S1805 Kohl 'Sue gun owners' amemdment

[Wiley]

S1805 SHOULD BE KILLED!

After stripping out most of the text related to 'licencees' the Kohl amendment leaves the you and me holding the bag. If every firearm you own doesn't have a 'child safety' lock ON IT, you can be sued unless you could prove a government approved lock was on it!

(Check the full text on thomas.gov. The double tildes indicate deletions of text. Bolding mine. jhw)

--------------------------------
Exerpted amendment:

TITLE II--CHILD SAFETY LOCKS
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
~~
SEC. 202. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are--
(1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers;
~~
SEC. 203. FIREARMS SAFETY.
(a) UNLAWFUL ACTS.--
(1) MANDATORY TRANSFER OF SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.
~~
``(3) LIABILITY FOR USE.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action.
~~
(c) LIABILITY; EVIDENCE.--
(2) EVIDENCE.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the amendments made by this title shall not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other entity, except with respect to an action relating to section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code, as added by this section.
~~

 

[Mark Tyson]

a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action.

Hmmmm . . .

If you use one of these locks on your handgun you gain immunity from "qualified" civil liability lawsuits. Now just what do they mean by "qualified"?

I see no requirement to use the stupid lock, just an incentive.

 

[greyhound]

I too am starting to wonder if just killing S1805 is the best thing now.

If they had just stopped with "all gun sales must be accompanied by a lock" and left it, I personally wouldn't care. But they kept going with language about using the locks for "safe storage" and that sets up a lot of red flags, especially for those of us in states that are very likely to see charges pressed against those who use guns in self defense.

Then, add in all these other anti-gun amendments and it just seems a mess, since it seems like the bills advocates are just trying to water down the amendments rather than stopping them (i.e. this "study" of AP ammo as opposed to making it a crime.)

Even President Bush has called for a "clean" bill, now what the definition of that is is unknown (hopefully, it DEFINATELY means no AWB renewal).

Now, I think protecting gun makers from frivilous lawsuits is a good thing, and long term will help maintain that firearms are out there and available, but right now I want to see our individual rights preserved: No AWB and no new legislation to infringe our rights.

If that means killing S1805, so be it.

Very depressing, as I thought when they voted cloture on this bill it was ready to sail through.

 

[Preacherman]

a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action.

The difficulty with this section is not what it says, but what it doesn't say. You see, it does not say that if you don't use a "secure gun storage or safety device", you will not be immune from civil liability: but that's the line that shyster lawyers will take in court.

I can hear it now: "Your Honor, the law states specifically that if the defendant had used a secure gun storage or safety device, he/she would have been immunized against civil liability actions. He/she did not do so. Therefore, by force of logic, our suit against him/her is legal!"

I would guess this ambiguous language was probably inserted at the behest of trial lawyers, who love this sort of "loophole". Unfortunately, I don't see any way around the problem unless the language is deleted entirely. It's not a severe enough problem, IMHO, to derail the bill entirely: but it adds another means for lawyers to harass innocent gun-owners. I look for the day when you will be held civilly liable if your unsecured guns are stolen, and used in a crime by the thief...

 

[riverdog]

IMO, some form of S.1805 will go to the House of Reps and that's where the fight is. If the bill is clean enough (no AWB, no ammo ban et all) then the bill will pass. Otherwise, the bill will go down and the political blame/credit will be on the House Republicans who kill it.

Personally I'm writing my congressman and telling him to kill anything other than a clean bill. I've got Feinstein and Boxer for Senators; if they vote for it, I'm probably against it.

 

[Hedger]

``(C) DEFINED TERM.--As used in this paragraph, the term `qualified civil liability action'--

``(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, if--

``(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access to it; and

``(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and

``(ii) shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''.

From the Kohl Amendment.....

 

[Strings]

ok...

So does someone want to translate the above into English for those of us with only one language?

 

[Ironbarr]

``(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and

Possible translation??????

BG rips your gun out of holster and does dastardly things with it. Since you didn't have a "secure gun storage" and/or an undefeatable lock, you are bagged, tagged, and dragged unto da judge.

Did I read that wrong? Huh? Huh?

-IB

 

[Wiley]

Reread Preacherman and Ironbarr's posts. Also Sec. 202(1).

The ammendment sheilds dealers from liability but not the consumer , ie; you and me.

Mark Tyson: What you see as an incentive, to me is tatamount to a criminal penalty. If some teen-ager steals my unlocked gun and I am sued, I stand to be penalized some 30 years of work and savings, loose my house, car, etc. I'M SINGLE AND HAVE NO KIDS! I have no need to lock up my guns.

This ammendment is nothing more than the old 'lock up your safety' scheme.

In CA a number of years ago a 14 year old girl was attacked by an escaped mental patient and killed with a pitchfork. The girl knew how to use a firearm but CA has a 'lock up your safety' law. She couldn't get to the guns to defend herself.

This amendment is the same thing on an national level. I have no hope that an amendment, once in place will be removed by either chamber.

S1805 needs to be killed.

 

[Mark Tyson]

You guys have a point ... it says you won't be open for a lawsuit if you use a gun lock, implying that you are open for a lawsuit if you don't use one.

But will that change things from the way they are now?