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

[panamaican]

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.

And if you read my post, it said outside of a few exceptions.

 

[panamaican]

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!

No, they don't. The bar owner isn't the one selling drinks, that's the bartender but the liability is on the bar owner who might not even be there that day. The driver who hits a pedestrian never meets the ambulance driver. He might see the EMT or the paramedic but that isn't necessarily the driver.

 

[rob mafia]

And if you read my post, it said outside of a few exceptions.

every gun is registered somewhere to someone.

please cite the exception in that post.

 

[panamaican]

please cite the exception in that post.

I was speaking broadly to someone else, we weren't going into the weeds. Once you decided we were being specific, I got specific.

I don't run around parsing every word until someone decides that's how they want to communicate. If that's what you want then I'm fine with it.

Of course, I preceded that statement with " if those are legally purchased firearms", when your argument is including people who manufactured their own firearms. If we're parsing every sentence, you should do the same.

 

[rob mafia]

I was speaking broadly to someone else, we weren't going into the weeds. Once you decided we were being specific, I got specific.

I don't run around parsing every word until someone decides that's how they want to communicate. If that's what you want then I'm fine with it.

the lawyer, ladies and gentlemen. words don't matter much when regarding law... which... was the subject/context.

 

[panamaican]

the lawyer, ladies and gentlemen. words don't matter much when regarding law... which... was the subject/context.

Of course, I preceded that statement with " if those are legally purchased firearms", when your argument is including people who manufactured their own firearms. If we're parsing every sentence, you should do the same.

 

[rob mafia]

Of course, I preceded that statement with " if those are legally purchased firearms", when your argument is including people who manufactured their own firearms. If we're parsing every sentence, you should do the same.

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.


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.

weird, that phrase is not there, at all.

it's as if you're just making shit up or something.

also, it's as if there are legally purchased firearms with no record. oh, wait. there are. and i already mentioned that...

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

weird, that phrase is not there, at all.

it's as if you're just making shit up or something.

also, it's as if there are legally purchased firearms with no record. oh, wait. there are. and i already mentioned that...

I'm starting to wonder if the whole lawyer thing is just a LARP. Trotsky was shown to be a LARP. Perhaps......

 

[RogerB08]

Its really funny that all these people who think they need a gun everywhere they go because the boogieman is around every corner are the same ones that pushed back on wearing a mask during a pandemic because "I refuse to live in fear."

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Its really funny that all these people who think they need a gun everywhere they go because the boogieman is around every corner are the same ones that pushed back on wearing a mask during a pandemic because "I refuse to live in fear."

That's the beauty of freedom.

People being free means sometimes they are going to make a decision you don't agree with.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[44nutman]

My gun has a gun, so jokes on the criminal. My gun can protect itself with its own gun. My arms bears arms. I can leave it anywhere because its fully protected.

 

[Ophydian]

That's almost as bad as, "see how short her skirt was, she asked for it". It's the same line of thinking.

No, I am not responsible if my legally owned gun is stolen from my legally bought and locked car by criminals.

This analogy would fit if I raped someone else because you wore a short skirt. Or if I stole the gun from your car and killed you. You are missing a key point here, a 3rd party suffers from your negligence.

 

[RogerB08]

That's the beauty of freedom.

People being free means sometimes they are going to make a decision you don't agree with.

Different strokes for different folks.

It's that they don't even see the contradiction.

 

[Natural Order]

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.

Is this only because the original act was deemed "negligent"? As in drunk driving?

Would the same liability be in place for an accident to which you were on the receiving end? Does the fact that the ambulance is speeding negate any liability in either scenario?

 

[Natural Order]

Why would the logic of having them stolen from your car not also apply equally to your home? If somebody breaks into your house and steals your things, clearly you weren't properly thinking ahead and are somehow responsible.

HONK!

 

[MMAisGod]

This analogy would fit if I raped someone else because you wore a short skirt. Or if I stole the gun from your car and killed you. You are missing a key point here, a 3rd party suffers from your negligence.

There's nothing "negligent" about me following the law. It is perfectly legal to leave a gun in a closed glove compartment. If you have issues with citizens following the law, that sounds like something to take up with a politician.

What you're trying to say is the person who was a victim of a crime, is responsible for what was stolen. Do you understand how absurd that logic is? I have had money stolen from my glove compartment when I was younger. If someone used that money to buy drugs for their girlfriend who died of an OD, I'm not responsible for that in any way.

A burglary into someone's car or house is a felony. The only guilty person is the one committing the crime.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

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.

No kidding, dude. We understand how the process works. No clue how you think that needs explained. What's being pointed out to you is that the chain of ownership through 4473s breaks down where there are no registries (i.e. most states), and no background checks required for private sales (i.e. a large number of states). The estimates I've seen are 25-40% of sales are conducted without checks.

Why point that out? Because you seem to think that in these jurisdictions that being the last name on the 4473 chain is sufficient evidence to prosecute someone for not reporting a firearm theft when the gun is found in someone else's possession. Whereas a basic understanding of the law would lead any reasonable person to conclude that someone's claim to having legally sold the gun is believable because it's commonly done.

Beyond that, Rob is pointing out that people can legally manufacture guns for themselves, and dispose of/transfer these guns under state law. The federal requirement of a serial number does not apply. Nor is there any federal requirement for a background check. While that's been rare historically, it's becoming far less so with the advent of polymer frames and 80% lowers. Hence the hubbub over the Polymer80 buy, build, shoot kits that got them raided. Feds are scrambling to maintain control. But big changes are coming with the rise of 3D printing.

 

[Ophydian]

There's nothing "negligent" about me following the law. It is perfectly legal to leave a gun in a closed glove compartment. If you have issues with citizens following the law, that sounds like something to take up with a politician.

What you're trying to say is the person who was a victim of a crime, is responsible for what was stolen. Do you understand how absurd that logic is? I have had money stolen from my glove compartment when I was younger. If someone used that money to buy drugs for their girlfriend who died of an OD, I'm not responsible for that in any way.

A burglary into someone's car or house is a felony. The only guilty person is the one committing the crime.

No, I am commenting on your analogy, nothing more.

When I meant your, I didn't explicitly mean you.

 

[woodguyatl]

The person doing the theft is always the one at fault. The only place you should not leave you gun is where it could be accidentally accessed by small children who don't know any better. If someone breaks into your car, even unlocked, that's on them. People these days want to blame everyone except the criminals.

They shouldn't have been drunk and dressed provocatively when they stored the gun in the glovebox.

 

[Ophydian]

They shouldn't have been drunk and dressed provocatively when they stored the gun in the glovebox.

Of their unlocked car.