Leominster - Followup on 2 kids arrested with name list, gun - dad gets bagged now.

[Scrivener]

So, are you supporting trigger locks and the rest of the "secure storage" laws then? Seems that way.

If you cannot distinguish between a gun in your locked home (you DO lock up at night, don't you?) and leaving the key in a car open to the public, you are another candidate for a TSTL Award.

Oh - here's the statute:

M.G.L.c. 90, § 13. Safety precautions for proper operation and parking of vehicles and buses.

Section 13. No person, when operating a motor vehicle, shall permit to be on or in the vehicle or on or about his person anything which may interfere with or impede the proper operation of the vehicle or any equipment by which the vehicle is operated or controlled, except that a person may operate a motor vehicle while using a citizens band radio or mobile telephone as long as one hand remains on the steering wheel at all times. No person having control or charge of a motor vehicle, except a person having control or charge of a police, fire or other emergency vehicle in the course of responding to an emergency or a person having control or charge of a motor vehicle while engaged in the delivery or acceptance of goods, wares or merchandise for which the vehicle's engine power is necessary for the loading or unloading of such goods, wares or merchandise, shall allow such vehicle to stand in any way and remain unattended without stopping the engine of said vehicle, effectively setting the brakes thereof or making it fast, and locking and removing the key from the locking device and from the vehicle.

 

[pdm]

"On any way" refers to public roads, does it not?

 

[dwarven1]

M.G.L.c. 90, § 13. Safety precautions for proper operation and parking of vehicles and buses.

Section 13. No person, when operating a motor vehicle, shall permit to be on or in the vehicle or on or about his person anything which may interfere with or impede the proper operation of the vehicle or any equipment by which the vehicle is operated or controlled, except that a person may operate a motor vehicle while using a citizens band radio or mobile telephone as long as one hand remains on the steering wheel at all times. No person having control or charge of a motor vehicle, except a person having control or charge of a police, fire or other emergency vehicle in the course of responding to an emergency or a person having control or charge of a motor vehicle while engaged in the delivery or acceptance of goods, wares or merchandise for which the vehicle's engine power is necessary for the loading or unloading of such goods, wares or merchandise, shall allow such vehicle to stand in any way and remain unattended without stopping the engine of said vehicle, effectively setting the brakes thereof or making it fast, and locking and removing the key from the locking device and from the vehicle.

Holy. Sh*t.

I never realized until just now how incredibly fascistic this state really is - it's a freaking law that you have to lock your car when you park it?????

Tell me, does that mean that I'm breaking the law when I park the car in my garage and leave it unlocked? Or is that only if I leave the keys in the car in my LOCKED GARAGE. [/sarcasm] (not directed at you (unless you wrote that mastermpiece of nanny-statery))

How about if I leave it unlocked on my driveway, no keys inside? I'm guessing that that's illegal...

 

[pdm]

"On any way" refers to public roads, does it not?

Indeed it does

MGL c90 s1

“Way”, any public highway, private way laid out under authority of statute, way dedicated to public use, or way under the control of park commissioners or body having like powers.

 

[z0mbi]

Under that pathetic excuse for rational thought, you must not:

1. Lock your house;

2. Carry a gun, knife or spray;

3. Be aware of your surroundings;

4. Keep your PIN secure;

5. Be alert using an ATM; or

6. Secure your wallet, check book or credit cards.

Don't get spiked by the unicorns or trampled by the pink elephants while you wander around Fantasy Island.....

Can I call you 'Stretch', Mr. Armstrong?

 

[Coyote33]

If you cannot distinguish between a gun in your locked home (you DO lock up at night, don't you?) and leaving the key in a car open to the public, you are another candidate for a TSTL Award.
...

Ad hominem attacks aside, could you explain how you differentiate "forseeability" in the one case and not the other?

 

[Scrivener]

Ad hominem attacks aside, could you explain how you differentiate "foreeability" in the one case and not the other?

