Concealed Carry: Can we get a ruling on this?

[Bronzeage]

Shooting at the aptly named Cracker Barrel ruled and accident.

A man with a concealed carry permit lost control of his pistol and it dropped to the floor. The pistol fired and wounded an unarmed Cracker Barrel customer. It was declared a "no harm, slight foul," situation and everybody moved along, because there was nothing to see.


This brings up an important question. When a person gets a concealed carry permit, does this include any instruction on how to actually carry the weapon?

 

[Sarpedon]

Yeah, if I am driving and lose control of my automobile because of my own carelessness, and I run someone over, there'd be at least a risk of me losing my liscense.

Of course, there's no trillion dollar 'running people over' lobby. There is an automobile lobby, but they maintain that their products aren't supposed to hurt people.

 

[Bronzeage]

Yeah, if I am driving and lose control of my automobile because of my own carelessness, and I run someone over, there'd be at least a risk of me losing my liscense.

Of course, there's no trillion dollar 'running people over' lobby. There is an automobile lobby, but they maintain that their products aren't supposed to hurt people.

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

 

[Sarpedon]

And is it correct to hold no one responsible for the weapon that they carry? As you say, is there not an expectation, or even an implied contract, that someone who gets a permit to carry a weapon agrees to do so safely, just as one who gets a driver's license does?

 

[Bronzeage]

And is it correct to hold no one responsible for the weapon that they carry? As you say, is there not an expectation, or even an implied contract, that someone who gets a permit to carry a weapon agrees to do so safely, just as one who gets a driver's license does?

I don't have a concealed carry permit, but in my state, a person is required to take some sort of training before applying for the permit. Whether this training includes how to keep your gun off the floor, I can't say.

 

[Sarpedon]

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.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

 

[dismal]

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.

Someone can always sue you for negligence. Negligent acts can also be crimes, but I would imagine the standard is higher.

 

[ksen]

Yeah, if I am driving and lose control of my automobile because of my own carelessness, and I run someone over, there'd be at least a risk of me losing my liscense.

Of course, there's no trillion dollar 'running people over' lobby. There is an automobile lobby, but they maintain that their products aren't supposed to hurt people.

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.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

Someone can always sue you for negligence. Negligent acts can also be crimes, but I would imagine the standard is higher.

Well, that's the heart of my question (the OP link is on Facebook and I can't read it from work).

I understand from the context of the discussion that the gun owner wasn't liable for the medical costs of the injury. Is that not the case?

 

[dismal]

Someone can always sue you for negligence. Negligent acts can also be crimes, but I would imagine the standard is higher.

Well, that's the heart of my question (the OP link is on Facebook and I can't read it from work).

I understand from the context of the discussion that the gun owner wasn't liable for the medical costs of the injury. Is that not the case?

I can't see it either. But I don't see how you would be liable for such a thing until and unless you lose a a lawsuit.

ETA: add link

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/man-accidentally-shot-while-at-sanford-cracker-barrel/36189604

Article just says no criminal charges will be filed.

 

[Juma]

Weird. US is fucking weird...

 

[Bronzeage]

Well, that's the heart of my question (the OP link is on Facebook and I can't read it from work).

I understand from the context of the discussion that the gun owner wasn't liable for the medical costs of the injury. Is that not the case?

I can't see it either. But I don't see how you would be liable for such a thing until and unless you lose a a lawsuit.

ETA: add link

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/man-accidentally-shot-while-at-sanford-cracker-barrel/36189604

Article just says no criminal charges will be filed.

The man can expect a lawsuit for bodily injury and Cracker Barrel can expect a lawsuit for allowing weapons in the restaurant. Florida law gives a business the right to refuse concealed carry weapons in their establishment.

 

[Herrick]

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.

 

[Rhea]

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.

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.

 

[Deepak]

Yeah, if I am driving and lose control of my automobile because of my own carelessness, and I run someone over, there'd be at least a risk of me losing my liscense.

