Criminals don't shop at gun stores

[Xelor]

If you can discern some non-registration way to know who, by dint of their owning a given firearm, was responsible to ensure and provide for the lawful and responsible use of any gun found subsequently to have been used unlawfully, I'm willing to exchange, in the accountability model I outlined, that method for registration.

What I want effected is a way to hold accountable the person(s) whose duty it was to ensure a gun to which they are the person recognized as the title holder of a gun unlawfully used be held accountable for said unlawful use, regardless of whether the title holder pulled the trigger. If you have a proposal that can effectively abet and achieve that end, I'm all ears.

1) the person who really needs to be punished is the person who harms another with a firearm

2) the desire to punish a person who once owned the gun is not particularly relevant to me assuming it was not deliberate and registration is far too pernicious to implement in order to engage in punishing a secondary actor

Imputed Criminal Liability

 

[TurtleDude]

Imputed Criminal Liability

registration is too harmful

period

 

[Mr Person]

And how do they get on the black market?

Typically, straw buyers or theft. Only the more heavy duty semi and auto rifles tend to be smuggled, and even then it's a lot tougher to smuggle guns than drugs. Beside's, a rifle's weight in heroin makes it a lot more profitable to smuggle the heroin.



Of course, we can't have things like gun registration that would nail straw buyers to the wall because OMG Obama might come back to take our guns or whatever vague complaints about overbearing government one wishes to offer. So, enjoy the robust black market for guns, I guess.

(And frankly, I suspect some do enjoy that market's existence even if they don't participate in it. If we actually did succeed in massively shrinking the black market, "good guys" with guns would have a lot weaker argument for wanting a gun for safety. After all, if the black market is very small, you'd be far less likely to need a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Though I must grant that the vast majority of people do not choose their positions that strategically.)

 

[Chillfolks]

What I want effected is a way to hold accountable the person(s) whose duty it was to ensure a gun to which they are the person recognized as the title holder of a gun unlawfully used be held accountable for said unlawful use, regardless of whether the title holder pulled the trigger. If you have a proposal that can effectively abet and achieve that end, I'm all ears.

If the Owner has his gun stolen/lost and it is used in a crime he would not be held liable.

If the owner always someone to borrow his gun, and the User commits a crime without the owners knowledge then the owner is not held liable.
Example; lending out a shotgun because a friend was going hunting then he uses to rob a store.

If the owner knowingly allows someone to borrow there gun to commit a crime then the owner is liable.
Example: Lending gun to someone who asks for it to go rob a store

If it can be shown that the owner was overly negligent with his firearm he could be liable.
Example: leaving gun on front seat of unlocked car.

How far off ps that from your idea?

 

[Xelor]

As long as you drop.any kind of registration requirements I would be willing to work towards a solution[

If you can discern some non-registration way to know who, by dint of their owning a given firearm, was responsible to ensure and provide for the lawful and responsible use of any gun found subsequently to have been used unlawfully, I'm willing to exchange, in the accountability model I outlined, that method for registration.


What I want effected is a way to hold accountable the person(s) whose duty it was to ensure a gun to which they are the person recognized as the title holder of a gun unlawfully used be held accountable for said unlawful use, regardless of whether the title holder pulled the trigger. If you have a proposal that can effectively abet and achieve that end, I'm all ears.

If the Owner has his gun stolen/lost and it is used in a crime he would not be held liable.

If the owner [allows] someone to borrow his gun, and the User commits a crime without the owners knowledge then the owner is not held liable.
Example; lending out a shotgun because a friend was going hunting then he uses to rob a store.

If the owner knowingly allows someone to borrow there gun to commit a crime then the owner is liable.
Example: Lending gun to someone who asks for it to go rob a store

If it can be shown that the owner was overly negligent with his firearm he could be liable.
Example: leaving gun on front seat of unlocked car.

How far off [is] that from your idea?

