Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: marktwain

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.


11 posted on 12/06/2012 10:03:35 AM PST by Stormdog (A rifle transforms one from subject to Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Stormdog; marktwain

Stormdog is absolutely right: This has less to do with firemarms and the Second Amendment than it does with premesis liability. Under the common law dating back to Colonial England a landowner is liable for injuries sustained as a result a known dangerous condition especially if the injured person is an invited guest and the injuries are the foreseeable consequence of the dangerous condition.


22 posted on 12/06/2012 10:25:29 AM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Stormdog; marktwain

Stormdog is absolutely right: This has less to do with firearms and the Second Amendment than it does with premesis liability. Under the common law dating back to Colonial England a landowner is liable for injuries sustained as a result a known dangerous condition especially if the injured person is an invited guest and the injuries are the foreseeable consequence of the dangerous condition.


24 posted on 12/06/2012 10:27:04 AM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Stormdog; All
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.

I agree, but it is still wrong. Before 1960, this would never have even been considered for a lawsuit, and if it were, it would have been thrown out of court and the attorney would be in danger of losing his license.

The tort law in this country was deliberately changed to make suits like this possible. I highly reccommend: Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences by Peter W. Huber.

25 posted on 12/06/2012 10:33:55 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson