

You want to know the easiest way to avoid liability, present evidence that you transferred the weapon to another person legally and they are person who negligently secured it, not you. Or that you properly secured your firearm and thus haven't breached any of your legal responsibilities to society. Because without that, you're the last known owner of the weapon. That's not "guilty until proven innocent", that's what you're signing off on when you acquire the weapon in the first place, that you are a responsible gun owner. You take on that duty at the moment of acquisition and it doesn't disappear just because the individual doesn't feel like it anymore.

You're making up a legal responsibility that doesn't exist in the jurisdictions that require no record keeping on private sales. Requiring someone prove they transferred ownership in order to avoid prosecution, because you assume as fact that that person was the last legal owner, is absolutely a matter of guilty until proven innocent. And again, you're assuming a crime took place (i.e. that the transfer resulted from an unreported theft).

Seems like you're saying all this rather than admit you thought all guns were registered, which was your initial claim.

 

[panamaican]

What are you talking about? What is this supposed criminal getting charged with exactly? Not theft, since the gun in question wasn't reported stolen. Maybe your last use of the word "criminal" is referring to the person you wish to charge for being the victim of theft? In that case then you're agreeing with me and what you say below about assuming the guilt of the last guy who filled out a 4473 is insufficient.

Sounds like you've lost the train of the conversation. Here is what I was responding to when you replied to me: At the same time though you make that law and people stop reporting gun theft.

What crime? Some variation of criminal negligence.

Negligence for what? For how they secured their firearm. Not very different from child access prevention laws.

You're making up a legal responsibility that doesn't exist in the jurisdictions that require no record keeping on private sales. Requiring someone prove they transferred ownership in order to avoid prosecution, because you assume as fact that that person was the last legal owner, is absolutely a matter of guilty until proven innocent. And again, you're assuming a crime took place (i.e. that the transfer resulted from an unreported theft).

Seems like you're saying all this rather than admit you thought all guns were registered, which was your initial claim.

I never said the last person was the last legal owner.. You said that all by your lonesome. What I said is that liability should attach to the gun owner and that every gun is registered somewhere to someone. Someone =/= last legal owner.

You then made the claim that not every state has a registry or requires background checks. I never made that point because it doesn't matter. When the firearm is first purchased, someone had to purchase it from a manufacturer or a distributor. There would be a record. It doesn't matter that the subsequent sales weren't filed. We simply go back to the first owner and hold them liable. Then it becomes their issue to produce evidence that they properly transferred possession and/or ownership. No one needs a registry to produce evidence that they sold it to someone else. And, frankly, if there's a potential liability issue people are going to start keeping records, if only to make sure that they don't get caught up in someone else's bs.

You might say - how? Well we do this with automobiles all of the time. You don't need ID to buy a used car and you don't have to officially transfer title into your name (you do have to do this before you drive it on public roads but you don't have to drive it there, you can just own it and use it in your private yard). But sellers tend to do what they're supposed to do because if they don't and the car gets into an accident or a crime, they don't want to be on the hook for a vehicle they no longer control. They take the steps to protect themselves from future liability.

The same simply principle can be applied to gun ownership. You don't have to request ID from the buyer and you don't have to register it. But if you're the last person on the chain of ownership but no longer have possession then you might want some proof of that.

 

[Dan O]

My boss keeps a .45 and two back up mags strapped below the steering column in plain view for fast access in the work truck. He has a CWP and regularly gets to the range to make sure he’s a competent shooter/operator. He’s one of the nicest and most humble human beings ive ever met and he has even had times where he had to put himself in the ready position for quick draw on two occasions.

Usually, when you need a firearm you need it right now, not after you reach in the glovebox and fiddle fuck a safe open.

No Way that I’m telling that dude to not have his firearm in his car in case someone feels like committing a crime and stealing it.

If you’re dumb enough to cover the back of your truck with AK 47 and Glock stickers then I don’t really have a lot of pity for you when your car piece gets jacked. But should Immediately report it because that firearm will probably be used in a crime eventually.

 

[djacobox372]

My boss keeps a .45 and two back up mags strapped below the steering column in plain view for fast access in the work truck. He has a CWP and regularly gets to the range to make sure he’s a competent shooter/operator. He’s one of the nicest and most humble human beings ive ever met and he has even had times where he had to put himself in the ready position for quick draw on two occasions.

Usually, when you need a firearm you need it right now, not after you reach in the glovebox and fiddle fuck a safe open.

No Way that I’m telling that dude to not have his firearm in his car in case someone feels like committing a crime and stealing it.

If you’re dumb enough to cover the back of your truck with AK 47 and Glock stickers then I don’t really have a lot of pity for you when your car piece gets jacked. But should Immediately report it because that firearm will probably be used in a crime eventually.

This is why I wish conservatives would stop blocking the advent of smart-guns... it's the best of both worlds: a gun you can get at fast but nobody else can use... and to those that are afraid of the government deactivating your smart gun... that's why you have another gun as backup.

 

[Dan O]

This is why I wish conservatives would stop blocking the advent of smart-guns... it's the best of both worlds: a gun you can get at fast but nobody else can use... and to those that are afraid of the government deactivating your smart gun... that's why you have another gun as backup.

My man, I’d loving nothing more than a Judge Dredd DNA style coded safety firearm to exist. If you can somehow ensure that it’s hardwired and cannot be affected after matching to the operator I think that would be one of the best things ever. As we saw in the video evidence, data was manipulated and the trial was a farce.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This is why I wish conservatives would stop blocking the advent of smart-guns... it's the best of both worlds: a gun you can get at fast but nobody else can use... and to those that are afraid of the government deactivating your smart gun... that's why you have another gun as backup.

