How to defend your home defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is not required by law in many places to secure your firearm, other then for children.

There are plenty of cheap shotguna under beds, so to spesk,I suspect.
 
The law may very well not say anything about securing guns, but there are a good portion of states (last time I did research, I don't have a reference) that do have laws in response to a stolen firearm being used in a crime. Which would suggest that the law would say "Keep your firearm secured" but the law only states "if it's yours and it got used, it's your fault". So if you can prove you put a reasonable attempt to secure it, a jury or judge could say that you did your best to prevent it's theft and you can be released from responsiblity. Is hiding it good enough? Probably not. Is a trigger lock secure enough? Depends on the jury. A quick access safe? I would wager the vast majority would say that is clear evidence of a more than reasonable attempt to secure it. Anything beyond that would be obvious.
 
Didn't the supreme court rule in DC V Heller that guns kept in the home didn't have to be secured because the self defense rule meant the gun had to be in usable condition and easily accessible?

From Justice Antonin Scalia:
"...and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment."

The entire dissertation can be found here.
 
Anyone know of any actual cases where the owner of a stolen handgun was charged when it was used in a crime?

Loyola Law Professor discusses theft of a gun from an unsecured car in Louisiana here:

Loyola law professor Blaine LeCesne weighed in on the question of liability. Could a citizen be found legally responsible in a lawsuit that stemmed from a victim injured by a gun stolen from an unlocked car or a vehicle taken after the keys were left inside?

If the gun is used to intentionally commit a crime, to kill or injure someone, the court will not impose civil liability on the gun owner for the acts of a third person. Again, under the proximate cause doctrine, the actions of the thief would supersede the negligence of the gun owner, cutting off his liability, LeCesne said.

The courts, he said, generally view the shooting another person as unforeseeable act for a lawful gun owner who simply forgot to secure their weapon. "It's unfair and unjust to hold that person responsible," LeCesne said.

But a gun owner could find him or herself in court if the stolen gun is negligently discharged. LeCesne described it as any subsequent use of the gun that injures because of lack of reasonable care: sticky-fingered kids goofing around, someone picking up the weapon and accidently pulling the trigger or a fumbling thief who doesn't know how to use a gun.

The question is whether the gun owner could have reasonably foreseen that the weapon could accidently harm someone if left unsecured. It's similar to leaving a gun lying around in the open. "It's more likely or more foreseeable that that kind of action could happen," LeCesne said.

But many other variables would come into play if the courts attempt to decide legal responsibility. Was the gun left in a place where it was easily accessible to be stolen? Was it in a car in front of the gun owner's house? Was it in a very high crime area or across the street from a school?

In short, if the gun is used negligently, a gun owner may end up in court. But if the gun is used intentionally and criminally, the owner isn't responsible.
Click to expand...

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/11/how_liable_is_the_owner_of_a_s.html
 
Last edited:
There is the fact that the gun was in a home. As long as the home was locked up the gun was inherently locked up as well. There is no room for negligence in that case.

If your car is stolen, locked or not, in a garage or not, are you held responsible if it is stolen and used in a crime or if it is involved in an accident? NO! You are only responsible if you give permission for its use.

You can't be responsible for the criminal acts of another unless you willingly and knowingly give aid before or after the fact.
 
ShootistPRS said:
Didn't the supreme court rule in DC V Heller that guns kept in the home didn't have to be secured because the self defense rule meant the gun had to be in usable condition and easily accessible?...
Click to expand...
The short answer is "no." That's not the issue being addressed in Heller and would have no bearing on a negligence claim based on some unauthorized person getting access to an unsecured gun.

45_auto said:
Anyone know of any actual cases where the owner of a stolen handgun was charged when it was used in a crime?

Loyola Law Professor discusses theft of a gun from an unsecured car in Louisiana here:...
Click to expand...
Which is somewhat inconsistent with what the Montana appellate court said in Estate of Strever v. Cline, 278 Mont. 165 (Mont., 1995) regarding the standard of care with respect to the storage of a firearm (see post 10).

ShootistPRS said:
There is the fact that the gun was in a home. As long as the home was locked up the gun was inherently locked up as well. There is no room for negligence in that case.....
Click to expand...
Really? Can you cite some actual law on point, or are you just making stuff up?

