Concealed Carry: Can we get a ruling on this?

[TV and credit cards]

How does a gun "go off" when hitting the floor? Did the gun have a safety? Was it on? Pretty amazing that there were no charges.

It's unlikely the gun didn't have some type of drop safety. But like most safety devices/equipment, it's not something you want to have to rely on. So, if your handgun is in a concealed carry holster which does not have anything that secures the gun in the holster aside from the weight of the pistol and the person carrying the gun feels he needs to be in such a state of preparedness that he has to have a round chambered, relying on it is just what he we are doing.

 

[Rhea]

Which brings up the hypcritical point that they've been bleating for years that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," until the gun came from one of their people and all of a sudden it's "gun shot people, it didn't have a people behind it! No foul, no responsibility!"

Seems like they ought to be forced to make up their minds. EITHER guns are inherently dangerous OR the person owning the gun is to blame. They shouldn't get away with having it both ways.

The article is saying that the gun owner isn't criminally liable. He's still open to a tort claim and liable legally.

And I'm saying the gun owner SHOULD be criminally liable, since, "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people." If they want that as their slogan to argue against gun safety, they need to own it every time a gun goes off.

 

[Deepak]

The article is saying that the gun owner isn't criminally liable. He's still open to a tort claim and liable legally.

And I'm saying the gun owner SHOULD be criminally liable, since, "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people." If they want that as their slogan to argue against gun safety, they need to own it every time a gun goes off.

I get the visceral desire, but in order to do so we'd have to upend hundreds year old jurisprudence which is recognized in dozens of countries. Personally I'm not willing to do that just to stick it to people for a shitty slogan.

I don't think most people would push for criminal charges in the above case of Sawyer's Scissors. Could you imagine some unfortunate elementary school student facing one to five because he ran with scissors and accidentally stabbed another student while falling?

 

[Rhea]

And I'm saying the gun owner SHOULD be criminally liable, since, "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people." If they want that as their slogan to argue against gun safety, they need to own it every time a gun goes off.

I get the visceral desire, but in order to do so we'd have to upend hundreds year old jurisprudence which is recognized in dozens of countries. Personally I'm not willing to do that just to stick it to people for a shitty slogan.

I don't think most people would push for criminal charges in the above case of Sawyer's Scissors. Could you imagine some unfortunate elementary school student facing one to five because he ran with scissors and accidentally stabbed another student while falling?

You're right, of course. But I really do want to stick to the NRA criminally for hiding deaths behind a shitty slogan.

 

[Deepak]

I get the visceral desire, but in order to do so we'd have to upend hundreds year old jurisprudence which is recognized in dozens of countries. Personally I'm not willing to do that just to stick it to people for a shitty slogan.

I don't think most people would push for criminal charges in the above case of Sawyer's Scissors. Could you imagine some unfortunate elementary school student facing one to five because he ran with scissors and accidentally stabbed another student while falling?

You're right, of course. But I really do want to stick to the NRA criminally for hiding deaths behind a shitty slogan.

So two things: (1) He should absolutely be civilly liable and should have to pay for all damages, and (2) this should call into question his suitability to own a firearm and hold a CC license, both of which should be revoked.

 

[braces_for_impact]

It all depends on the state. Kansas for instance, has no licensing laws of any kind, even for concealed or open carry. They also have the least gun free zones around. One doesn't need a permit, there are no assault weapon laws, registration, etc. Just go buy one, be damned if you're an idiot that knows nothing about a gun. Just stick it in your waistband, carry it everywhere, and when you shoot, hold all cool, like, sideways - just like on TV.

 

[Bronzeage]

The article is saying that the gun owner isn't criminally liable. He's still open to a tort claim and liable legally.

And I'm saying the gun owner SHOULD be criminally liable, since, "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people." If they want that as their slogan to argue against gun safety, they need to own it every time a gun goes off.

While we all know that guns don't kill people, guns kill people, if you drop your gun and shoot someone, it's the gun's fault.

 

[dismal]

And I'm saying the gun owner SHOULD be criminally liable, since, "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people." If they want that as their slogan to argue against gun safety, they need to own it every time a gun goes off.

