Colorado lawmakers want gun owners exposed to civil liability

[Deep13]

8. Punitive and unnecessary and probably an unconstitutional status punishment.

So the guy doing nothing wrong is reasponible, not the murderer. Strict liability means that as long as damage occurs, regardless of what safeguards exist or how careful the owner was or who might actually be guilty of a criminal offense, the owner is responsible.

So if someone keeps his granddad's in a safe, keeps his house locked, has bars on the windows, and an active alarm system, but someone still manages to crowbar his war in and steal; is he really the one to hold responsible for damage. In other words, should he be held to greater responsibility than the guy who commits the burglary and subsequent murder?

The usual standard for auto accidents or any other kind of injury (workers' comp is a special case) is negligence. Did the person fail to use ordinary, reasonable care to prevent injury? In the case of cars, for instance, that duty of care is defined by specific traffic rules. If someone runs a red light, speeds or rear ends someone, that driver has necessarily violated the duty of care. A similar rule could apply to gun storage. Failure to keep them locked up necessarily constitutes negligence.

I know a lot of you think any gun anywhere comes dunked in guilt that anyone who has one is automatically a monster in need of punishment. Fortunately, this is the real world and not some flaky, liberal purity reeducation camp. Good thing, since I never learned the words to Kumbaya. And no one in Washington is listening to you guys. We'll get universal background checks and maybe magazine restrictions, which will be sensible measure. But they've already given up on a "assault weapon" ban.