/QUOTE]

Did you read the proposal to which I linked? It seems to me you didn't for you wouldn't need to ask most (all?) of the questions you have were you to have read the proposal. If you're not already familiar with imputed criminal liability, you may want to read the following document:

• Imputed Criminal Liability

Blue:
I recognize the need for some sort of provision to incorporate into the proposal verbiage to handle in-transit periods in the sales process, and IIRC, I may not have (I likely didn't because that activity is several levels down in the overall sales process) expressly addressed them in the the proposal I posted in the thread to which I directed you.

 

[Chillfolks]

As long as you drop.any kind of registration requirements I would be willing to work towards a solution[


Did you read the proposal to which I linked? It seems to me you didn't for you wouldn't need to ask most (all?) of the questions you have were you to have read the proposal. If you're not already familiar with imputed criminal liability, you may want to read the following document:

• Imputed Criminal Liability

Blue:
I recognize the need for some sort of provision to incorporate into the proposal verbiage to handle in-transit periods in the sales process, and IIRC, I may not have (I likely didn't because that activity is several levels down in the overall sales process) expressly addressed them in the the proposal I posted in the thread to which I directed you.

I did read your post and was hoping you had become more reasonable in your approach.
It doesn't look like there is any middle ground we could reach.

 

[Xelor]

As long as you drop.any kind of registration requirements I would be willing to work towards a solution

If you can discern some non-registration way to know who, by dint of their owning a given firearm, was responsible to ensure and provide for the lawful and responsible use of any gun found subsequently to have been used unlawfully, I'm willing to exchange, in the accountability model I outlined, that method for registration.

What I want effected is a way to hold accountable the person(s) whose duty it was to ensure a gun to which they are the person recognized as the title holder of a gun unlawfully used be held accountable for said unlawful use, regardless of whether the title holder pulled the trigger. If you have a proposal that can effectively abet and achieve that end, I'm all ears.

I did read your post and was hoping you had become more reasonable in your approach.
It doesn't look like there is any middle ground we could reach.

Okay....The legal doctrine of imputed criminal liability is both extant and reasonable. I merely applied it to accountability in gun ownership.

You asked if I was willing to forego the registration requirement. I told you I would were you able to accomodate the point of registration without implementing registration.

If you can discern some non-registration way to know who, by dint of their owning a given firearm, was responsible to ensure and provide for the lawful and responsible use of any gun found subsequently to have been used unlawfully, I'm willing to exchange, in the accountability model I outlined, that method for registration.

What I want effected is a way to hold accountable the person(s) whose duty it was to ensure a gun to which they are the person recognized as the title holder of a gun unlawfully used be held accountable for said unlawful use, regardless of whether the title holder pulled the trigger. If you have a proposal that can effectively abet and achieve that end, I'm all ears.​

That was the compromise you requested and I indicated that registration, in and of itself, isn't my aim and that if you could find a way to efficaciously effect accountability sans registration, I'd be okay with it. Now you appear to want to weaken the nature of accountability itself. Well, that's not what I indicated I was keen to do.

 

[CLAX1911]

....Which is why this -- Proposal on accountability -- or something close to it is needed.

I disagree with this if you own property and someone steals your property and commits a crime with it you should not be held liable you are a victim of theft. No. Being said you should take care to secure your property. And if it's stolen you should report it. but holding a victim of a crime responsible for the crimes of another person is astonishingly backward to me. Should I have to pay speeding tickets for the person that stole my car? Should I go to jail because someone who stole my tools broke into someone's home?

Also your thesis depends on a registry Which is completely voluntary. All that would do is if a person had an unregistered firearm that got stolen they wouldn't report it.

There's no way to force people to participate in a voluntary practice like registering their guns. Or for that matter reporting their guns stolen.

 

[Xelor]

I disagree with this if you own property and someone steals your property and commits a crime with it you should not be held liable you are a victim of theft. No. Being said you should take care to secure your property. And if it's stolen you should report it. but holding a victim of a crime responsible for the crimes of another person is astonishingly backward to me. Should I have to pay speeding tickets for the person that stole my car? Should I go to jail because someone who stole my tools broke into someone's home?