While we all know that guns don't kill people, guns kill people, if you drop your gun and shoot someone, it's the gun's fault.

A gun is just an inanimate object.

It's the bullet's fault.

 

[Bronzeage]

While we all know that guns don't kill people, guns kill people, if you drop your gun and shoot someone, it's the gun's fault.

A gun is just an inanimate object.

It's the bullet's fault.

You are completely forgetting the gun powder's role in this.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

A gun is just an inanimate object.

It's the bullet's fault.

You are completely forgetting the gun powder's role in this.

I blame salt peter.

 

[J842P]

I don't understand that. If I'm walking with a pair of scissors and I trip and accidentally stab someone with the scissors, I am responsible for the injury. The fact that it was an accident doesn't make me somehow less responsible.

I don't see how someone accidentally dropping his gun and having it go off and hit someone doesn't make him similarly responsible for that guy's injuries. It's not an "Act of God" or anything like that, it's just an accidental injury that I caused.

The guy isn't criminally liable so he won't get slapped with a criminal negligence charge, but he can still be sued for the injuries.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would think that the most basic safety rule would be 'don't walk around with a round chambered,' but that is assuming laws are rational, and that may be too much to ask.

It is too much to ask as it renders it much less effective.

What the real issue here is is the gun in question had a shitty safety that didn't protect it from being fired when dropped.

- - - Updated - - -

An accident which results in an injury, for which no person is held responsible is known as "an act of God."

tbf, they're not being held criminally liable. I'm almost positive they will be held civilly liable.

Agreed. This is akin to parking your car and forgetting the brake and it rolls. No crime but you're liable for the damage it caused.

 

[beero1000]

It is too much to ask as it renders it much less effective.

What the real issue here is is the gun in question had a shitty safety that didn't protect it from being fired when dropped.

- - - Updated - - -

An accident which results in an injury, for which no person is held responsible is known as "an act of God."

tbf, they're not being held criminally liable. I'm almost positive they will be held civilly liable.

Agreed. This is akin to parking your car and forgetting the brake and it rolls. No crime but you're liable for the damage it caused.

I'd be willing to bet that the owner's manual of that firearm specified to never carry with a round chambered. I'd bet it explicitly says to never trust the safety. I'd bet that it says it multiple times in bold font and probably even used red ink and exclamation points.

At what point after ignoring manufacturers' recommendations are you held criminally negligent? What if he was carrying with a round chambered and the safety off? What if the owner had filed down parts of the firing assembly to give the gun a 'hair trigger'? Would he be responsible then?

 

[zorq]

It is too much to ask as it renders it much less effective.

Really? It's too much to ask that it take more than one deliberate step before using a weapon designed to snuff out human life? My circular saw has more than one safety feature that prevents accidental activation. Why not a firearm?

What the real issue here is is the gun in question had a shitty safety that didn't protect it from being fired when dropped.

Right, because we should expect people to be dropping guns left and right all over the place all the time. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

No, the real issue here is that people think that firearms are toys that they need to play with when, where, and how they want. ( And what they want is to play whenever, wherever, and anyway they so please) When really firearms are deadly weapons that you don't need to play with ... ever, (unless you are employed in a few specific work sectors.)

- - - Updated - - -

An accident which results in an injury, for which no person is held responsible is known as "an act of God."

tbf, they're not being held criminally liable. I'm almost positive they will be held civilly liable.

Agreed. This is akin to parking your car and forgetting the brake and it rolls. No crime but you're liable for the damage it caused.

According to this legal definition of Negligence It sounds like it could easily be considered negligant.

Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances.
In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged.

I think it is pretty reasonable to expect prudent people carrying around loaded firearms to make sure they don't drop them. I understand that Florida law likely doesn't mention dropping guns left and right as behavior that causes unreasonable risk or harm, but that's Florida's fault, not reality's.

 

[bilby]

It is too much to ask as it renders it much less effective.

