Would like as many opinions on this as possible :)

[Painterman121212]

Generally speaking, and hopefully this won't be associated with the closed thread, even though there is a vague association with it.

But only in regards to a different subject matter brought up that I think is somewhat important. Well maybe not so much important, but I would like to hear some opinions on it. I do value this forum as having a very diverse membership.

I think I won't respond for a week or so and just let lots of people chime in and hopefully will get members that don't normally respond. Not just senior and well-established members (of course I want those as well) but women and others as well.

There seems to be a misconception (IMO) out there about others thinking that others should ALWAYS be informed when it comes to matters of firearms. That ultimate responsibility lies with the consumer / owner in understanding ALL the laws pertaining to them.

I come across it a lot and I read it a lot. On its own merit, when it's read on a website, it sounds awfully impressive.

"YOU should be more informed."

"It's YOUR job to be informed."

"Being informed is YOUR responsibility."

Now I will agree that firearms are kind of a special category, and so maybe being informed applies more so to a firearm than anything else. But that just may be that we are all biased in thinking so. There are probably numerous subjects that carry as much responsibility that we may not even be aware of.

But lets all be honest, laws on firearms at BEST, are deep, complex, and even attorneys have a hard time keeping up with it all, much less explaining it to people.

I don't think it subject matter that can simply be written off as "It's YOUR job to be informed" That applies to well seasoned owners.

Now factor in that we have a whole new breed of consumers, and I think it applies less and less. Back in my day, 25 years ago, there was a certain breed of individual that bought and owned guns.

In today's world, you have little old ladies and house wives running out buying a handgun. And they are probably not going to be any more informed about it, as they are about picking up groceries.

Now don't get me wrong here, don't misunderstand, as it could be VERY easy to do. I am NOT saying that it WOULDN'T be a GOOD thing to be informed.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE INFORMED.

I'm just saying that if you are not informed, that's not necessarily a bad thing either and can't simply be written off with "well, it's YOUR job to be informed."

I for one don't believe that as consumers, we should be expected to be informed about every single aspect of our life and every service we receive.

NONE of us can be informed about everything, we would all be Einstein's to have such a memory and possess such a broad and universal knowledge and expertise of every single thing we bought or used as consumers.

Where do you draw the line? Are we supposed to be informed about everything?

The lawn service we use? The electrician we picked? The blender we bought at Walmart? The dishwasher we bought at Lowe's? The firearms we bought at Academy?

Point I'm making is that most of us, every single day of our lives, rely on others, in all areas, to assist us as consumers. It's a given, it's a well accepted practice.

If you can walk into an electronics store and have a salesman advise you concerning your purchase, certainly, you should expect the same if not a much higher level of assistance in a gun store.

We let the "more advised" people behind and on the other side of the counter, lead us and we hope that the information they are giving us is correct.

So when you read this on a gun site it seems to hold water. But when you apply it to the other areas of life it leaks like a sieve.

And if it turns out that something goes wrong and someone complains about it, I don't think it's correct to automatically blame them because they weren't informed.

Some attorneys devote a full-time practice doing nothing more than practicing on gun laws. It's not as simple as it was anymore. It's too complex and people just don't have the time to sit down and learn it all!

And as such, I believe it is ever more important, even more important today than yesterday because of the new type consumers, that when they do purchase a gun, as much assistance as can be practical, is given to them as possible.

Generally speaking, what do you all think? Do you all agree or disagree that in today's complex world of gun laws, it's no longer acceptable to say "you should be informed"

Thanks!!!

 

[44 AMP]

Generally speaking, what do you all think? Do you all agree or disagree that in today's complex world of gun laws, it's no longer acceptable to say "you should be informed"

When you can get a court to state that ignorance of the law IS a valid defense, then I'll consider the validity of your arguments.

Yes, nearly EVERYTHING today is complex, requires study, and work to fully understand all aspects, but ultimately it is, and always has been your responsibility to understand what applies, and how.

There are some situations where the legal responsibility to inform you (the consumer) is clearly spelled out. A lot more than there used to be, which is one reason there are warning labels on so many things that didn't have them in the past.

In every situation where the law does not currently require someone else to ensure that you are "informed" then that responsibility is yours, and yours ALONE. Any and everything that results from your failure to understand, IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

 

[Koda94]

before you run off for a "week or so" can you paraphrase this down to maybe just a couple sentences?
I think if I get the gist of what your saying is that its ok for gun owners to not be informed about gun laws?


