c Richmond Sunlight » 2013 » Firearms; use in commission of crime, civil liability. (SB785)

Firearms; use in commission of crime, civil liability. (SB785)

Introduced By

Sen. Dave Marsden (D-Burke)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Use of firearm in commission of crime; civil liability. Provides that a person may be held civilly liable for injury to the person or property of another or for wrongful death resulting from the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime if it can be shown by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm came into the possession of the person who committed the crime because of the failure of the civil defendant to adequately secure the firearm from theft or unauthorized possession. Read the Bill »

Status

12/19/2012: Awaiting a Vote in the Courts of Justice Committee

History

  • 12/19/2012 Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/13
  • 12/19/2012 Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/13 13103078D
  • 12/19/2012 Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
  • 01/18/2013 Passed by indefinitely in Courts of Justice (8-Y 5-N) (see vote tally)

Comments

rural virginia resident writes:

IT IS RIDICULOUS not to hold accountable people who legally own guns but FAIL to keep the gun(s) out of illicit hands. People should be held accountable for negligence.

IF I leave dangerous chemical outs, negligently, for children to get into, and they are killed or harmed, should the parents of the child be allowed to seek civil remedies?

If your child is mauled because I let my dog run off leash on the street, wouldn't you seek civil remedies for your child?

This is simple common sense! Have Republicans lost all common sense? Have they lost all common decency?

Just Some Guy writes:

I agree with 'rural virginia resident.' If you're rich enough to own a gun, then I should be able to sue you if some misguided person steals your gun and then shoots my children, rapes my wife, or robs me. After all, your gun caused the crime. For example, if some innocent person was minding his own business in the living room of your house ... while you were at work ... and this misguided person is tempted into theft because your jewelry and your big-screen TV and your gun are attractive ... well, it's your fault.

If he pawns the jewelry and overdoses on drugs, it's your fault. HIS PARENTS should be able to sue you.

If my 14-year-old son happened to be such a misguided person, and stole your gun, I should be able to sue you. He wouldn't have taken the gun if you didn't own it. If my son stole your gun and hurt me with it, I should be able to sue you for even more money. After all, I can't very well sue the gun or my son, and expect to get any money. Besides, it wouldn't feel right.

IT'S RIDICULOUS to hold accountable parents whose juvenile spawn commit crimes. Such parents have obviously TRIED to properly bring up their progeny ... but temptations can be difficult to resist. Just like parents are not accountable for their child-rearing skills, misguided people who are seduced into stealing a gun by the gun's appearance shouldn't be responsible for their actions.

IF a dangerous children committed a crime, or even killed or harmed someone, should they be sued? Of course not! Parents of a misguided child bear no responsibility for their children's actions.

If my child hurts your child or your property, shouldn't you be able to seek civil remedies?

This is simple common sense!

Jupp Nedal writes:

DAVE MARSDEN ROCKS!!!

To hear some of the gun luvvers, you'd think that if a couple of assault weapons were stolen from them (for example, a Tec-9 and an Uzi, which would arguably be a gang-banger's wet dream) they shouldn't have to immediately report them as stolen. Some of them even think it's believable that a year or longer could go by without them having noticed these guns were missing. Believe it or not, some would call these dangerous assault weapons, "pistols." Puuuhleeeeeez! To use a medical term, some of these gun luvvers are just plain "nutsy cookoo."

The gun luvvers can't imagine the need for a theft-victim to be liable for the consequences of this theft. If someone steals battery acid from a car-repair shop and then throws it in the face of an innocent woman or child, shouldn't the car-repair shop be liable? Acid in the face is a daily occurence in the third world, where liability and lawyers aren't as finely developed as here in Virginia. If you can't get battery acid, you can't blind anyone. (This is not just a crime agains women. A male Russian ballet dancer named Filin was attacked with acid last week!)