Let's see police forces adopt the tech and we can track the results.

 

[rob mafia]

That most of the most vocal 2A open carry proponents suddenly forget their support when it's the wrong people walking down the street with the firearm.

bullshit hath been called.

not just pro-2a, but open carry based groups here were actively working with the pink pistols and black guns matter and etc.

OC activists are a special breed and i have yet to see even one do what you accused of. out of... gazillions.

for full disclosure, i generally find the OC activists to be annoying... with certain caveats (ie: where laws are stupid so they have to open carry because it's the only legal way). but 95% of them just wanted basically everyone to have guns (often including felons/prohibited), and about half of them thought there should be no gun laws.

also

I stand behind the 2A but

lolz

edit: but wait, there's more!

I'm against gun restrictions but

edit 2:

What I said is that liability should attach to the gun owner and that every gun is registered somewhere to someone. Someone =/= last legal owner.

ffs, this is just factually incorrect. and embarrassingly so. are you actually a lawyer?

When the firearm is first purchased, someone had to purchase it from a manufacturer or a distributor. There would be a record.

not only is this untrue, but many guns were NEVER registered/recorded. on top of old guns that predate the 4473/etc, it's perfectly legal to manufacture your own - with zero record of shit.

you factually don't know what you're talking about.


edit 127: and for the lulz, here's my favorite gun build of all time... building an ak from a shovel. (gallery)

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

you factually don't know what you're talking about.

Cold day in Hell he admits to something like that. His truth is that you've misunderstood due to your own shortcomings or ignorance. Best of luck here.

 

[panamaican]

Cold day in Hell he admits to something like that. His truth is that you've misunderstood due to your own shortcomings or ignorance. Best of luck here.

I admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong. But most of the time, you guys spend it trying to get to me to agree to positions that I never made rather that the positions that I did take. Like you and the registry thing earlier.

 

[panamaican]

ffs, this is just factually incorrect. and embarrassingly so. are you actually a lawyer?

You're making the same mistake he is because you're not going back far enough in the chain of ownership. A manufacturer makes the gun. When they, the manufacturer, sell it the buyer is a FFL dealer. Then the FFL dealer has to keep a record when the dealer sells it. The subsequent sellers might not keep records but the FFL dealer has one.

Outside of a few exceptions, that's how the chain of title begins.

You and he are thinking about the sales after the firearm has entered the private market stream of commerce and when varying state law dictates record keeping. I'm talking about the first sale from the FFL dealer where federal law dictates record keeping. Outside of a few exceptions, there's a record of when a manufacturer sells to an FFL dealer. And there's a record for when a firearm left a FFL dealer's possession for the first time.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

It's always fascinating to me how little people know about their legal system. If you want a parallel, look at Dram Shop Acts or social host liability.

In those situations, you end up partly culpable (usually civilly, occasionally criminally) if you serve alcohol to someone and they leave your place drunk and hit or kill someone drunk driving. So, criminal or civil liability for the actions of someone who is a stranger. There are others but that's the most common and easily understood.

And we do this because we hold people responsible for the foreseeable outcomes of their actions that they could have prevented with a reasonable exercise of care.

Here's another example: You negligently hit someone with your car. The ambulance comes and gets them. While speeding to the hospital, the ambulance hits a child and injures the child. You're liable for the injuries to the child too. You're not driving the ambulance but you're still liable.

Hence the usage of the term "complete stranger" in my post.

In your examples, the two individuals in question have some (even if only a small amount) of firsthand knowledge of eachother.

Nice try though!

Better luck next time.

 

[panamaican]

Hence the usage of the term "complete stranger" in my post.

In your examples, the two individuals in question have some (even if only a small amount) of firsthand knowledge of eachother.

Nice try though!

Better luck next time.

My examples were complete strangers. What are you talking about?

The driver who hits the pedestrian is a complete stranger to the ambulance driver who hits the child. The owner of the bar is a complete stranger to the random individual who bought 10 beers in a 30 minute window. In both cases, the car driver and the bar owner are liable for the actions of complete strangers - the ambulance driver and the bar customer.

 

[rob mafia]

You're making the same mistake he is because you're not going back far enough in the chain of ownership. A manufacturer makes the gun. When they, the manufacturer, sell it the buyer is a FFL dealer. Then the FFL dealer has to keep a record when the dealer sells it. The subsequent sellers might not keep records but the FFL dealer has one.

holy shit, did you even read the post you quoted? like, at all?

1. ANYONE (well, aside from prohibited persons) can manufacture their own firearm. ffs, i even linked someone making an ak from a freakin' shovel. no ffl. no seller.
2. there are plenty that are exempt from this - and ALWAYS were. ie: never recorded. from ones that pre-dated 4473s to black powder revolvers (which can be legally converted to fire .45 rounds with a simple cylinder change)

it's comical how you claim to be a lawyer and then post outright false bullshit - regarding legality.

I admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

My examples were complete strangers. What are you talking about?

The driver who hits the pedestrian is a complete stranger to the ambulance driver who hits the child. The owner of the bar is a complete stranger to the random individual who bought 10 beers in a 30 minute window. In both cases, the car driver and the bar owner are liable for the actions of complete strangers - the ambulance driver and the bar customer.

Nope, wrong.

In both instances they now have firsthand knowledge of eachother.

The driver now has firsthand knowledge of the person they hit, how the sequence of events plays out from there and who's responsible is for the courts to decide.

The bartender has been personally serving the customer. In both instances firsthand knowledge is established.

Glad I could clear that up for you!