Massachusetts Gun Control Lunacy

Forums: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Residents of Massachusetts beware. If a criminal breaks into your home, beats you up, rapes your wife and kids, then steals your guns, you'll be liable for that same creep's future criminal endeavors.

Anyone who lives in MA should seriously consider moving to another state.

Massachusetts High Court Rules That Homeowners Must Lock Up Their Guns, Says Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

BOSTON, June 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled today in Jupin v. Kask that homeowners must ensure that firearms in their homes are secured from theft, or they may be held liable for shootings with stolen guns. This is the first time that a court in Massachusetts has ruled that a homeowner may be liable for a shooting with a gun stolen from a home. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence submitted a friend of the court brief in this case, supporting liability for homeowners who fail to safely store their firearms.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=68634

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,490 • Replies: 37

No top replies

'Course if you don't already own guns, you don't have to worry about anyone stealing them.

0 Replies

All excellent reason to get rid of the guns.

Three cheers for the The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

hip hip

0 Replies

So typical of this uber-liberal site.

I hope you lose your first amendment rights.

0 Replies

Whether you own a gun or not, if you cannot see the lunacy of such a decision, you must have really enjoyed your public education.

0 Replies

jespah wrote:

'Course if you don't already own guns, you don't have to worry about anyone stealing them.

For analogy, suppose someone steals your car, runs somebody over with it, and the state of Massachusetts holds you liable for the victim's injuries. Would you be fine with that too? After all, if you don't already own a car, you don't have to worry about it.

0 Replies

I submit a second proposal for our consideration. Were someone to break into my house and begin the process of commission of the acts that cj presented. I would ask the "guest' only one question.

"How do you expect to get out of my house alive?, now that your future career options are partly my responsibility?"

I dont see any gun owning people ditching their guns over this stupid ill-thought-out legislative ultimatum. Instead, I see break-ins escalating into lots of homeowner/gunowners becoming shoot-to-killists.

Ill bet this gets overturned in some court where the judges heads are NOT up their asses.

0 Replies

On following cjhsa's link, it turns out that the home wasn't broken into, and the owner's wife and children were not raped. In fact, the homeowner let the man who took the gun roam freely in her house, knowing he had a record of violence, and knowing that she was storing 30 rifles in a makeshift gun cabinet. The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided the homeonwer acted negligently, and could be held liable for the consequences. Here's the relevant excerpt from cjhsa's link.

The case involved the May 10, 1999, shooting of Westminster Police Officer Lawrence M. Jupin by Jason Rivers. Rivers shot Officer Jupin three times with a .357 Magnum handgun. Officer Jupin fell into a coma and died after 3 1/2 years in a vegetative state. Rivers had a history of violent criminal activity and was a paranoid schizophrenic. Despite Jason's record of violence, homeowner Sharon Kask allowed Jason's father to store an arsenal of thirty firearms in her home in a makeshift gun cabinet, and she gave Jason free access to her home. The cabinet was locked but was made of particle board and could easily be disassembled with a screwdriver. Jason unscrewed the cabinet's lock and took the gun he used to kill Officer Jupin. [...] The decision follows rulings in other states holding gun owners liable for shootings that occur because they have failed to secure firearms in their homes. Courts in Indiana, Kansas and Montana have recently expanded liability of gun owners who fail to secure their guns.
Holding the homeowner liable doesn't sound so bad to me in this particular case.

0 Replies

Hmmm, had I recalled cj's propensity for hyper narrative,(and, had I read the link that cj posted) I probably would have arrived at a differentconclusion than I did. Im not entirely clear of the relationships and residences ofthe three principles.

0 Replies

I live in a resort area, complete with some big-city problems such as drugs and burglary and stupid owners of vacation homes.

People leave unsecured guns in houses that are empty for much of the time. The guns are stolen and used both for crime and for barter.

I'm not against owning guns. I'm against damn fools owning guns.

0 Replies

I guess it okay for a state to arm itself too so a criminal nation may not try to rob its oil.

0 Replies

Re: Massachusetts Gun Control Lunacy

cjhsa wrote:

Anyone who lives in MA should seriously consider moving to another state.

Or, not owning guns.

0 Replies

Re: Massachusetts Gun Control Lunacy

littlek wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

Anyone who lives in MA should seriously consider moving to another state.

Or, not owning guns.

Or not owning guns, if u don 't care whether u will
be able to establish control
in the event of a violent emergency.

David

0 Replies

jespah wrote:

'Course if you don't already own guns,
you don't have to worry about anyone stealing them.

RIGHT: U only have to worry about being entirely HELPLESS
to defend yourself or your loved ones,
in the event of a predatory emergency.

( Is that like saying that if u don 't carry a spare tire,
then u don 't have to worry about getting flat tires ? )

0 Replies

dadpad wrote:

All excellent reason to get rid of the guns.

Three cheers for the The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

hip hip

An even BETTER reason to get rid of Massachusetts
and move to Vermont or to Alaska,
where they have NO gun laws
and freedom of self-defense prevails.
David

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

I live in a resort area, complete with some big-city problems such as drugs and burglary and stupid owners of vacation homes.

People leave unsecured guns in houses that are empty for much of the time.
The guns are stolen and used both for crime and for barter.

I'm not against owning guns. I'm against damn fools owning guns.

Suppose that burglars steal the family 's SILVERWARE,
and cut someone with one of the stolen knives,
or puncture someone with one of the stolen forks, in a future crime.

Shud fools ( including damned ones ) be disallowed from
having eating utensils ?

0 Replies

Om sig

Quote:

Suppose that burglars steal the family 's SILVERWARE,
and cut someone with one of the stolen knives,
or puncture someone with one of the stolen forks, in a future crime.

Shud fools ( including damned ones ) be disallowed from
having eating utensils ?

Boy, that one is really lame, even for you Dave.

0 Replies

So...... let's see.... does anyone know what the crime rates are for MA and NH?

0 Replies

all guns should be muskets.........

0 Replies

And all musks should be gunkits.

NH has very low violent crime rate. Nothing to do with demographics, of course: it is the logical consequence of a heavily armed populace.

0 Replies

Massachusetts Gun Control Lunacy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know