08-31-2012, 07:54 PM
RgrF wrote:
If gun locks were mandatory and a registered unlocked gun was then used to commit a crime the registered owner could be held culpable. What do you find intrusive about that?
RgrF-
I think I should first direct you to the posting in question:
Gutenberg wrote:
We vigorously prosecute those who do not lock up their guns at night.
The poster wanted to prosecute people who did not lock up their guns at night. There's no talk of committing a crime, just the fact that the guns were not locked up "at night."
The notion that a gun owner should be held liable for crimes committed external of their own actions is a difficult one - akin to someone stealing your car and then killing someone in a crash. The argument is difficult to make that you should be held liable.
Now, in the case of the Perry Hall High School shooting, the "owner" of the gun is indeed being held culpable - for allowing a minor access to the weapon, for illegally obtaining the weapon and illegally possessing the weapon. And I'm sure that the Baltimore Police, along with the FBI and whatever agencies are involved are developing a laundry list of charges to prosecute these people.
Especially in this case, there are well-established laws governing the misuse of firearms.