1911Forum banner

Owner of lost/stolen gun may be in deep doo-doo after WA shooting

4068 109
Since 2018 we've had a slew of bad gun laws on the books in WA, starting with I-1639 (approved by voters) which among many things makes gun owners liable if their firearms are not secured and they end up in the wrong hands. A Snohomish County man might be the first to be charged under this new law if he can't give a good explanation to the police as to how a Glock he owned somehow got lost or stolen, and weeks later was used in a fatal school shooting.

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
29,974 Posts
If this kind of crap law stands then automobile owners will be liable if a 'joy rider' kills someone with their car. Even farther, a thief breaks into your home and steals a knife and kills with it. You didn't secure that knife block so you're on the hook. This is sheer idiocy (IMHO) to hold previous possessors liable for subsequent uses.
Shakespeare was right. Lawyers first. Then the political class.
The thing is that they do not care about any of that. They just want to take your guns away, plain and simple!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
29,974 Posts
From the news story. "...report it to law enforcement within 5 days of learning or should have known the firearm is missing, ..."

Is the "should have known" real?
If so do you have to take inventory every four days??? Only semi-kidding on this.
They put stuff like that in there so that rich people with access to slick lawyers have an out.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
29,974 Posts
Well, according to the article, the owner reported it October 28 as "lost," and the shooting happened November 8, so the article indicates itself that the owner complied with the law. The authorities would have to prove some type of connection to have a crime, i.e. the suspect says he bought it from the owner, and has proof, or something similar. This article is just stirring the pot, demonizing gun owners, and justifying the stupid law!

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
Sooner or later, they will get a case egregious enough to where they can establish precedent that "lost" in and of itself is not a legitimate excuse.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
29,974 Posts
I agree. Like do people really need an actual DOCTOR to refer them to a Dermatologist when it's obvious that they have a skin problem? ------ Nope! A nurse will do just fine.

And I don't need an actual sworn officer with a squad car, Glock, and badge to take my stolen bike report. A CSO or the "RSVP" volunteer officers we have here can do that bit of work. Save the real cops for real problems.
Some of the European countries have used the almost cops thing for a long time to good effect.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top