Two entirely different legal standards illustrated:
Strict liability versus negligence.
We sometimes see calls for a strict liability standard to be applied to firearms ownership.
Strict liability:
Quote:
|
...the gun-owner assumes complete financial liability for the damage they cause or that their gun causes in the hands of someone else.
|
Negligence:
Quote:
|
If they are stolen but you have them secured with a lock you have acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent misuse. I think it would be reasonable to assume the lock works. If the crazy steals the locked weapon and defeats the lock it would be wrong to hold a law-abiding gun-owner liable.
|
Strict liability versus negligence.
Not a treatise -- just a summary for illustration purposes:
The distinction is, however, important because some anti-gun commentators and members of the press blur the significant difference intentionally. Others, do so simply due to lack of knowledge.
Absolute liability with or without fault -- versus -- due care and a reasonableness standard.
Under a strict liability regime, if you duly lock your rifle in a gun safe, located in your locked, alarmed home, removed the firing pin - and your rifle is stolen by a crackhead and sold multiple times to multiple bad guys, and it ends up in the hands of the BATF, who then transfer your rifle to Mexican drug lords...and that rifle...your rifle, which was disabled, locked in a safe, inside your home, protected by an alarm but was, unfortunately, stolen by a crackhead, transferred multiple times, ending up in BATF hands, subsequently transferred to Mexican drug lords a la Fast and Furious and -- ultimately -- your rifle is used to harm someone...YOU ARE LIABLE.
In contrast, under a negligence standard a jury might be asked, among other things, to determine whether you used reasonable precautions in the example above, to safeguard your weapon. And, in today's world, there is still probably a small horde of hungry personal injury lawyers lined up to take the case on a contingent fee basis and either make a name or a small fortune or both -- at your expense. But, at least under a negligence standard of fault -- you have a system that should insulate you from civil liability (but, unfortunately, maybe not financial ruin, disaster and bankruptcy because of the legal costs required to mount an adequate defense).
Which system makes more sense for holding an owner of a firearm liable for misuse? Strict liability or a negligence standard?
You make the call.