What Would Happen if the Tiarht Amendment Was Repealed?

[cold dead hands]

I read the OP and went no farther.

Would you want your (previously owned and sold) car to traced to you so that the victim (or the surviving family) of a driving drunk could sue you for providing (unknowingly) a method of (very effective) homicide even though you did not push the gas pedal and you did your best to weed out any possibility of a sale to a bad motorist?

Now, do you really think killing Tihart is a good idea?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I read the OP and went no farther.

read post #18 please.

Would you want your (previously owned and sold) car to traced to you so that the victim (or the surviving family) of a driving drunk could sue you for providing (unknowingly) a method of (very effective) homicide even though you did not push the gas pedal and you did your best to weed out any possibility of a sale to a bad motorist?

Is that what you think repealing Tiahrt would bring on? Why did that not happen before 2003 or did it?

Now, do you really think killing Tihart is a good idea?

Never said it was a good idea.

 

[cold dead hands]

read post #18 please.

Ok. I get what you are asking.

The short of the long is that our current form of government is going to stick it gun owners any way they can.

If they can cause one person to be afraid of BUYING and (maybe) selling a gun for fear of a frivolous lawsuit that will cost time and money (and most certainly defamation of character in the news) they have taken one more baby step in the disarming of the populace.

It goes like this on the nightly news...

"Tonight. A family man was shot and killed. We learned that the GUN was originally owned by Person A who decided to upgrade. He sold it Person B. Person B had a Friend who wanted to sell it Person C. Person C trusted his friend and his friend had no clue that his perspective buyer was prohibited from owning a GUN".

"Person A now faces a bigillion dollar lawsuit by the victims survivors for originally putting the GUN on THE STREETS".

"Person B and Friend are also being sued for enabling a murderer".

Is this how you want an exchange of personal property to go down?

Whenever you ask about a gun issue and want a solid answer...substitute the word "car" for "gun"...and then ask again. It really becomes much clearer after that.

 

[TexasFats]

For what it is worth, the Fraternal Order of Police website stated that they were adamantly opposed to repeal of the Tihart Amendment when the issue came up last year. There reasons were that repeal would allow lawyers and grandstanding politicians to disclose information that might compromise ongoing investigations and that it might also put undercover officers at risk. Let me point out two further things. First, the Brady Campaign website completely misrepresented the FOP's position on the issue, saying that FOP wanted it repealed. Second, the FOP is composed of street cops, not police chiefs who serve at the whim of politicians and have to play the politicians' game to keep their job.

 

[44capnball]

I can think of no good reason to repeal it.

Given that the media routinely use all information available to them to cast gun ownership in a negative light (and some information that they just make up), why would they suddenly change their pattern, given the access to new data?

- Because it allows people to compile and publish lists of gun owners.

This is the one I'd most expect the media to do. If that info is public domain, there is nothing to stop a reporter with an agenda from using it toward that end.

It's bad enough the way the media behave when someone discovers a "cache" of "dangerous gunpowder"... a guy who reloads... and they sensationalize it as this terrible threat to the stability of some community. Even if no one has committed a crime.