National One Law for Me, Another for Thee: Feds not liable for unsecured stolen loaded gun used to kill Steinle

[awshoot]

Hopefully this ruling gets appealed. You might recall the lady killed when a multiple deportee who had recently been released from jail killed a woman while fiddling with a gun on a pier in San Francisco. The court ruled that the Feds aren't liable for damages: "In this case, the gun traveled at least some distance from the theft, three and a half days elapsed, the gun changed hands once at the very least, and there is no way to know what else transpired during that time,"

Of course, if the ranger hadn't left a loaded unsecured gun in his SUV, it wouldn't have been used to kill Steinle 3.5 days later, but whatever.

Kate Steinle Case: Judge Throws Out Parents Lawsuit Against Feds

The parents of a woman killed with a stolen federal gun on a San Francisco pier in 2015 have lost a bid to hold the U.S. government liable for her death.

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com

Read More

 

[Xaevian]

I am ok with this if it sets a precedent that all gun owners can't be held liable for the acts of others using their stolen weapons. You know, common sense...

 

[awshoot]

I am ok with this if it sets a precedent that all gun owners can't be held liable for the acts of others using their stolen weapons. You know, common sense...

Yeah, though I suspect that is more wishful thinking than anything else. Here is the decision: http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SteinleBLM-SJ.pdf

In the middle the judge lists a bunch of cases involving heavy machinery which has been likened to firearms in other cases because such machinery is inherently dangerous, and time after time, the courts allowed the cases. One of those is kind of amusing:

In Richardson, the California Supreme Court held that a claim could proceed against defendants who failed to secure a massive bulldozer—which had been a subject of notable public interest—with an effective ignition lock, which allowed a drunk group of trespassers to start the bulldozer and, after joyriding around the construction site, inadvertently set it off on a one-mile unpiloted rampage through a residential area.

 

[arakboss]

Yeah, though I suspect that is more wishful thinking than anything else. Here is the decision: http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SteinleBLM-SJ.pdf

In the middle the judge lists a bunch of cases involving heavy machinery which has been likened to firearms in other cases because such machinery is inherently dangerous, and time after time, the courts allowed the cases. One of those is kind of amusing:

That must have been a good time, at the time

 

[awshoot]

That must have been a good time, at the time

Buldozer case: Richardson v. Ham

The following evening three young men, aged 17, 18, and 20, after drinking intoxicants, decided to go for a drive with the wife of one of them. While driving, one of them mentioned having seen the bulldozers, and they decided to go to the mesa for the purpose of racing them. On their arrival, two of the young men left the car and attempted to start the bulldozers. They were unable to start the bulldozer equipped with the dealer's lock but succeeded in starting the other bulldozer. They drove it around the mesa for 15 to 30 minutes causing considerable damage, and then, being unable to stop it, headed it toward a canyon to the east of the mesa and abandoned it. It went off the edge of the mesa, down the hill, across a freeway, and traveled for [44 Cal. 2d 775] about a mile before it was halted by a retaining wall and a utility pole. During the course of its journey it traveled through a house and seriously injured the occupants. It also collided with a house-trailer and an automobile causing further property damage and personal injuries. Plaintiffs, whose persons or property were in the path of the bulldozer, brought these actions for damages against defendants alleging that they were negligent in leaving the bulldozer unattended and unlocked.

 

[titsonritz]

But the Sandyhook folks can sue Remington, seems legit.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Ill echo what others have said, if this sets a precedent for average civilians, Im ok with it. However if civilians are held to a higher standard and punished for the same thing while feds can get away with it.. then I see a huge issue there.

 

[Alexx1401]

Sadly this like so often happens, is all in what one judge has to say. This will do nothing to help anyone else who gets a gun stolen and someone sues. For that to happen this would have to be heard by a top court. In the mean time all laws only mean what one judge happens to say they mean. That entire case with this scum was a huge example of the voters there getting what they deserve. Stuff like this should lead to impeachment of some judges but sadly it does not.
This is one reason I have long said having a safe at home, any safe, is better than nothing. A long time back those 2 young scum shot a bunch of kids at that grade school. The more demented one used a torch to cut open his grandfathers safe to get the guns. Family sued the guy and that case was tossed due to the fact that he has a safe.