I would have to disagree with that.

 

[RoughDivider]

I'm with 44 AMP on this one, have fun with that felony you're headed towards if you don't know or understand gun laws, I have no sympathy for you.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I'm just saying that if you are not informed, that's not necessarily a bad thing...

Yes it is. If you mess up because you don't understand what the law is regarding a particular matter the consequences can be life altering. You don't get a Mulligan because you didn't know what you were doing.

...Are we supposed to be informed about everything?....

Let's put it this way: If you are dissatisfied with the way something works out, you still must bear the consequences.

If you're not informed, it's entirely possible that they will still let you into Heaven. But it's pretty much a certainty that your experiences here on Earth will be less satisfactory.

...we would all be Einstein's to have such a memory and possess such a broad and universal knowledge and expertise of every single thing we bought or used as consumers.....

True, as you sit there you can't be expect to know, off the top of your head, everything in the world. But you (1) need to know what you don't know; and (2) before you do something take the time and trouble to educate yourself about it.

Remember Bok's Law: If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

....even attorneys have a hard time keeping up with it all....

And we know that. But we have a secret -- we look things up and do research. In fact, I'll do some research even when I think I already know.

You don't have to be an attorney to take advantage of that secret.

 

[GunXpatriot]

Right, so you seem to be saying that "ignorance of the law is an excuse". Or at least that it is not an unreasonable one.

There are thousands upon thousands of laws on the books, especially when you consider federally, your home state, moving between states, local laws, etc, etc.

44 AMP, as much as I am a supporter of law and order, and would generally agree with you, that is oversimplifying the issue. It neglects the obvious difference between mala in se, and mala prohibita laws.

For example, there is a significant difference between a carjacking, and say... Not following a law that says something like... Your gun must be in a locked container, even when in a locked trunk during transport. I just made something up of course. Point being, there are crimes that are wrong in and of themselves, and there are crimes that are "wrong", merely because they are against the law.

In regards to gun laws. Yeah, with the huge penalty that some can carry, I'd want to be as informed as possible if I can help it. But if someone were to break the law without any kind of malice or plan to commit a crime, I really fail to see how their life should be ruined. I know I'm talking in generalities, but the system isn't perfect. Not to mention that the spirit of a particular law is not always the same as how it is enforced.

 

[olddav]

Generally speaking, what do you all think? Do you all agree or disagree that in today's complex world of gun laws, it's no longer acceptable to say "you should be informed"

Disagree, if I'm going to pay the price for my actions, then I am going to protect myself as best as I can by being informed.

 

[FrankenMauser]

Don't jump into the pool, unless you know what it's filled with.

 

[Koda94]

I think its doing a disservice to new gun owners, and gun rights, to not tell a new gun owner they should be informed of the laws.

 

[JohnKSa]

I'm just saying that if you are not informed, that's not necessarily a bad thing either and can't simply be written off with "well, it's YOUR job to be informed."

A person who is not informed (or who is misinformed) and breaks the law as a result won't get a free pass from the courts because of their ignorance of the law.

People don't have to be informed, but if they choose not to make the effort to be informed, they are risking a lot.

 

[Koda94]

and sometimes its not just about making a choice. I agree that gun laws are overwhelming, and that means that many people don't know simply because they are really just not aware. I think that fact is a notable difference between someone who actually chooses to not be informed.... which honestly I don't think anyone would if they actually were told.

Like I said, its doing that person and gun rights a disservice to not tell someone its their responsibility to be informed.

 

[K_Mac]

GunXpatriot you make an interesting point that some crimes are universal, and others can vary from place to place. While true, when it comes to gun laws that point may be moot. To use your example, transporting a firearm illegally in many places will get you cuffed and jailed just like the carjacker. You can argue that where you come from you are perfectly legal, and you didn't know. You may still have to convince a court that you're not guilty of a felony.

No thinking man would say that Federal and State gun laws are easy to understand. The Federal laws regarding possession and transfer are completely nuts in my opinion. The Federal, State, and local laws regarding carrying and use of firearms for self-defense are disparate and confusing. This means that it is important to do the research. Be wrong on this forum and you may get an infraction. Be wrong in Chicago or New York, or thousands of other places and you may be in real trouble.