Also your thesis depends on a registry Which is completely voluntary. All that would do is if a person had an unregistered firearm that got stolen they wouldn't report it.

There's no way to force people to participate in a voluntary practice like registering their guns. Or for that matter reporting their guns stolen.

Red:
I guess you didn't carefully read the proposal. I abduct thus because the proposal includes a provision to handle that happenstance.

 

[CLAX1911]

Okay....The legal doctrine of imputed criminal liability is both extant and reasonable. I merely applied it to accountability in gun ownership.

You asked if I was willing to forego the registration requirement. I told you I would were you able to accomodate the point of registration without implementing registration.

If you can discern some non-registration way to know who, by dint of their owning a given firearm, was responsible to ensure and provide for the lawful and responsible use of any gun found subsequently to have been used unlawfully, I'm willing to exchange, in the accountability model I outlined, that method for registration.

What I want effected is a way to hold accountable the person(s) whose duty it was to ensure a gun to which they are the person recognized as the title holder of a gun unlawfully used be held accountable for said unlawful use, regardless of whether the title holder pulled the trigger. If you have a proposal that can effectively abet and achieve that end, I'm all ears.​

That was the compromise you requested and I indicated that registration, in and of itself, isn't my aim and that if you could find a way to efficaciously effect accountability sans registration, I'd be okay with it. Now you appear to want to weaken the nature of accountability itself. Well, that's not what I indicated I was keen to do.

You couldn't implement registration it's completely voluntary. And the people who plan on doing bad things with their guns will not register them.

 

[Xelor]

I disagree with this if you own property and someone steals your property and commits a crime with it you should not be held liable you are a victim of theft. No. Being said you should take care to secure your property. And if it's stolen you should report it. but holding a victim of a crime responsible for the crimes of another person is astonishingly backward to me. Should I have to pay speeding tickets for the person that stole my car? Should I go to jail because someone who stole my tools broke into someone's home?

Also your thesis depends on a registry Which is completely voluntary. All that would do is if a person had an unregistered firearm that got stolen they wouldn't report it.

There's no way to force people to participate in a voluntary practice like registering their guns. Or for that matter reporting their guns stolen.

Blue:
I don't recall whether I addressed that in the OP of the proposal or at some point in the thread. In any case, that too was addressed.

 

[CLAX1911]

Red:
I guess you didn't carefully read the proposal. I abduct thus because the proposal includes a provision to handle that happenstance.

Well either way if you choose to hold someone responsible for something someone else does I don't think you're going to be able to get that enforced and law currently.

If you wanted to make it a crime to illegally sell a firearm which already is you could punish the person for illegally selling the firearm, but that's the extent of their crime. The slippery slope conviction doesn't pass in court.

 

[CLAX1911]

Blue:
I don't recall whether I addressed that in the OP of the proposal or at some point in the thread. In any case, that too was addressed.

I'm explaining why registration system wouldn't work.

 

[Xelor]

I disagree with this if you own property and someone steals your property and commits a crime with it you should not be held liable you are a victim of theft. No. Being said you should take care to secure your property. And if it's stolen you should report it. but holding a victim of a crime responsible for the crimes of another person is astonishingly backward to me. Should I have to pay speeding tickets for the person that stole my car? Should I go to jail because someone who stole my tools broke into someone's home?

Also your thesis depends on a registry Which is completely voluntary. All that would do is if a person had an unregistered firearm that got stolen they wouldn't report it.

There's no way to force people to participate in a voluntary practice like registering their guns. Or for that matter reporting their guns stolen.

Pink:
One need not force people to participate in a gun registry using the proposal I presented; they'll voluntarily participate.

 

[Xelor]

Well either way if you choose to hold someone responsible for something someone else does I don't think you're going to be able to get that enforced and law currently.

If you wanted to make it a crime to illegally sell a firearm which already is you could punish the person for illegally selling the firearm, but that's the extent of their crime. The slippery slope conviction doesn't pass in court.

