Skip to main content

View Diary: Instead of "Assault Weapons", how about a fire-rate restriction? (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, I said that. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splashy

    I said for cars it was liability for permissive users only, and that I could see reasons for expanding that rule in the case of guns.  I would agree that you'd be off the hook after a properly registered sale to a lawful buyer.  If the gun is stolen well it was your responsibility to make sure it wasn't stolen.  That's one of the risks you impose on society when you choose to buy a gun.

    •  Sorry, can't get on board with that. (0+ / 0-)

      I do not agree that if something is stolen from you, when meeting a minimum standard of protection against it, that you should be held liable for any misuse that arises from it after it's stolen...and i seriously doubt that any court would find that a reasonable requirement.  

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 02:33:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Constitutional (0+ / 0-)

        The court just gets to decide if the requirement is Constitutional, reasonable is for the Legislature to decide.

        If the middle ground is no liability if a gun is stolen out of a properly locked gun safe I could live with that, provided the theft is promptly reported.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site