Certainly:

1. A car parked on the statutory "public way" is, by definition, openly visible to the public; and

2. A car in a driveway is - generally - also readily visible; and

3. Cars are targets of thieves; and

4. Also of those (usually, but not always, kids) who know an opportunity when they see it.

ERGO, leaving the keys in the ignition (never mind morons who leave running vehicles unsecured) facilitate the theft of those vehicles.

Since such unauthorized operators tend to, shall we say, observe laws more by breach than obedience, not only is the theft, but a collision, easily foreseen.

IF - again, IF - one does not have kids in the house, securing the house is equivalent to taking the keys to the car: Each step is deemed sufficient to secure same, at least for insurance and negligence purposes.

The wrinkle for the MA gun owner is that the law treats every home as a 24-hour kindergarten, requiring all guns to be secured at all times. This effectively negates having a gun at hand for home defense, even in those homes where there are no children, house guests, whatever.

That help?

 

[Firetarr]

Basically, this guy was:

dumb as a sack of hammers
few tiles missing from his space shuttle
room temperature IQ
A titanic intellect... In a world full of icebergs
All missile, no warhead
Bright as a Zippo lighter without a flint
He's so dense, light bends around him
RS232C brain with a DIN connector
Would make an excellent illustration in a proctology textbook

Talk about asking to get thrown in jail for a LONG time... Is this case going to Bristol County for the "Gun Court"?

Sharp as a soup sandwich
sharp as a bowling ball
missing a few rungs on his ladder
a few ants short of a picnic
no insulation in the attic
...and the list goes on....

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

The wrinkle for the MA gun owner is that the law treats every home as a 24-hour kindergarten, requiring all guns to be secured at all times. This effectively negates having a gun at hand for home defense, even in those homes where there are no children, house guests, whatever.

Quick Q (and not to get off topic):
As long as I have control of my firearm, I do not have to have it locked, even while asleep?

Seems a bit much that I have to lock up my personal protection... Seems like another D.C. law...

 

[drgrant]

Quick Q (and not to get off topic):
As long as I have control of my firearm, I do not have to have it locked, even while asleep?

The consensus has generally been that one cannot "have control"
of a firearm if they are asleep. The best way around this is a
fast action safe.

-Mike

 

[Admin]

The wrinkle for the MA gun owner is that the law treats every home as a 24-hour kindergarten, requiring all guns to be secured at all times. This effectively negates having a gun at hand for home defense, even in those homes where there are no children, house guests, whatever.

Which is my whole gripe about the law in the first place. I wouldn't consider that a wrinkle, I would consider it the loss of a right.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Which is my whole gripe about the law in the first place. I wouldn't consider that a wrinkle, I would consider it the loss of a right.

Derek,

Not sure about that!

You have to have a "right" before you can lose it. I'm not sure that MA ever recognized that their subjects had "rights", ever.

 

[Coyote33]

Derek,

Not sure about that!

You have to have a "right" before you can lose it. I'm not sure that MA ever recognized that their subjects had "rights", ever.

Derek isn't originally from MA. (-;

 

[clinotus]

In regards to the M.G.L.c. 90, how does this regard the auto start features of todays cars?

 

[Cato]

Derek,

Not sure about that!

You have to have a "right" before you can lose it. I'm not sure that MA ever recognized that their subjects had "rights", ever.

You were born with certain natural rights. They did not originate from government. You can never actually lose these rights either. They are inalienable.

 

[drgrant]

In regards to the M.G.L.c. 90, how does this regard the auto start features of todays cars?

If you don't use it on a public way, I don't see how MGL could
really play into it at all. Further, most of those remotes will stall
out if someone hops in and tries to move the vehicle without the
key getting inserted into the ignition. (assuming a good unit with
proper installation).

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

You were born with certain natural rights. They did not originate from government. You can never actually lose these rights either. They are inalienable.

That sounds like you never lived in MA!