MARSDEN's friend and ally, a Virginia Gentleman named JOE MORRISSEY, demonstrated just how lax Virginia's gun laws are, as well as just how irresponsible gun owners can be. If you didn't see the picture, MORRISSEY brandished an AK47 assault weapon (AK47s were engineered by the Communists solely to kill and subjogate innocent people) in the General Assembly WHILE THE ASSEMBLY WAS IN SESSION! MORRISSEY's self-less demonstration was at some personal risk. Imagine if an armed gun luvver had been present, and had shot MORRISSEY as he pulled the AK47 from concealment!

(MORRISSEY has always been a self-less guy, and supporter of the Constitution and Bill of Rights for years. FOr example, ten or twelve years ago MORRISSEY was safeguarding some cash for a friend at great personal risk. That cash was reportedly stolen from MORRISEY, who I heard was almost car-jacked during the process.)

One of the best ways to get by the gun luvvers' ammendment is to make more risky and burdensome all efforts people undertake when the buy and store a gun. One of the ways to do this is to make the legal gun owner liable for a criminal's actions after the criminal steals a gun. We should also ban all magazines and all ammunition.

Own your gun. It is your right. But you shouldn't be able to by ammunition and you should be liable for the gun's legacy if the gun is stolen!!!!!

Norm Damon writes:

Wait Wait, let me get this right...........Some neer-do-well (criminal) STEALS from me and you hold ME responsible for the consequences.

So, by this same misguided, twisted, misguided logic, if some drunk STEALS your car, you should be held responsible for him running over a pedestrian.....Are you nuts or stoopid?

Someone STEALS an ax, pruning shears, a yard machete or something really sharp and pokie, and commits a crime you or I should be held responsible? ......... PREPOSTEROUS you knave.........

I am not my brothers parent. I am not responsible for anybody's behavior (CRIMINAL or otherwise). I am ONLY responsible for MY behavior.

Bedouin writes:

Just some guy - "rich enough to own a gun"??? Are you serious??? I can purchase a new firearm for less than a new iphone. You act like you have to have to be able to afford a Range Rover to afford a gun.

If your 14 year old son stole my gun, I should (and will) be able to sue you (since I can't sure your son since he is under 18), hope the justice system puts him in a juvenile detention center, and I would hope you get charged with something for as well. If you have a bad apple for a kid, maybe you should reflect on your parenting abilities and choices instead of trying to get paid for your kid's bad choices.

This bill is nothing more than "McDonalds made me fat, I am going to sue them" applied to firearms.

If I have a gun stolen from me, I am going to report it to the police as soon as I can. To hold me responsible for what is done with it is reckless and would set a very bad precedent [stolen car is in an accident and kills someone –> stolen car owner sued by vehicular homicide victim’s family].

And Jupp Nedal, your incohearant statement isn't even worth dignifying with a response.

Bedouin writes:

Just some guy,
I re-read your comment and see it is dripping with sarcasm. Apologies...

Mike R writes:

When this same law is applied to cars and DUI, and also knives and department stores, then we can talk about guns.

Paul K writes:

If someone steals your car and kills someone, should you be liable? What's the difference?

Jim w writes:

If they "adequately" secured the firearm, the bad guy wouldn't have it to commit the crime. Therefore anyone who has a gun stolen would be liable. This is a lawyers wet dream law.

Steve L. writes:

Marsden also has a bill proposed that will impose a civil penalty if you don't report a stolen firearm, SB786. Many Americans have their dads old revolver in the original box, or some appropriately sized box, tucked away out of reach of the children. These boxes may be stuck up in high in a closet or someplace that they wouldn't naturally go, possibly for a year or more?

It is just another example of a poor *idea from Dave Marsden. Poorly thought out and poorly written, with an ability to collect law abiding citizens by pulling the rug out from under them. But this is what he does, write something that will be shot down by the house just so he can appeal to specific demographics of constituents. Either that, or there is no strategy and I'm giving a credit to his intelligence that is not deserved.

In recap, you report your stolen firearm, police record the serial number that you should have on file, an armed robery occurs by said thief where someone dies, you find yourself on trial before a jury, the prosecution works to have the jury of 12 find you guilty, because obviously, your firearm was not "adequately secured" as this bill [SB785] has so delicately worded. *Brilliant!!

