Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on October 08, 2019, 01:12:43 PM
-
https://riskandinsurance.com/gun-violence-personal-liability/
This came up in one of my legal/risk management feeds. I had not heretofore heard of the concept of foreign entities having standing to sue US companies and governmental entities for firearms incidents. Also of note are the calls for personal liability insurance for firearms. I have not yet looked, but I wonder if there are any insurance policies already on the market for this.
I am aware of the 'self-defense' insurance products/membership plans, and the 'active shooter' policies that are marketed to organizations such as mine. In terms of a personal liability policy, the devil will be in the details and the policy language. Liability policies generally cover accidents, not willful events. If you deliberately shoot someone burglarizing your house, for example, your homeowner's policy will generally not cover you when the burglar sues you, because it was a deliberate act for you to shoot that person. But if you had an accidental discharge and the burglar just happened to be in the way of the bullet, there is a better chance that you might have coverage.
-
What of establishments and venues that post 'no weapons' on their entrances? Should they not be held liable for for failing to protect patrons from violence, when it occurs?
-
What of establishments and venues that post 'no weapons' on their entrances? Should they not be held liable for for failing to protect patrons from violence, when it occurs?
Although I have not looked into it, I imagine the legal argument is that those establishments have no legal duty to protect you, much like the appellate decisions that find no duty to protect you on the part of the police.
-
Although I have not looked into it, I imagine the legal argument is that those establishments have no legal duty to protect you, much like the appellate decisions that find no duty to protect you on the part of the police.
But the police aren't there, on the spot. The argument regarding liability for property owners who ban guns is that I have a constitutional right to bear arms for self defense, I have a state-issued license authorizing me to carry a firearm for self defense, and the property owner requires me to surrender that right to defend myself if I wish to enter his/her/its premises. To me, it makes perfect sense that if you won't allow me to avail myself of my own, legal, constitutionally guaranteed right to defend myself, you are thereby assuming responsibility for defending me.
-
Although I have not looked into it, I imagine the legal argument is that those establishments have no legal duty to protect you, much like the appellate decisions that find no duty to protect you on the part of the police.
I am curious about that one (thread drift warning). Has there ever been a ruling of that type where the officer witnessed something happen and was sued because they took no action?
-
https://riskandinsurance.com/gun-violence-personal-liability/
This came up in one of my legal/risk management feeds. I had not heretofore heard of the concept of foreign entities having standing to sue US companies and governmental entities for firearms incidents. Also of note are the calls for personal liability insurance for firearms. I have not yet looked, but I wonder if there are any insurance policies already on the market for this.
I am aware of the 'self-defense' insurance products/membership plans, and the 'active shooter' policies that are marketed to organizations such as mine. In terms of a personal liability policy, the devil will be in the details and the policy language. Liability policies generally cover accidents, not willful events. If you deliberately shoot someone burglarizing your house, for example, your homeowner's policy will generally not cover you when the burglar sues you, because it was a deliberate act for you to shoot that person. But if you had an accidental discharge and the burglar just happened to be in the way of the bullet, there is a better chance that you might have coverage.
I wouldn't think companies or individuals would have any greater liability against a foreign govt than they would against a someone suing in the US. The problem is the greater legal resources of a foreign govt, but is that any different than some of the political non-profits that sue sometimes? Either way, if the Mexican Govt decides to sue the gun shop that sold the gun to the El Paso shooter, the case should get immediately thrown out. The problem is with getting a screwey leftist judge or if local politicians try to manipulate things.
-
Not a week passes where the dreadful toll of gun violence does not rise in the U.S., making it the only advanced economy at war with itself. According to The Federal Bureau of Investigations’ website, 2018 saw 27 active shooter incidents in the U.S.
I would like to see the author explain any part of this sentence satisfactorily.
And I'd also like to know why anyone is going after gun makers, gun owners, or the government; but not the media companies that encourage mass shootings with their publicity machine.
-
I am curious about that one (thread drift warning). Has there ever been a ruling of that type where the officer witnessed something happen and was sued because they took no action?
Parkland Deputy Scot Peterson has been charged.
-
I am curious about that one (thread drift warning). Has there ever been a ruling of that type where the officer witnessed something happen and was sued because they took no action?
I don't remember either the name of the case or any specifics, but there was a Supreme Court case that made that particular finding as part of the decision.
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/
https://www.insidesources.com/police-not-protect-supreme-court-side/
https://second-amendment-patriots.com/2013/01/30/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/
-
Why don't auto manufactures get sued when a drunk driver kills somebody, or a tool maker when a hammer is used in an assault?
-
Why don't auto manufactures get sued when a drunk driver kills somebody, or a tool maker when a hammer is used in an assault?
Automakers give a lot more money to politicians than the gun industry.
-
Automakers give a lot more money to politicians than the gun industry.
'Too big to fail'
-
Automakers give a lot more money to politicians than the gun industry.
Bingo. For all the talk of the NRA owning Congress with its bajillions of dollars, the gun industry simply isn't big enough to control anything.