SB 785: Civil Liability & SB 786: Failure to Report Theft

Here they are:

SB 785 Firearms; use in commission of crime, civil liability.

Use of firearm in commission of crime; civil liability. Provides that a person may be held civilly liable for injury to the person or property of another or for wrongful death resulting from the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime if it can be shown by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm came into the possession of the person who committed the crime because of the failure of the civil defendant to adequately secure the firearm from theft or unauthorized possession.

SB 786 Firearms, lost or stolen; failure to report, civil penalty.

Lost or stolen firearms; failure to report; civil penalty. Creates a $250 civil penalty for the offense of failing to report to law enforcement that a firearm a person owns or lawfully possesses has been lost or stolen.



Both referred to Courts of Justice.

Courts of Justice: Norment (Chairman), Saslaw, Marsh, Howell, Lucas, Edwards, Puller, Obenshain, McDougle, McEachin, Stuart, Vogel, Stanley, Reeves, Garrett

TFred

TFred said:

Use of firearm in commission of crime; civil liability. Provides that a person may be held civilly liable for injury to the person or property of another or for wrongful death resulting from the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime if it can be shown by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm came into the possession of the person who committed the crime because of the failure of the civil defendant to adequately secure the firearm from theft or unauthorized possession.

Click to expand...

So what if your forced to leave it in the car and its stolen? Seems this would be to easy for gun owners to be charged for actions of a criminal.

crazydude6030 said:

So what if your forced to leave it in the car and its stolen? Seems this would be to easy for gun owners to be charged for actions of a criminal.

Click to expand...

That's kinda the point.

crazydude6030 said:

So what if your forced to leave it in the car and its stolen? Seems this would be to easy for gun owners to be charged for actions of a criminal.

Click to expand...

Hence the civil/criminal liability as motivation to report thefts. If something is stolen from a car, there would likely be damage resulting from the break-in. Would you report that to your insurance company? They'd likely ask if you filed a police report. They would ask if the car was locked, etc.

I'd be furious if it happened to me, and you can bet I'd report it to the police. After all, I'd want my property back.

2a4all said:

I'd be furious if it happened to me, and you can bet I'd report it to the police. After all, I'd want my property back.

Click to expand...

That's not really the point. It's not a matter of what we would do, it's being told we have to do it.

I always wore a seat belt...until they passed the seat belt laws. Haven't had one on since.

peter nap said:

That's not really the point. It's not a matter of what we would do, it's being told we have to do it.

I always wore a seat belt...until they passed the seat belt laws. Haven't had one on since.

Click to expand...

Its not even about that. Its the wording I don't like all that much. Who is to define secure? It places that burden on gun owners over someone else committing a criminal act. I just picture places like Surry charging guns owners because their gun was stolen.

Besides I can't think of to many people who wouldn't file a claim. Its a soft attack on gun owners from what I can tell.

If this passes I may very well go on a boating trip this spring.

crazydude6030 said:

Its not even about that. Its the wording I don't like all that much. Who is to define secure? It places that burden on gun owners over someone else committing a criminal act. I just picture places like Surry charging guns owners because their gun was stolen.

Besides I can't think of to many people who wouldn't file a claim. Its a soft attack on gun owners from what I can tell.

If this passes I may very well go on a boating trip this spring.

Click to expand...

This isn't a new bill. It pops up every so often and never gets anywhere, so I doubt there's much to worry about.

I don't have a dog in this. I don't own any guns.

"adequately secure" - Is this defined in any statute as related to firearms? Without a clear definition of what constitutes a firearm being "adequately secured" it would be extremely difficult to enforce I would think.

Example,
I place my pistol in a biometric single pistol vault bolted to my bedside table. Is this adequate? A criminal could steal the table, crack the safe, and gain access to my pistol in a matter of hours, possibly before I was even able to report the theft. Would I be open to a civil suit under such a statute?

I placed my pistol in my locked glove-box in my locked vehicle behind a locked gate. Is this secure enough?

Any lock can be defeated with enough tools and time, so where do we draw the line as to what's "adequate" and "negligent?"

peter nap said:

This isn't a new bill. It pops up every so often and never gets anywhere, so I doubt there's much to worry about.

I don't have a dog in this. I don't own any guns.

Click to expand...

From what I hear you just own small cannons

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

automatically guilty. if it was "adequately secure" it couldn't be stolen.

Nelson_Muntz said:

automatically guilty. if it was "adequately secure" it couldn't be stolen.

Click to expand...

Exactly. This bill turns a crime victim into a criminal.

TFred