NPR (Michigan Radio) is reporting that the gun the 15 year old shooter used was a 9 mm handgun that the shooter' s father purchased legally 4 days before the shooting.

Michigan law says a gun owner (all guns) can be held civilly and/or criminally liable if their gun is used in commission of a crime. The only exemption is if the gun is stolen FROM A LOCKED GUN SAFE.

So if NPR's reporting is accurate - unless the kid is a safecracker - dad better get charged and convicted for his negligence. 25 years per death seems about right.

(December 1, 2021 at 9:25 am)onlinebiker Wrote: NPR (Michigan Radio) is reporting that the gun the 15 year old shooter used was a 9 mm handgun that the shooter' s father purchased legally 4 days before the shooting.

Michigan law says a gun owner (all guns) can be held civilly and/or criminally liable if their gun is used in commission of a crime. The only exemption is if the gun is stolen FROM A LOCKED GUN SAFE.

So if NPR's reporting is accurate - unless the kid is a safecracker - dad better get charged and convicted for his negligence. 25 years per death seems about right.

What a stupid exemption.

Boru

No. It isn' t.

It' s called due dilligence.

Do you just want guns to go away by making the gun owner responsible??

(December 1, 2021 at 11:01 am)onlinebiker Wrote: No. It isn' t.

It' s called due dilligence.

You just want guns to go away by making the gun owner responsible..

For the teenth time, I don’t support making guns go away. You should really stop saying that.

You said that unless the kid is a safecracker, the father should be charged. Why would he have to be a safecracker? Maybe he knew the combination or had access to the keys. Either of those would make the father guilty of negligence, just as much as if the safe were left unlocked and open.

Boru

Giving the kid the combination or access to the keys is as negligent as leaving the gun unlocked. So my statement stands.

And - I appologize - I realized that was an unfair statement and edited it to be a question - which you already answered. Sorry.

---

So you agree with me. Why is it a stupid exemption?

(December 1, 2021 at 11:10 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Giving the kid the combination or access to the keys is as negligent as leaving the gun unlocked. So my statement stands.

And - I appologize - I realized that was an unfair statement and edited it to be a question - which you already answered. Sorry.

---

So you agree with me. Why is it a stupid exemption?

For the reason given above. If you’ve cited the law correctly, then ANYTIME a gun is stolen from a locked safe, the owner isn’t culpable. If you were to give someone - a fifteen year old son, say - the combination and he gets your gun and shots three people, you’re not culpable. Why? Because the gun was stolen from a locked safe.

I’m prepared to amend my position if your law has caveats which cover that scenario.

Boru

(December 1, 2021 at 11:19 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 1, 2021 at 11:10 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Giving the kid the combination or access to the keys is as negligent as leaving the gun unlocked. So my statement stands.

And - I appologize - I realized that was an unfair statement and edited it to be a question - which you already answered. Sorry.

---

So you agree with me. Why is it a stupid exemption?

For the reason given above. If you’ve cited the law correctly, then ANYTIME a gun is stolen from a locked safe, the owner isn’t culpable. If you were to give someone - a fifteen year old son, say - the combination and he gets your gun and shots three people, you’re not culpable. Why? Because the gun was stolen from a locked safe.

I’m prepared to amend my position if your law has caveats which cover that scenario.

Boru

Ok.. I see what you are saying. No. The gun owner is responsible for the gun' s use in any case of someone who is given access to the weapon.

Potentally if I loan you ( an adult allowed guns)  to go hunting - and you go off on a nut - I could be held criminally and civilly accountable. I don' t know of any such criminal cases - but there was a civil case some years back... If I give you access to the gun safevand you take the gun - it is not stolen.


The exemption is for if the gun is STOLEN - implying someone who does not have access to the gun safe.


This is a clear case of negligence.....

The laws are crazy. When one buys a new firearm, it has to be locked when it leaves the gun store. One goes out and puts the firearm in their vehicle and brings the lock back into the store for a refund. But that's the law. When I go to the gun range, the firearm and ammo have to not be together, but the firearms do not have to be locked up. To be fair, they are locked in the trunk, though.

(December 1, 2021 at 11:30 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(December 1, 2021 at 11:19 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: For the reason given above. If you’ve cited the law correctly, then ANYTIME a gun is stolen from a locked safe, the owner isn’t culpable. If you were to give someone - a fifteen year old son, say - the combination and he gets your gun and shots three people, you’re not culpable. Why? Because the gun was stolen from a locked safe.

I’m prepared to amend my position if your law has caveats which cover that scenario.

Boru

Ok.. I see what you are saying. No. The gun owner is responsible for the gun' s use in any case of someone who is given access to the weapon.

Potentally if I loan you ( an adult allowed guns)  to go hunting - and you go off on a nut - I could be held criminally and civilly accountable. I don' t know of any such criminal cases - but there was a civil case some years back... If I give you access to the gun safevand you take the gun - it is not stolen.


The exemption is for if the gun is STOLEN - implying someone who does not have access to the gun safe.


This is a clear case of negligence.....

If he took the gun without his father’s permission or knowledge, it was stolen - access to the safe seems immaterial. If you have a houseguest and one night they walk off with your TV, they’ve stolen it even though they had your permission to be in the house and access to your television.

Boru

(December 1, 2021 at 11:36 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 1, 2021 at 11:30 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Ok.. I see what you are saying. No. The gun owner is responsible for the gun' s use in any case of someone who is given access to the weapon.

Potentally if I loan you ( an adult allowed guns)  to go hunting - and you go off on a nut - I could be held criminally and civilly accountable. I don' t know of any such criminal cases - but there was a civil case some years back... If I give you access to the gun safevand you take the gun - it is not stolen.


The exemption is for if the gun is STOLEN - implying someone who does not have access to the gun safe.


This is a clear case of negligence.....

If he took the gun without his father’s permission or knowledge, it was stolen - access to the safe seems immaterial. If you have a houseguest and one night they walk off with your TV, they’ve stolen it even though they had your permission to be in the house and access to your television.

Boru

When televisions become deadly they will have to write a law covering liabilities of those.


By giving the kid access to the safe the father negates any right to protection from liability by way of the exemption.....