Red:
It's already an enforceable, and for ages enforced, legal doctrine: Imputed Criminal Liability.

 

[CLAX1911]

Pink:
One need not force people to participate in a gun registry using the proposal I presented; they'll voluntarily participate.

No they wouldn't nobody would purposefully make themselves accountable for something that is not tied to them whatsoever.

For a gun owner in a place that is trying to enforce a registry registering your gun is a lose-lose situation.

 

[CLAX1911]

Red:
It's already an enforceable, and for ages enforced, legal doctrine: Imputed Criminal Liability.

If you can punish people for the crimes of another then there is no more republic because you have violated the sixth Amendment.

 

[Xelor]

I'm explaining why registration system wouldn't work.

As indicated, the accountability model I proposed would move folks register their firearms. The process puts the worth of doing so on the seller of a firearm, not on the buyer. It does because one who sells a firearm to someone else wouldn't care to be the owner of record if/when the gun is unlawfully used after the seller has sold it to someone else.

 

[Xelor]

If you can punish people for the crimes of another then there is no more republic because you have violated the sixth Amendment.

That doesn't alter the fact that the imputed liability doctrine is extant, enforceable and enforced. Insofar as it has been enforced, one may infer that it doesn't violate any amendment.

I suggest you read the document before you start trying to discuss the doctrine with me.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Where do you think the black market gets the guns? Many probably from people who legally bought them. What, the black market just manufactures their own gun? What the hell is the point?

Oh, and everybody is a "responsible gun owner" and not a criminal, until they shoot somebody. And that happens all the time

 

[Chillfolks]

Red:
I guess you didn't carefully read the proposal. I abduct thus because the proposal includes a provision to handle that happenstance.

You required it be reported before a crime was committed, not always possible and you required a warrantless search of your property, That's a huge Hell No

 

[CLAX1911]

As indicated, the accountability model I proposed would move folks register their firearms. The process puts the worth of doing so on the seller of a firearm, not on the buyer. It does because one who sells a firearm to someone else wouldn't care to be the owner of record if/when the gun is unlawfully used after the seller has sold it to someone else.

But currently there's no way to tie a person to a firearm. Even if they're the seller of it. so a person who would sell a firearm would have every motivation not to register and no motivation to register.

 

[CLAX1911]

That doesn't alter the fact that the imputed liability doctrine is extant, enforceable and enforced. Insofar as it has been enforced, one may infer that it doesn't violate any amendment.

I suggest you read the document before you start trying to discuss the doctrine with me.

I'm not discussing doctrine with you. I am stating a fact you cannot hold someone responsible for the crimes of another. To create a law that would do that would be to end the republic.

 

[Xelor]

You required it be reported before a crime was committed, not always possible and you required a warrantless search of your property, That's a huge Hell No

Red:
That is detail that could be managed.

You're ignoring the purpose of that part of the process. Obviously, what I proposed is a high level process, and my explication in that other thread is to provide the substance of the general nature of accountability and to illustrate the shift in the focus of the "internal control" process as goes managing accountability.


Blue
I required no such thing. I said that's something a gun owner could agree to (or not).

 

[Xelor]

But currently there's no way to tie a person to a firearm. Even if they're the seller of it. so a person who would sell a firearm would have every motivation not to register and no motivation to register.

Red:
??? -- Um, well, yes. It is a proposal for the implementation of a new approach to managing accountability. Of course, there would need to be new enabling infrastructure elements to support it.

A point of the proposal was to illustrate, at a high level, a model for accountability, not to lay out a full-on project implementation proposal. People here gripe about the length of some of my posts. Would you/they even read a post that's as long as a full on proposal for implementing the idea I outlined? Not that it matters whether anyone would or not...I wouldn't produce such a document absent a qualified client who'll pay for my and my team's services to implement the idea. (Sorry, but I don't do free consulting. You know what else I don't do? Provide implementation services to governments. There is also the matter that I retired last year, so I don't do that type of thing for anyone these days.)