It looked like this.
Posted on 04/16/2003 1:48:28 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
BELLEVUE, Wash., Apr 16, 2003 (U.S. Newswire via COMTEX) -- Will Sean Penn be held personally responsible for any crimes committed with either of two handguns taken from his car after it was stolen in Berkeley, CA recently? He would be if the loss happened in Indiana instead of California.
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled 5-0 Monday that gun owners have a responsibility to the public to exercise "reasonable care" in the safe storage of their firearms. If that standard applied to the Hollywood elite, Penn would be in big trouble, said the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA).
"The Indiana ruling relates to the unauthorized use of a gun in the murder of a police officer," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "Indiana justices say the parents of a thug, who stole their gun to kill a police officer in 1997, are responsible for that firearm's misuse, even though it was taken without their permission. By that standard, if either of Penn's two stolen handguns is subsequently used in a crime, then Penn should be held responsible, and I fully expect Hollywood's liberal elite to demand he be prosecuted."
Penn lost a loaded Glock 9mm and unloaded .38-caliber Smith & Wesson when his 1987 Buick was stolen while he was dining at a Berkeley, CA restaurant. The car was recovered but the guns are still missing.
"The Indiana ruling offers a real moral challenge to anti-gunners," suggested CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. "Holding gun owners responsible for crimes committed with their stolen firearms has long been the philosophy of liberal elitists. But actor-turned-peacenick Penn is one of their own, and I doubt we will hear any demands that Penn be held to the same standard as an Indiana couple whose gun was used in a terrible crime."
Added Gottlieb: "Gun control advocates who hail the Indiana ruling should be just as loud in their fervor to hold Penn personally and financially responsible for any crimes committed with his stolen pistols. Yet the silence from liberal gun control extremists is deafening. Where are the traditional whines about irresponsibility in the Penn case? Why aren't the elitists demanding Penn's hide for not keeping better track of his guns?
"After Penn traveled to Baghdad to condemn American efforts to get rid of Saddam Hussein, some people suggested that the actor be forced to move to Iraq," Gottlieb stated. "I think he ought to just move to Indiana."
------ With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
It looked like this.
It's a sex machine. A 'guy who likes cars' kinda car.
Not what you'd drive (or me, for that matter)...
Sean Penn’s Lunch Marred By Car, Gun Theft
Sean Penn’s Downtown Lunch Marred by Car, Gun Theft
Sean Penn de-gunned in Berzerkely
Court: Gun owners may be sued
State ruling revives suit against pair whose son used their weapon to kill sheriff's deputy.
By Shannon Tan
shannon.tan@indystar.com
April 8, 2003
Gun owners must safely store firearms and can be held liable for failing to do so, the Indiana Supreme Court said Monday in a landmark ruling.
In a 5-0 decision, the court reversed the Allen Circuit Court's dismissal of a 1999 lawsuit against the owners of a handgun used to kill an Allen County sheriff's deputy.
Deputy Eryk Heck, 26, was killed in a shootout with convicted felon Timothy Stoffer on Aug. 15, 1997. Stoffer, 27, who also died, took the handgun from his parents. The Heck family sued Raymond and Patricia Stoffer, asserting the couple knew their drug-addicted son was fleeing from police and failed to safeguard the gun.
The trial court and appeals court ruled that gun ownership was a constitutionally protected right. But the state's highest court found that the issue of negligence should be left to a jury.
"Indiana gun owners are guaranteed the right to bear arms," wrote Chief Justice Randall Shepard, "but this right does not entitle owners to impose on their fellow citizens all the external human and economic costs associated with their ownership."
This nonsense could be applied to ANY possession, not just guns. Should we be held financially liable when someone steals a a car and crashes into a store in a police car chase?
Only two other states -- Kansas and Montana -- have issued similar rulings, but those cases involved shootings by juveniles, said Daniel Vice, attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, based in Washington.
If he's happy, I'm terrified. Indiana, usually on the conservative end of the spectrum, is now at the opposite extreme. Yuk!
"This ruling today is the most important of them all," he said. "You have a duty to store your gun properly and keep it away from people like criminals who might use it."
The word 'DUTY' is the important legal term here, folks. It is exceedingly important for virtually every legal decision regarding torts on guns and safety.
More than 250,000 firearms are stolen each year. Stolen firearms are used in 35 percent of crimes involving guns. In Indiana, gun violence resulted in more than 4,000 deaths and 8,800 injuries from 1993 to 1997, according to the latest figures from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Of course, the author fails to point out how these numbers would be reduced with this ruling. Guns will still be obtained illegally and used in crimes. Do they seriously think that safes aren't targeted in robberies? Also, the 4,000 figure seems a bit high. Indy, the state capitol with 1 million of our 6 million residents in the Metro area, only gets about 120 murders per year.
Don Heck, Eryk's father, said he would continue to pursue the lawsuit against the Stoffers.
"People who own weapons and guns (need) to keep them secure, away from other people, and know where they are at all times," said the Fort Wayne retiree. "I own a gun. It's put away and locked up."
Yes, moron, but thanks to you even those taken from CCW owners will be liable for wrongs that they did not commit. Now that you've imposed a duty to magically prevent all gun thefts in the state, it won't matter much how you carry... if you lose that gun in a robbery, you are liable for its use. Basically, you've given CCW carriers an extra incentive to draw and use their weapon in property crimes... and, of course, lethal force is illegal in property crimes. Thanks for the catch-22, idiot!
But Jerry Wehner, president of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association, warned that the decision could set a dangerous precedent.
"If I come and steal your car and I commit a crime with it and in the course of the crime, the police officer is killed, do you feel it's right that the (officer's family) come back and sue you?" he asked. "Where does it stop?"
The ISRPA needs a better speaker. This basic rhetorical question does nothing to make the important points here.
Daniel Hawk, an attorney for the Stoffers, said he had not read the entire decision and could not comment. A message left for the Stoffers was not returned.
Their attorney hasn't read the decision?!? Red flag there!
Court documents show that in a nine-year period, Timothy Stoffer was charged with resisting law enforcement, battery, burglary, drug possession, forgery and escape. He also had stolen and forged checks from his parents' business, but they allowed him to keep the keys to their home.
The gun was kept in an armchair in Raymond Stoffer's bedroom but was hidden in the attic when the grandchildren visited, according to court documents.
"The Stoffers exercised due care to protect their grandchildren and valuables but failed to safeguard the gun from a 'mentally disturbed, habitual and violent offender (with) free access to the premises,' " Shepard wrote in the decision.
The only saving grace of the opinion so far... "violent offender with free access". Of course, that does not mean that non-violent people with free access are automatically discounted from this new rule, but it helps to bend it in that direction.
The Indiana Supreme Court has yet to rule on a lawsuit brought by the city of Gary against gun manufacturers and dealers. Gary, one of about 33 cities and counties across the country that have sued the gun industry, alleges that gun dealers have funneled firearms to criminals and contends that juveniles should be held liable.
No surprise that gun-hating Chicago would have a suburb like Gary take this position. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote Wednesday on a National Rifle Association-backed bill Wednesday that would give the gun industry immunity from lawsuits brought by gun-violence victims, including the Gary suit.
Any threads on how this came out?
I believe laws prohibiting law abiding citizens the right to own/carry firearms is unconstitutional, BUT that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law that says you can't leave a 9mm at a playgound or a daycare center. Guns are dangerous (I know someone is going to respond by saying "guns aren't dangerous, people are dangerous") and, therefore, should be treated differently than a shoebox or a soda can. Convicted violent criminals should lose their right to own a weapon, as well.
Let the flaming begin...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.