 

[ronbok]

The intervening act is not exculpatory where, as here, it is clearly forseeable. Grasp the concept.

Following your logic then, with respect to Bloomberg's continued pursuit of gun manufactures for negligence along with another case in Indiana. Obviously firearm manufacturers clearly foreseeable the fact that their manufactured items were intended to kill, therefore if I go out and kill someone - they are at fault and liable?

Maybe I'm proving that I'm not attorney material by asking this, but this seems very closely related.

 

[Cross-X]

This could be your "finest hour" Darius! Getting this guy to walk would build the old resume
big time. Try the "If it doesn't fit, you have to acquit" defense for starters.

Thanks BP!

I agree a win in that high profile case could be a helluva practice booster!

 

[Scrivener]

Following your logic then, with respect to Bloomberg's continued pursuit of gun manufactures for negligence along with another case in Indiana. Obviously firearm manufacturers clearly foreseeable the fact that their manufactured items were intended to kill, therefore if I go out and kill someone - they are at fault and liable?

Maybe I'm proving that I'm not attorney material by asking this, but this seems very closely related.

You are not following my logic; you are off on a specious meander.

Manufacturers ship their highly regulated products directly to highly regulated distributors who ship them to highly regulated dealers.

In what way, shape, manner or form is that remotely equivalent to leaving a car out in the open with the keys in it?

Or a gun unsecured in a house with kids?

 

[Cato]

Oh - here's the statute:

M.G.L.c. 90, § 13. Safety precautions for proper operation and parking of vehicles and buses.

Section 13. No person, when operating a motor vehicle, shall permit to be on or in the vehicle or on or about his person anything which may interfere with or impede the proper operation of the vehicle or any equipment by which the vehicle is operated or controlled, except that a person may operate a motor vehicle while using a citizens band radio or mobile telephone as long as one hand remains on the steering wheel at all times. No person having control or charge of a motor vehicle, except a person having control or charge of a police, fire or other emergency vehicle in the course of responding to an emergency or a person having control or charge of a motor vehicle while engaged in the delivery or acceptance of goods, wares or merchandise for which the vehicle's engine power is necessary for the loading or unloading of such goods, wares or merchandise, shall allow such vehicle to stand in any way and remain unattended without stopping the engine of said vehicle, effectively setting the brakes thereof or making it fast, and locking and removing the key from the locking device and from the vehicle.

Consider the following hypothetical.

1) Operator leaves key in ignition while vehicle is unattended.

2) Vehicle is stolen.

3) Thief is apprehended and convicted.

4) Vehicle is total loss and owner does not have insurance.

5) Owner sues thief for value of stolen vehicle.

Question: Could the thief as part of his defense properly claim that the owner was negligent having violated the law by leaving the keys in the ignition and should share in the damages?

 

[Scrivener]

Consider the following hypothetical.

1) Operator leaves key in ignition while vehicle is unattended.

2) Vehicle is stolen.

3) Thief is apprehended and convicted.

4) Vehicle is total loss and owner does not have insurance.

5) Owner sues thief for value of stolen vehicle.

Question: Could the thief as part of his defense properly claim that the owner was negligent having violated the law by leaving the keys in the ignition and should share in the damages?

The criminal could certainly assert such a defense, but I think it would fail in THAT scenario. Reason: the case deals exclusively with the 2 actors and the criminal's actions are far more egregious than the negligent owner's. It would be interesting, though.


Had there been insurance, I believe the insurer certainly could and probably would make that argument, and could well prevail. Expecting a third party to subsidize the negligence of the property owner who provided the means of destruction is a wholly different case.

 

[ronbok]

You are not following my logic; you are off on a specious meander.

Manufacturers ship their highly regulated products directly to highly regulated distributors who ship them to highly regulated dealers.

In what way, shape, manner or form is that remotely equivalent to leaving a car out in the open with the keys in it?

Or a gun unsecured in a house with kids?

I was merely attempting to extend your “Grasp the concept.” theory of "The intervening act is not exculpatory where, as here, it is clearly foreseeable."

If you implied that “clearly foreseeable” circumstances make you liable then (maybe you didn’t mean in all cases) then with a stretch you could apply the same to a manufacturer in my example. I was not talking about the car example.

Like I said, I’m not an attorney nor do I play one on TV or in this forum, but I will say this: There appears to be little tolerance from “some” who are versed in these topics for those who are doing nothing more than trying to learn.

 

[drgrant]

Vicarious liability is VERY subjective.

One thing to remember guys, that nobody seems to have
mentioned yet.... Vicarious Liability is EXTREMELY geographically
subjective, what "flies" in one jurisdiction will often not fly in
another, for various subject matter.

A prime example is the topic first at hand here, the treatment of
firearms WRT theft/access.

In most free states, the standard for vicarious liability from leaving
guns hanging around is a LOT higher than it is in MA... mainly
because the legal system in these locales don't attach a negative
connotation out of the gate to firearms.

Shining scenario- You live in a free state. You have a gun in a
bag/briefcase/range bag whatever, in your motor vehicle, with
no locks, etc, on it. Your vehicle is locked. A hoodlum
smashes your window, breaks into your car, steals some CDs and
your bag with the firearm.

In a free state, the firearm is -just another piece of property- and
not an evil baby killing machine that must have 48 locks on it
at all times.

In MA, under the same circumstances, the person that the
gun was stolen from will probably be:

-Excoriated for leaving a gun in a car (just in general, regardless of it being legal under some circumstances)
-Excoriated (and probably charged) with safe storage violations
-Lose their LTC (either via the safe storage charge or unsuitable
person clause, whichever is more convenient)
-And then, on the civil law side, the theft victim might start on a
downward slope because the people bringing suit will most certainly
mention that the guy who had the gun stolen BROKE THE LAW,
and "should have known better" blah blah blah....

It is readily apparent to most that the aforementioned treatment
is a direct result of the brain damage which often impregnates the
MA society and legal system. MA considers this
treatment "rational" whereas others would consider it to be
insane.

In states/locales where people don't worship the judicial system
as much, vicarious liability is not nearly as bad- eg, the system
is more likely to treat things how they are- eg, the gun owner
will be a THEFT VICTIM and would be treated no differently than
some guy who got a VCR stolen from him, etc, barring any obvious,
egregious negligence. (An example would be, say, leaving a
loaded gun on the dashboard in plain sight with the window open!)
I guess my point is "what most people" would consider negligence
in one locale is considerably different from another. (The
doubting thomases will say- "well, public opinion doesn't run a
court...." well, to some degree it does... a "jury of your peers" in
MA is considerably different than the same thing in GA, or
wherever. What is "reasonable" to one may not be to another,
etc. And gun friendly states are probably far more likely to nullify,
as well. ) Prosecutors know this. A prosecutor in a pro gun
state is not going to try to invent something on a gun owner,
because the cards are stacked against him out of a gate; not to
mention the lack of "laws actually broken".


-Mike

 

[Scrivener]

I was merely attempting to extend your “Grasp the concept.” theory of "The intervening act is not exculpatory where, as here, it is clearly foreseeable."

Just how does the theft of a gun from a third party and its subsequent criminal use by a fourth party in any way, shape, manner or form result from negligent design, manufacture or shipping by the gun's maker?

In short - AGAIN - how is lawfully making a gun even remotely equivalent to the vehicle's owner leaving the car out in the open with the keys in it?

 

[z0mbi]

Because the potential for someone to misuse it and kill someone is the same.

 

[Scrivener]

Because the potential for someone to misuse it and kill someone is the same.

An utterly - and obviously - inadequate attempt at analysis. Under your reasoning, every manufacturer would be responsible for every death in which its product was used, regardless of how removed the manufacturer was from the act itself.

 

[z0mbi]

I believe that would be under YOUR reasoning, sir.