Once again, a negligent act which results in the injury or death of another can subject the actor to civil liability to compensate the person who was injured. Negligence in law is basically:
A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
Click to expand...
Negligence is generally a question for a jury. If one is sued for damages base on an injury allegedly arising from his negligence the jury will need to decide, after all the evidence about what took place and what everyone said or did is presented whether the defendant acted as a reasonable and prudent person would in the same situation.

There are cases in which an intervening act cut off liability, but whether an intervening act will do so, and under what circumstances it will do so, depends on the applicable case law in the relevant jurisdiction. Without doing the appropriate research, it's not possible to make categorical statements about a gun owner's civil liability if an unauthorized person gets access to an unsecured gun.
 
It might be negligent to leave a gun in certain places where it could be picked up and be involved in an accidental shooting but In a locked home? Stolen and used intentionally in a crime? Where does negligence come to play in the purposeful use of deadly force?

Is it possible in the anti-gun, fear mongering, society in which we live that someone could bring charges or a law suit? Sure! Is it likely that such a process would be successful? I thoroughly doubt it. Is it possible? All things are possible. After all if they were able to break into your house and break into your safe it is apparent that you didn't do enough to protect the public from the criminal act of theft of a firearm and the resulting death of a shop owner by the guy who bought your gun from the thief. Is that a likely scenario? I don't think so but you have every right to disagree.
 
.... Stolen and used intentionally in a crime? Where does negligence come to play in the purposeful use of deadly force?...
Click to expand...

In other words you can't cite any law and are just making things up.

The point of the exercise is to understand what the applicable law is, the scope of the legal risks, and the utility of one's options, and, with that information, make what one hopes will be wise choices. On one hand we have the unattended gun left out on the table. On the other hand we have the unattended gun secured in a safe or lockbox. The former is unlikely to be considered reasonable and prudent. The latter is very likely to pass muster as reasonable and prudent. Somewhere between those extremes? No one knows.

That's it in a nutshell. Do as you like. Your fate is not my concern.
 
Going to tell me some breaks in stieals my booze, drives off and kills someone I am going to prison?

Maybe CA or NY, NJ. Not even sure there.


It is illegal to break into homes. Liberals place blame on victim.
 
Berserker said:
Going to tell me some breaks in stieals my booze, drives off and kills someone I am going to prison?...
Click to expand...

If you read and tried to understand the discussion, it's not about going to prison. It's about possible civil liability for money damages. And that sort of question is much harder to answer.
 
Basically what Frank said. According to my CCW class: penal code is pretty cut and dry (relatively speaking). Civil code is much more gray.

I would guess that if you could prove some sort of attempt to protect your gun beyond just a locked door, that would convince a jury that you did enough to help protect it. Whilst stealing is illegal and using a stolen item in a crime is doubly illegal, civil code is weird. There was a lawsuit a while back (cannot think of the name or time frame, if someone remembers please help me out) where a thief brought suit against a home owner OF THE HOME HE WAS ROBBING for medical charges for injuries sustained whilst he was committing the crime. I do not remember the outcome of such a suit, but the fact that it was attempted in the first place is nuts.
 
It's really no wonder that people aren't fond of lawyers.
An attorney would attempt to make you liable in any way possible if he were representing someone suing you.
And, if he's slick enough-he just might convince a jury of idiots that you are liable.
Isn't that what you are trying to convey in lay terms, Frank?

Tell us what would happen if someone stole your baseball bat or masonic sword......
 
Bill DeShivs said:
....An attorney would attempt to make you liable in any way possible if he were representing someone suing you.
And, if he's slick enough-he just might convince a jury of idiots that you are liable....
Click to expand...

It is what it is. You're free to live in a fantasy world, if you wish. Of course there might be consequences.

Or you can take the time and trouble to learn how things work in the real world and try to make intelligent choices based on reality.
 
What is untrue about my statement?
And what about the other weapons?

BTW- if the lawyer WAS able to convince the jury that you were somehow responsible for someone else's actions, or if he were able to make YOUR attorney think he might win the case- the two attorneys sit down and figure out how much of your money will be awarded to the plaintiff. Usually 1/3 of your money will go to the plaintiff's attorney-sometimes more. :eek:
Am I correct?

Frank, I spent 40 years in the criminal justice and court system. I know how the system works-and often times it's just plain wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top