Of course, there's no trillion dollar 'running people over' lobby. There is an automobile lobby, but they maintain that their products aren't supposed to hurt people.

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

Act of god doesn't apply in the case of carelessness, either when driving or dropping one's gun. If a tornado whipped through the Cracker Barrel, extricated the gun, lodged the trigger on an obstruction, and that caused someone to be shot then it could be an act of god.

Failing to secure a firearm which doesn't have a drop safety - or is in such poor condition that the safety doesn't work correctly means that the owner did not exercise reasonable care, in which case he could still be liable even in the case of an act of god.

 

[Deepak]

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.

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.

 

[Bronzeage]

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

Act of god doesn't apply in the case of carelessness, either when driving or dropping one's gun. If a tornado whipped through the Cracker Barrel, extricated the gun, lodged the trigger on an obstruction, and that caused someone to be shot then it could be an act of god.

Failing to secure a firearm which doesn't have a drop safety - or is in such poor condition that the safety doesn't work correctly means that the owner did not exercise reasonable care, in which case he could still be liable even in the case of an act of god.

I was wondering about that, too. All the modern pistols I have handled were designed so it was nearly impossible for it to fire if dropped. A gun going off when it's dropped is more of a plot device in old cowboy movies.

 

[bilby]

Act of god doesn't apply in the case of carelessness, either when driving or dropping one's gun. If a tornado whipped through the Cracker Barrel, extricated the gun, lodged the trigger on an obstruction, and that caused someone to be shot then it could be an act of god.

Failing to secure a firearm which doesn't have a drop safety - or is in such poor condition that the safety doesn't work correctly means that the owner did not exercise reasonable care, in which case he could still be liable even in the case of an act of god.

I was wondering about that, too. All the modern pistols I have handled were designed so it was nearly impossible for it to fire if dropped. A gun going off when it's dropped is more of a plot device in old cowboy movies.

John Deely invented the intercepting safety in the 1880s as an improvement to the Anson and Deely boxlock, that was invented in 1875 and replaced the earlier sidelock style of percussion lock, paving the way for modern 'hammerless' locks where the hammers and firing pins are completely enclosed; Initially used in shotguns, the intercepting safety can form part of any type of gunlock design that includes a tumbler that is held in the 'cocked' position by the sear when the gun is ready to fire. It is a really simple and very effective safety device, and it is a scandal that it isn't included in all guns with a rotary action - which is pretty much all modern guns other than bolt action rifles, which have a linear action, and need a slightly different kind of safety. Even complex self-loading actions can easily incorporate an intercepting safety as part of the design - it is basically just an accurately machined notch. it really shouldn't be possible for a gun made in the 20th or 21st century to fire without the trigger being depressed.

Essentially the intercepting safety consists of a second groove in the tumbler, that catches the end of the sear as it passes, if the trigger is not depressed to the firing position at that time. This is a situation that can only really occur in the case where the sear is dislodged without the trigger being depressed - for example due to the gun being dropped or jolted. The amazing thing is that it took until the 1880s to come up with it, as it bears a striking resemblance to the 'half cock' notch provided on most flintlocks almost a hundred years earlier - the difference is just that the 'intercepting safety' notch is so deep that depressing the trigger at that position requires an enormous force, while the earlier flint and percussion locks used two equal depth notches, and could thereby 'go off half cocked' if the trigger was pulled without fully cocking the gun.

Geez, my brain is a garbage bin. it must be nearly thirty years since I took that exam, and I have hardly used that knowledge since; but there it is.

 

[Deepak]

it really shouldn't be possible for a gun made in the 20th or 21st century to fire without the trigger being depressed.

True, though some newer types aren't amenable to the Deely design. Modern designs, such as striker fired pistols, also use inertial firing pins and passive firing pin blocks. There are also designs incorporating grip safeties and double triggers.