The second amendment is relevant because the Supreme Court has ruled that you have the right to have a loaded, unlocked gun in your house. If you can be sued for doing that, you no longer have that right.
Why anyone lives in VT I’ll never know.
However, don’t expect the Gun Control Nazi’s to change their minds over it.
Next you’ll be liable if a robber accidentally shoots himself with your gun in your house while robbing it.
The 2d Amendment does not protect a homeowner from their own negligence, this case has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. Any gun owner can be and will likely be sued if someone is injured or killed by unsafe use of a firearm. Plus, it’s just a damn stupid thing to do.
Sounds like theft, unauthorized appropriation of someone else’s property. Plus assumption of risk, playing with firearm without checking to see if safety is engaged or it is loaded.
Guns have taken a front seat again recently for several reasons:
1) Sales records are being broke almost daily.
2) Talking heads are using recent events and violent crime to demonize tools.
3) An end run at the American Second Amendment is being prepared if not already in motion.
The media is making these stories front-page works to put guns at the front of the mind of the public. This way when Obama starts flapping his Marxist mouth about a need for gun control, he can point to the dearth of gun violence stories plastered across the front pages of the nation’s newsrags.
Make no mistake, guns are going to be front and center in politics at some point in the next 4 years. When Congress and the Senate pass a gun ban bill akin to Obamacare, utilizing archaic and unconstitutional procedural maneuvers, make no mistake that the public will NOT be slinking back in their armchairs to take it up the tailpipe. This time, it’s personal.
I share your concerns about about 2nd Amendment issues, however, we shouldn’t be making this out to be something more than it really is. It’s a premises liability case, pure and simple. It’s no different than if somebody trespasses on your property and drowns in your pool. You’re going to get sued. I don’t like it; I don’t agree with it but it’s just the way it is.
At least, as far as I know, Vermont doesn’t have stupid and restrictive laws than mandate locking up firearms or face a criminal penalty. What you do with your guns is up to you.
There is a big difference between liability for inherently dangerous situations, such as slip and fall when the homeowner knew it existed, that it was dangerous, but did nothing to prevent it; and a situation where a guest created a deadly situation where none had existed before.
For example, if two guests walk into your kitchen, then one removes a butcher knife from its holder, spins around and unintentionally stabs the other person; importantly, having intended to “prank” them by pretending to stab them; the homeowner is nowhere at fault.
It fails in two regards, that the homeowner is not at fault, and the actual shooter or stabber is at fault.
Yes, a knife is an inherently dangerous tool to use, and the homeowner knew this, and did nothing to mitigate its functional use as a knife. This changes nothing.
The same with a gun.
Last night Beckel went postal on The Five when someone noted that the FBI claims 2.5M people a year save themselves with their guns. Liberals will never, ever accept the truth. Gun-grabbing is a Religion of the Left, impervious to fact and truth. The VT constitution allows all to have a firearm. This is how the loathsome left gets around that right. The biggest damage from The Kenyan’s 2012 reelection is four more years of his appointing communist judges.
“No one should be liable for the criminal actions of another person.”
So, you think that the parents in the following case should not be held liable?
I don't believe that the SCOTUS has ever said that. Please provide the case citation and specific quote. If I am wrong, I'll say so.
The manslaughter sentencing is correct and enough. That said, folks should think (without the threat of law) about how they store their tools and weapons, and the kind of people allowed into their homes.
What if Bell had picked up a hammer and beat Charbonneau’s brains out? Would The Goodwins be liable?
How about if he picked up a cigarette lighter and set the place on fire?
Why is a rifle any different?