The debate over assault weapons

[Mismoyled Jiblet.]

The stamp thing is not like that here. I always get a snook stamp but you don't have to have one unless you have landed a snook. You can fish in places and using methods likely to get a snook without a license, you just have to release any snook.

It always impresses me just how much of a bullshitter tommie is.

Required, in addition to a saltwater fishing license, including shoreline fishing, when taking or attempting to take snook.  

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Did your guns do what they were made to do? If so, who did they kill?

Do you stop reading all statutes halfway through, or just the gun ones?

 

[Burning Man]

You can't have it both ways. Cars are not made to kill people. Therefor (as night must follow day) it follows that when somebody is killed by a car, something went wrong.

You right-wing nutballs keep saying that guns are NOT made to kill people. Yet we can't sue gun manufacturers because nothing has gone wrong when people are killed by guns.

- DSK

Guns are made to fire a projectile of a certain mass at a certain velocity.  How that projectile is used is up to the user of the gun.  If can be used to put food on the table, punch holes in paper, or punch holes in people.  And ALL three of those things can be either completely legal or completely illegal depending on the context.  

So yes, a gun that "kills" someone in legal self-defense is an entirely legal activity with a tool that was specifically designed for that legal purpose.  

Guns are not sold or marketed to be used for illegal activities, any more than a Porsche 911 Turbo S is marketed and sold to be raced on the street.  That is an illegal activity.  So therefore the car manufacturer is not legally liable for the deliberate misuse of their products.  If someone doing 155 mph in their porsche hits a school bus full of small children, nuns and baby seals....... then Porsche is not liable for that accident assuming the car didn't have a manufacturing defect that caused it to accelerate against the driver's will and crash into the bus.  

 

[Burning Man]

If a gun blows up in someone's hands due to poor manufacturing or negligence, they would be just as liable as a car that blew up.

Jeff, glad to see that you're joining the team! You obviously understand the inherent stupidity of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. If you're unfamiliar with that piece of nonsense, you can head over to the Giffords Center and educate yourself. A handy link is provided below.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/other-laws-policies/gun-industry-immunity/

I am well aware of that act.  And that act does not in anyway prohibit the litigation against a gun manufacturer if they produce a product that is defective and injured or killed someone.  If someone takes a perfectly functioning tool and deliberately uses it in an illegal way - then yes, that manufacturer is protected.  Just like a truck maker would be if someone rented a box truck and killed 70 people with it on a crowded street.  

Knives are used to kill people all the time.  Is Henckel or Benchmade or Leatherman on the legal chopping block if someone stabs and kills someone?  

 

[Mismoyled Jiblet.]

Guns are not sold or marketed to be used for illegal activities, any more than a Porsche 911 Turbo S is marketed and sold to be raced on the street.  That is an illegal activity.  So therefore the car manufacturer is not legally liable for the deliberate misuse of their products.  If someone doing 155 mph in their porsche hits a school bus full of small children, nuns and baby seals....... then Porsche is not liable for that accident assuming the car didn't have a manufacturing defect that caused it to accelerate against the driver's will and crash into the bus.  

:lol:
 

Porsche Carrera GT.

 

[Olsonist]

I am well aware of that act.  And that act does not in anyway prohibit the litigation against a gun manufacturer if they produce a product that is defective and injured or killed someone.  If someone takes a perfectly functioning tool and deliberately uses it in an illegal way - then yes, that manufacturer is protected.  Just like a truck maker would be if someone rented a box truck and killed 70 people with it on a crowded street.  

Knives are used to kill people all the time.  Is Henckel or Benchmade or Leatherman on the legal chopping block if someone stabs and kills someone?  

It also absolves individuals of the LIABILITY FOR USE by others. So if your roommate steals your keys and bypasses your 'secure gun storage' and uses your gun to holdup a liquor store, you're totally good. But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.

 

[bpm57]

Therefor (as night must follow day) it follows that when somebody is killed by a car, something went wrong.

"It was an ACCIDENT".. yep, those 36K+ deaths are acceptable.

What "went wrong" with the truck in France when 86 people died and 434 were injured?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.

Except that Owner Liability For Damage Caused By Stolen Vehicles doesn't work that way.
 

...Finding independent negligence by and liability on the owner of a stolen vehicle usually means the existence of liability insurance, and a subrogation recovery. However, like negligent entrustment, such liability is usually not automatic or vicarious. Some states have vicarious liability laws or statutes which make a vehicle owner liable for injuries or property damage that are caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by a permissive user. But, what if the vehicle is stolen?

The majority common law rule among the 50 states is that the owner of a stolen vehicle will not be held liable for damages when the vehicle is stolen and then involved in an accident that causes injury or property damage. This is because the vehicle was taken without the consent of the owner, who did not cause the accident. Under the “permissive use doctrine”, an owner is liable for personal injury or property damage resulting from negligence in the operation of a vehicle by any person using the vehicle with the permission of the owner. Liability is dependent on the express or implied permission of the owner. ...

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I have no issue with having to show game wardens a license and any equipment when asked.

is hunting the only thing guns are used for?

Do you stop reading all threads halfway through, or just the gun ones?

I've been asked to show my concealed weapons permit and hand over my gun during traffic stops. Some cops just want to know where the gun is and ask me to leave it there.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The stamp thing is not like that here. I always get a snook stamp but you don't have to have one unless you have landed a snook. You can fish in places and using methods likely to get a snook without a license, you just have to release any snook.

It always impresses me just how much of a bullshitter tommie is.

Required, in addition to a saltwater fishing license, including shoreline fishing, when taking or attempting to take snook.  

I know the rules and my statement was right. If you provided a source, people could see that, so I will.