Really? How so? Is a gun more effective if you can snap off a shot before assessing the suitability of that action? If by 'effective' you mean 'dangerous', then you are right, but otherwise, not.

Anyone who can't chamber a round in the time it takes to assess whether the area behind the target is clear is incompetent; as is anyone who shoots without first making that assessment. Incompetence is not the friend of effectiveness.

 

[Deepak]

It is too much to ask as it renders it much less effective.

What the real issue here is is the gun in question had a shitty safety that didn't protect it from being fired when dropped.

- - - Updated - - -

An accident which results in an injury, for which no person is held responsible is known as "an act of God."

tbf, they're not being held criminally liable. I'm almost positive they will be held civilly liable.

Agreed. This is akin to parking your car and forgetting the brake and it rolls. No crime but you're liable for the damage it caused.

I'd be willing to bet that the owner's manual of that firearm specified to never carry with a round chambered. I'd bet it explicitly says to never trust the safety. I'd bet that it says it multiple times in bold font and probably even used red ink and exclamation points.

At what point after ignoring manufacturers' recommendations are you held criminally negligent? What if he was carrying with a round chambered and the safety off? What if the owner had filed down parts of the firing assembly to give the gun a 'hair trigger'? Would he be responsible then?

How much?

 

[Bronzeage]

It is too much to ask as it renders it much less effective.

What the real issue here is is the gun in question had a shitty safety that didn't protect it from being fired when dropped.

- - - Updated - - -

An accident which results in an injury, for which no person is held responsible is known as "an act of God."

tbf, they're not being held criminally liable. I'm almost positive they will be held civilly liable.

Agreed. This is akin to parking your car and forgetting the brake and it rolls. No crime but you're liable for the damage it caused.

I'd be willing to bet that the owner's manual of that firearm specified to never carry with a round chambered. I'd bet it explicitly says to never trust the safety. I'd bet that it says it multiple times in bold font and probably even used red ink and exclamation points.

At what point after ignoring manufacturers' recommendations are you held criminally negligent? What if he was carrying with a round chambered and the safety off? What if the owner had filed down parts of the firing assembly to give the gun a 'hair trigger'? Would he be responsible then?

How much?

Liability in civil cases can be proportionally assigned. In this case, the gun owner could be held fully responsible, or part could be assigned to Cracker Barrel because they do not have a "No Guns," policy. If it could be shown the gun owner intentionally increased the hazard of his fire arm, it doesn't matter much, since he likely to be assigned 100% of the liability, anyway.

 

[Bronzeage]

Alternate scenario:

The man has determined to rob the cash register by revealing his concealed pistol. He is counting on the cashier to not raise an alarm in the crowded restaurant. In order to emphasize the pistol, he has it partially pulled from the holster. He engages the cashier in small talk and as he opens his jacket, the pistol slips from the holster and drops to the floor.

 

[Deepak]

Liability in civil cases can be proportionally assigned. In this case, the gun owner could be held fully responsible, or part could be assigned to Cracker Barrel because they do not have a "No Guns," policy. If it could be shown the gun owner intentionally increased the hazard of his fire arm, it doesn't matter much, since he likely to be assigned 100% of the liability, anyway.

No disagreement, but he'd have to have made some serious modifications to his firearm to be held criminally negligent.

To put out my own bet - I'd wager dollars to donuts his gun starts with a T and ends with 'aurus.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9_YWNo1f-o[/YOUTUBE]

Maybe there's an off chance it was a Nambu but pretty unlikely.

Anything made after the 70s by an even marginally reputable company is tested to be drop safe and if it's not a Taurus I'm banking on him getting hit with 100% liability. I'll hedge my earlier bet - if it wasn't manufactured by Taurus it was probably one of those kitchen counter trigger jobs.

 

[beero1000]

Liability in civil cases can be proportionally assigned. In this case, the gun owner could be held fully responsible, or part could be assigned to Cracker Barrel because they do not have a "No Guns," policy. If it could be shown the gun owner intentionally increased the hazard of his fire arm, it doesn't matter much, since he likely to be assigned 100% of the liability, anyway.