 

[Scorch]

Many (too many) firearms owners have a very casual attitude towards their firearms. This includes maintenance, marksmanship, legalities, storage, handling, safety, you name it. They often act as if it is enough to own it so you can go out and make it go bang every time you get a hankering to do so. I cannot tell you how many times (as a gunsmith) I see people's startled looks when I check a firearm that was just handed to me and a round goes "clink" on the glass counter when I open it (or better yet, drop out a full magazine before I open the gun). I cannot tell you how many times I have been insulted and berated for telling someone that they just tried to shoot me a few hundred feet away from where they are casually shooting at a cardboard box or a row of beer cans. And it goes on and on. Wrong ammo, not maintaining their guns, muzzle sweeps with loaded guns, shooting over you from from behind you when hunting (I didn't shoot at you, I was shooting over there!). So people not knowing about their firearms and safety and their legal responsibilities pertaining to them do not surprise me in the least. Careless and ignorant firearms owners will be the death of firearms ownership in this country if we are not more diligent.

 

[Painterman121212]

Very very interesting

Well because I was asked not to "run off so fast," I think there's another misconception in reading some replies.

Ignorance of the law is very much acceptable in a great multitude of areas. You're basing this on the old phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Kind of a wives tale.. In fact, it very much IS.

So to respond to the very first reply, Mag44, to convince you, almost every single criminal law on the books, if not all (a criminal attorney I am NOT) contains a very important variable, and that is before a criminal law is broken, they have to prove INTENT.

It's not just to do something "illegal". Nope. It's to illegally and INTENTIONALLY break the law. It's not so much for a prosecutor to just show that the act was illegal, he has to prove that it was illegal as well as intenionally committed. Intent = ignorance (not always, but most times yes)

Did he knowingly and willfully break the law? Not just did he break the law.

That's an extremely important variable. And though it may not apply to murder, or bank robbery, where such an act should be a common body of knowledge that it's illegal and wrong, it could very well apply to gun ownership all day long.

In fact when it comes to breaking laws, intent is almost everything! Was this person aware they were breaking the law and proceeded forth anyway? Did Mary Jane, when she enclosed her gun in a "secured case" but not a "locked case" aware she was willfully breaking the law.

That just happens to be on my mind because some poor people are being INCORRECTLY arrested and jailed cuz some stupid cops are defining in their own head, secure to mean locked! Not so... but that can be a good topic for another day!

And Koda94, yes, that is what I'm saying. But also applied a bit more broad. Have to be informed of all laws containing firearms, have to be informed of all laws concerning any weapons, have to be informed of all criminal laws, thus have to be informed of ALL laws.

Who are we to draw the line at the being informed of laws in which attorneys go to school for years to learn and ONLY apply it to our area of interest, firearms?? If you're going to do that, then every other forum that exists on every other like issue could say the same thing about THEIR whatever.

Consumers are NOT law experts. They are gun owners not gun attorneys..

 

[FrankenMauser]

Your opinion does not matter in a court of law.

The law is the law.

Opinion is irrelevant.





Don't like it? Try to change it.
Want to break it? Enjoy your prison time, and go elsewhere to discuss such matters.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...almost every single criminal law on the books, if not all (a criminal attorney I am NOT) contains a very important variable, and that is before a criminal law is broken, they have to prove INTENT....

Got a news flash for you. First, you're not any kind of an attorney. Second. you don't have a clue what "intent" means in the criminal law.

In the law "intent" (emphasis added):

.... A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.

Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act. For example, suppose Billy calls Amy names and Amy throws a snowball at him. Amy's intent is to hit Billy with a snowball. Her motive may be to stop Billy's taunts.
...
...

In Criminal Law the concept of criminal intent has been called mens rea, which refers to a criminal or wrongful purpose. If a person innocently causes harm, then she or he lacks mens rea and, under this concept, should not be criminally prosecuted.

Although the concept of mens rea is generally accepted, problems arise in applying it to particular cases. Some crimes require a very high degree of intent, whereas others require substantially less. Larceny, for example, requires that the defendant intentionally take property to which the person knows he or she is not entitled, intending to deprive the rightful owner of possession permanently. On the other hand, negligent homicide requires only that the defendant negligently cause another's death.

Criminal law has attempted to clarify the intent requirement by creating the concepts of "specific intent" and "general intent." Specific Intent refers to a particular state of mind that seeks to accomplish the precise act that the law prohibits—for example, a specific intent to commit rape. Sometimes it means an intent to do something beyond that which is done, such as assault with intent to commit rape. The prosecution must show that the defendant purposely or knowingly committed the crime at issue.