However, when you get into estuarine type areas where salt and fresh water commingle and fish of both types can be found the issue becomes less clear. The interpretation of the rule is:

1. You need either a freshwater, saltwater or combination license (or appropriate exemption) to take fish (take is legally defined as taking, attempting to take, pursuing, molesting, capturing, or killing any fish, or their nests or eggs by any means whether or not such actions result in obtaining possession of such fish or their nests or eggs).
   
2. If you are using species specific gear, your license should be appropriate (e.g., freshwater or saltwater) to the species you are targeting, and
   
3. Otherwise you need an appropriate type license to keep your catch and must immediately release any species for which you are not licensed. License requirements follow the species of fish, regardless of where they are caught. In other words, if you only have a freshwater license and are primarily fishing for largemouth bass or bream (freshwater species) in a river, but happen to catch a red drum (a saltwater species), you must immediately release the red drum.
   

I live on just such an estuary and have caught bass when attempting to catch snook. I don't have a freshwater license, so back it went. There is no "species-specific gear" that I know about for snook, and the bass fishermen that come up here might catch a snook when trying to catch bass. That's not a violation of the law, they just have to release any snook, as I said.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Do you stop reading all statutes halfway through, or just the gun ones?

Which do you think reflects a more thorough reading of the PLCAA? This:

Quote
Cite or it didn't happen. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects

Or the more complete version I posted in response?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Arguably illegal picture from the GA fishing thread. I was trying to catch snapper and got this little snook instead. Holding it for a few seconds while my wife took a picture was not an "immediate" release but the fish swam away just fine moments later. Accidentally catching it during the current moratorium was not illegal.

Too small to keep even without the moratorium but they were nice looking healthy fish.

 

[jzk]

It also absolves individuals of the LIABILITY FOR USE by others. So if your roommate steals your keys and bypasses your 'secure gun storage' and uses your gun to holdup a liquor store, you're totally good. But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.

Which states hold the owner of the car liable for negligence committed in their car by a roommate that steals the owner's keys?

Which states would hold the owner liable if the roommate stole the keys and intentionally drove over an old lady? 

 

[Burning Man]

Except that Owner Liability For Damage Caused By Stolen Vehicles doesn't work that way.
 

...Finding independent negligence by and liability on the owner of a stolen vehicle usually means the existence of liability insurance, and a subrogation recovery. However, like negligent entrustment, such liability is usually not automatic or vicarious. Some states have vicarious liability laws or statutes which make a vehicle owner liable for injuries or property damage that are caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by a permissive user. But, what if the vehicle is stolen?

The majority common law rule among the 50 states is that the owner of a stolen vehicle will not be held liable for damages when the vehicle is stolen and then involved in an accident that causes injury or property damage. This is because the vehicle was taken without the consent of the owner, who did not cause the accident. Under the “permissive use doctrine”, an owner is liable for personal injury or property damage resulting from negligence in the operation of a vehicle by any person using the vehicle with the permission of the owner. Liability is dependent on the express or implied permission of the owner. ...

Oh Snap!

 

[Mismoyled Jiblet.]

Arguably illegal picture from the GA fishing thread. I was trying to catch snapper and got this little snook instead. Holding it for a few seconds while my wife took a picture was not an "immediate" release but the fish swam away just fine moments later. Accidentally catching it during the current moratorium was not illegal.

Wouldn’t be the first, won’t be the last, of the dumb old man bragging about breaking the law with a picture inPA. But no, he’s not a privileged cunt, he’s oppressed by the duopoly!

 

[Burning Man]

Wouldn’t be the first, won’t be the last, of the dumb old man bragging about breaking the law.

:lol:

 

[Mismoyled Jiblet.]

:lol:

Treat this thread like a house and walk away.

 

[Burning Man]

Treat this thread like a house and walk away.

:lol:

 

[F395]

Arguably illegal picture from the GA fishing thread. I was trying to catch snapper and got this little snook instead. Holding it for a few seconds while my wife took a picture was not an "immediate" release but the fish swam away just fine moments later. Accidentally catching it during the current moratorium was not illegal.

In Michigan when you catch an undersize lake trout you have to release it.  When the fish comes from really deep water it's swim bladder inflates on the way up and unless you puncture the fish's swim bladder to let the air out it will float on the surface and die - if you puncture the swim bladder it probably will die.  Letting go a fish you know will die or at least have it's eyes pecked out by seagulls is a tough thing to do but it is the way the law works.  If you get caught with an undersize fish no matter the possible negative outcomes for the fish it is a violation of the law.

Same thing for bird hunting.  If I buy pheasants for dog training I cannot shoot the birds I purchased unless it is pheasant season.  As soon as the bird is released into the air or on the ground it becomes property of the state and cannot be shot outside of the hunting seasons laws.  A pheasant is a native Michigan bird and even though I own them by purchasing them from a licensed bird farm I cannot do as I please with them.  The reason for this I was told is a CO cannot tell whether the pheasant was purchased or was a natural bird.  However, if I buy a chucker which it is a non-native bird, I can do as I please with it for dog training at any time of year.  The Chucker cannot  survive the winter so it cannot become an invasive species even though they are a non-native bird. 

laws have to be understood the way the CO that is going to write you a ticket does.  I have learned the hard way to get a CO's take on what is and is not legal instead of what I think is right

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

laws have to be understood the way the CO that is going to write you a ticket does.  I have learned the hard way to get a CO's take on what is and is not legal instead of what I think is right

Yeah, I already know they're OK with pictures but for those who don't...

It is okay to take a picture of a fish that is not allowed to be harvested while it’s in the process of being released, but it still must be let go immediately after.