Erasmus B. Dragon writes:

Yupp Nidal seems a little off-kilter here ...

In an article at the Daily Caller:

dailycaller.com/2013/01/20/va-lawmaker-who-brandished-ak-47-during-legislative-session-was-disbarred-following-assault-death-threat/

MARSDEN's friend and ally, a Virginia Gentleman named JOE MORRISSEY,
demonstrated just how lax Virginia's gun laws are, as well as just
how irresponsible gun owners can be. If you didn't see the picture,
MORRISSEY brandished an AK47 assault weapon (AK47s were engineered by the
Communists solely to kill and subjogate innocent people) in the General
Assembly WHILE THE ASSEMBLY WAS IN SESSION! MORRISSEY's self-less
demonstration was at some personal risk. Imagine if an armed gun
luvver had been present, and had shot MORRISSEY as he pulled the
AK47 from concealment!

(MORRISSEY has always been a self-less guy, and supporter of the
Constitution and Bill of Rights for years. FOr example, ten or
twelve years ago MORRISSEY was safeguarding some cash for a friend at
great personal risk. That cash was reportedly stolen from MORRISEY, who
I heard was almost car-jacked during the process.)

A Virginia Gentleman? Hardly. According to the article in the Daily Caller (I gave the URL above), Assemblyman Morrissey seems anything but a Gentleman.

"Morrissey paid a man $500,000 in 2007 to settle a 2002 court judgment against him, related to a 1999 physical assault.

"According to legal brief filed by the victim’s attorneys, Morrissey shouted, “I’m going to kill you. I’m going to beat your head in,” before beating the victim and 'smash[ing] his head into the corner of a brick wall.'

"The 2003 revocation of Morrissey’s law license followed that courtroom reckoning, but by then his disciplinary record in the legal profession was already a lengthy one.

"After he applied for the reinstatement of his law license, the Virginia State Bar listed a litany of Morrissey’s misdeeds when it published his petition.

"That list included the December 1993 suspension of Morrissey’s law license for six months following a complaint from a rape victim in a case he prosecuted. Morrissey, she said, allowed her rapist to plea-bargain his case down to a misdemeanor after his father paid $50,000 — half to the victim and the other half to charities Morrissey chose. She also testified that Morrissey hid the details of the plea-bargain from her.

"The bar had already sanctioned Morrissey in June of that year when it learned of his misconduct in a felony drunk-driving case. Without asking the court’s permission, Morrissey issued a new arrest warrant with a reduced charge of misdemeanor reckless driving. He was required to write a formal letter of apology to the judge."

Wow. I agree with George Mason and the other Founders view of arms. That said, I wouldn't lose any sleep if Assemblyman Morrissey couldn't legally keep and bear arms. He seems to be in the on-deck circle of the Kill-Someone-You're-Angry-At Major Leagues. Come to think of it, someone like this Virginian might turn out to be untroubled by laws and the like.

Having certainly failed at least once in his contribution, Mr. Nidal has me wondering about his use of the highly polarizing sentiment concerning certain guns as well. Why mention a "Tec-9 and an Uzi"??

Norm writes:

Morrissy is enough of a grandstanding nin-com-poop this DESERVRES me saying it again.....

Wait Wait, let me get this right...........Some neer-do-well (criminal) STEALS from me and you hold ME responsible for the consequences.
So, by this same misguided, twisted, misguided logic, if some drunk STEALS your car, you should be held responsible for him running over a pedestrian.....Are you nuts or stoopid?
Someone STEALS an ax, pruning shears, a yard machete or something really sharp and pokie, and commits a crime you or I should be held responsible? ......... PREPOSTEROUS you knave.........
I am not my brothers parent. I am not responsible for anybody's behavior (CRIMINAL or otherwise). I am ONLY responsible for MY behavior.

The question is WHY does this "%@*#%*$" have in his hands a firearm that he obviously knows NOTHING about safe handling.............