Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Festivito

(13,452 posts)
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:43 AM Dec 2012

Thinking out loud on an idea about a well regulated militia.

Whoever makes, sells, gives, lends a gun is liable in part, the well regulated part, for whatever may happen next.

... just as I would be liable for giving alcohol to a drunk, or my car to known bad driver who I know lost his license. Courts find me negligent. Tweaking the laws can leads us to having a good sense of individual responsibility when it comes to alcohol, drugs, cars, and guns.

Tweaking laws surrounding what constitutes negligence in the forms of transfer, training, and things I have not even thought yet about guns leads us to a militia, people with arms, that is well-regulated into being somewhat safe, somewhat well stocked, and somewhat ready for war.

Instead of registering with the government, you the gun owner, registers with the seller and the seller registers with the manufacturer. Each takes a large responsibility with this.

In the sad event where the arm is misused, we look for negligence in each party including ourselves, our government, and do what is necessary to continue making a more perfect union.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Loudly

(2,436 posts)
1. How about repealing tort protections for anyone making or selling?
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:49 AM
Dec 2012

Bring the personal injury bar back into the equation.

Festivito

(13,452 posts)
2. Yes, that would be part of tweaking us into well regulated.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:21 PM
Dec 2012

Selling me a hunting rifle would be safer from lawsuit than selling me a handgun which would be safer than selling me an automatic assault weapon. The victim ends up winning all the stock and holdings from the manufacturer and intermediate sellers. Sadly, that might end up in his estate.

 

jody

(26,624 posts)
3. It's already illegal for anyone to give firearms to the following.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:38 PM
Dec 2012
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) ofsection 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter.

Festivito

(13,452 posts)
4. What's missing is knowingly giving to anyone who would give as described in (d).
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:33 PM
Dec 2012

or instead of knowingly, unwarrantedly giving... that is that the manufacturer does not go beyond due diligence, rather investigates sales over time as sales occur.

Currently, we seem to hold the manufacturers innocent no matter what. That leads us to our current poor job of militia regulation.

 

jody

(26,624 posts)
5. As many have posted, how can society identify those who are a risk to commit such violence? nt
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:39 PM
Dec 2012

Festivito

(13,452 posts)
6. I group them with those who want to stop ALL car deaths, all drug overdoses, all gun deaths, ...
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:46 PM
Dec 2012

No one will make things perfect. I'm talking about attempting to achieve more perfect.

But, this kid is known as disturbed, so any guns in the house have to be kept locked, and kept locked with a greater watchfulness than those next door.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Thinking out loud on an i...