General intent refers to the intent to do that which the law prohibits. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result that occurred. Thus, in most states, a defendant who kills a person with a gun while intoxicated, to the extent that the defendant is not aware of having a gun, will be guilty of second-degree murder. The law will infer that the defendant had a general intent to kill.....

So no, ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and one can be convicted of a crime even if he didn't know that what he did was a crime. It can often be sufficient to simply intent to do the thing done. For example, a federal court in Kansas recently convicted Jeremy Kettler of a violation of the National Firearms Act even though he had a good faith belief that what he did was legal.

And let me suggest by the way that there are some folks here who you would be well advised not to presume to lecture on the law -- including me, Spats McGee, KyJim, and several others. We are lawyers. And we will be happy to try to help educate you about the law, since it appears you don't have a very sound understanding of it at this point.

 

[HiBC]

Generally I am inclined to help when someone makes a good faith honest request for information.
That changes when someone who self admits ignorance chooses to argue when folks take the time to give an honest answer.

You will not benefit from our answers if you choose to dismiss them.I'm not a lawyer,and I'm not making suggestions about the law.
I try to be a self responsible adult.
I can tell you what you have a right to expect the world to provide for you.
Not a darn thing.
And,life is not fair.

Its not the "dumb cops" who have it wrong about safe storage.Someone gets shot with YOUR gun because YOU did not store it properly,and you think someone besides YOU is responsible?

As a self responsible adult,I accept the responsibilities of being armed.As part of my concealed carry permit,functional training in the law was a requirement.
That included resources for all 50 states.

I understand the price I may pay for ignorance is being convicted of a homicide. I find that motivating.

FWIW,don't count on that criteria of "intent".It seems to have worked,for now,for one high profile personality ...where,IMO,Justice was not blind,and we did not all get equal treatment under the law.
We can't really get specific here,but I will suggest that matter is not over.

I will inform you of a fact you may be ignorant of.
Many of the firearms laws we must comply with are federal laws.The controlled substance laws are federal laws. Per the feds,using pot is an unlawful use of a controlled substance. It does not matter if your state legalized it.
If you lie on the Fed form 4473 regarding use of a controlled substance,the lie is a felony.
If you use a controlled substance,you are a"prohibited person" .If you posess,transfer,own a firearm or ammunition,its another felony.

And saying "Its not fair" won't help.

Here is another tidbit we are acutely aware of.

Even if my life is in immediate mortal danger and I have to choose between accepting my own death or great bodily harm,or using deadly force...
If I shoot to save my life,depending on the arresting officers,the Prosecutor,my own resources for council,the newspaper,and any number of other things,especially how I conduct myself,post shooting,Life can become very unfair,even if I was justified.
It might cost my home,every dime I have,years of my life in court,AND prison time.

Life in the real world is different than life in your head. The "should be" does not apply.

I do believe in the 2nd Amendment.I believe in YOUR right to be armed.

I believe its up to you to look in the mirror and decide if you are self responsible grown up adult enough to own a gun.
If not,take good care of yourself,and everybody else,and freely choose to be unarmed.
You certainly may pursue training and knowledge until you see someone who is ready in the mirror.
That's how Freedom works.It comes with the burden of responsibility.

 

[Koda94]

And Koda94, yes, that is what I'm saying.

well thats really too bad. Hopefully you will think about your position and listen to the advice in this thread.

 

[JohnKSa]

Very very interesting

You should have stopped there. Nearly everything else in your post was incorrect.

It's never been easier to rapidly learn the laws about self-defense and firearm ownership. Why wander in the dark and hope you don't trip and injure yourself when it's so easy to turn on the light and see where you're going?

 

[bamaranger]

things

Firearms are one of those things that are very unforgiving of ignorance and mistakes. I can think of a few other examples, but not many, that are in the same category. Of those, some are not available to common folk. One can't drop into Wally World and buy high explosives, or certain chemicals or pesticides as example. But you can acquire a DL and hurtle about the community with a 2 ton bullet. Make a mistake behind the wheel, you can kill somebody.

I do not have to know how to master my PC, Word, PowerPoint presentation, or all the capabilities of my microwave. There are no penalties and no one gets hurt. But....if I make a mistake, legal or literal, with my car or guns, there could be dire consequences.