No disagreement, but he'd have to have made some serious modifications to his firearm to be held criminally negligent.

To put out my own bet - I'd wager dollars to donuts his gun starts with a T and ends with 'aurus.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9_YWNo1f-o[/YOUTUBE]

Maybe there's an off chance it was a Nambu but pretty unlikely.

Anything made after the 70s by an even marginally reputable company is tested to be drop safe and if it's not a Taurus I'm banking on him getting hit with 100% liability. I'll hedge my earlier bet - if it wasn't manufactured by Taurus it was probably one of those kitchen counter trigger jobs.

Here's the manual from the gun in the video: http://www.taurususa.com/pdf/pt-247-pro_ds.pdf

Here are some selected quotes (emphasis and color not mine):

Firearms rarely cause accidents. Firearms accidents almost always are caused by a failure to obey the basic rules of gun safety. Unfortunately,experienced shooters seem to violate these rules as frequently as beginners.

A person with a firearm in his possession has a full-time responsibility. He must KNOW how to keep and use his firearm safely, and then must always TAKE the precautions necessary -all of them. He cannot guess; he cannot forget. This responsibility is his alone. It cannot be passed off to someone else. Remember: no firearm can be made accident-proof. A firearm is just a machine, with no judgement of its own. It responds to your actions, whether wise or foolish. The only truly effective safety device is the mind of a cautious shooter who never forgets that a moment’s carelessness can produce permanent tragedy.

WARNING: Always empty firearms before entering a place where there are people.

SAFETY FIRST: The safety is only a mechanical device, not a substitute for common sense.

DANGER

THIS PISTOL IS CAPABLE OF FIRING WITH MAGAZINE REMOVED. INJURY OR DEATH MAY RESULT. NEVER POINT A LOADED PISTOL AT ANYONE OR ANYTHING YOU DO NOT INTEND TO SHOOT.

WARNING

To prevent injury or death, it is imperative that you must keep your firearm unloaded, uncocked and securely locked, with ammunition in a separate location. In addition, take any other reasonable steps to limit the possibility of theft, crime, accident or suicide.

WARNING: Never carry, handle or leave unattended any firearm which is cocked and ready-to-fire. When cocked, it will fire from slight pressure on the trigger. An accidental discharge could easily result if you fall or drop the firearm, or if the firearm is struck or disturbed by someone or something.

SAFETY FIRST: Risk of an accident is greatly increased when any semiautomatic pistol, no matter how safely designed, is carried with a cartridge in the chamber. THIS PRACTICE IS NOT RECOMMENDED AND MAY BE JUSTIFIED ONLY IN CIRCUMSTANCE OF CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER WHEN THE PISTOL MAY IMMEDIATELY HAVE TO BE USED IN SELF-DEFENSE. By far the safest procedure when carrying a loaded pistol is to leave the chamber empty.

Your firearm comes equipped with an effective, well designed safety device. HOWEVER, NEVER RELY COMPLETELY ON ANY SAFETY MECHANISM.The best safety mechanism is your own common sense: USE IT! Always handle your firearm as though you expect the safety NOT to work.

For maximum safety never carry a firearm with a cartridge in the chamber

NEVER RELY COMPLETELY ON ANY SAFETY MECHANISM. It is NOT a substitute for cautious handling. NO safety, however positive or well designed,should be totally trusted. Like all mechanical devices, the safety is subject to breakage or malfunction and can be adversely affected by wear,abuse, dirt, corrosion, incorrect assembly, improper adjustment or repair, or lack of maintenance. Moreover, there is no such thing as a safety which is“childproof” or which can completely prevent accidental discharge from improper usage, carelessness, or “horseplay”. The automatic safety can provide only partial protection against mishaps. By itself it is not a complete safety system. To prevent accidents, it is absolutely essential to consistently and correctly use the manual safety lever also. If water, sand, or other foreign matter enters the internal mechanism, the firearm should be dismantled for complete and thorough cleaning. Failure to keep your firearm clean and in proper working order can lead to a potentially dangerous condition.

PM me to discuss where to send my money.