MikePapa1

Sig 238 for me.

I learned because I drafted one for my son. He's an engineering student and purchased a silencer with the intent to design one better. He's still working on that project but I was concerned that it would be illegal for anyone else to be in possession of it if something happened to him, so I did some research and drafted him a trust that will cover that contingency.

Trusts are a good thing, if needed. I rarely write them after I explain what they're really designed to do. Unless you have significant assets in your own name, as opposed to jointly held, frankly rare in my clients, then you do not need a trust. NFA trusts are a completely different matter. A NFA trust is a trust document that has been customized to deal with the specific legal issues surrounding the transfer, possession, and use of firearms that are restricted by the National Firearms Act. These items include silencers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, machine guns, and AOW's. They are very different trusts with very different purposes.

Well, I usually get paid to argue, though I'll occasionally do it just for fun, but I rarely argue in this venue just to see myself type. Have fun, Gentlemen.

The test in the law isn't "but for" but rather proximate cause.

I can remember when I was 5'10" and 175.

Hmmmmmm. Why not steal a tow truck first?

So, Gentlemen, I fully understand your view. You are heaping full responsibility on a thief, a person who has already shown he is irresponsible. I admire your principled stance. I just hope that in the event a tragedy like this befalls you or yours that you'll adhere to those principles and be responsible for your own losses and damages. You see, the thief, will either be in jail or no where to be found, or simply will have no means to compensate you for your losses so you'll get to bear them. I hope you stick by your guns, pun intended, and declare that the owner of the stolencar, no matter how stupid or irresponsible should be wholly exonerated from their own decisions by the act of the thief. In 27 years of practicing law I've met only a handful of people who really meant it's the principle of the thing and not the money.

I'm sorry, guys, but I live in the real world, not necessarily the way I wish it were. Leaving your keys in the car facilitates its unauthorized use wand may well be determined, by a jury, to be negligent. If they also conclude that such negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries, they'll then determine to what extent. I hear everyone talking about what if it was their car stolen, but I'm curious as to what their attitude would be if they were the party injured.

Carry the gun you shoot well, can easily conceal based upon your style of dress, feels the most comfortable and you can afford.

You'll get them cheaper online. I get mine from Seven Brothers Mercantile. Good prices, great service.

While I see some validity to the bar comparison that still really doesnt quite match up to me with if you accidentally left your keys in the car and they are not hidden they you are liable. Not you ARE liable, but you may be liable to sum degree. All the case said is there there may be some set of facts under which such behavior may be considered negligent by a jury.

In my opinion, no, neither you nor your employer is liable. Law, however, is all about drawing lines. Reasonableness is a continuum. In the original case, I'm not sure where I'd come down as a citizen in apportioning liability. My gut would be that Mr. Ash would have some responsibility. Of course the criminal has the largest share, but the Plaintiff would have none.

If you want justice go to divinity school. That's what I was told in law school.

Well, I don't know that it's simply that. If, for example, the police are involved in a high speed chase, it endangers innocent citizens. If they are chasing an armed robber who's fired his weapon then the felon may well be more dangerous to the public than the chase. If, on the other hand, they are chasing a guy for an altered tag, also a felony, it makes far less sense. As with many things it's a question of reasonableness.

This goes back to the issue of police high speed chases and whether chasing a thief or other felon is more dangerous than letting them go. The core question is whether the public is more endangered by the felon or the chase itself.

If they don't, they don't last long.

Then if you are called for jury duty, rather than looking at the evidence, you can make your decision. Let me ask you a question. If you owned a retail business, and you left a loaded firearm on the counter and went to the back, is it foreseeable that the gun might be stolen? If it were, in fact, stolen, is it foreseeable that the person who stole your gun might use it to injury someone? Would you share any responsibility for those injuries? Not even a little? A car is a dangerous instrumentality, just like a gun, in fact arguably even more dangerous. Why not let citizens drawn from the community decide who is responsible for injuries?

Not a problem, I laughed.

"If you leave your front door unlocked and someone walks in and shoots your wife, should you be charged with murder? Using the same logic you are defending how can you possibly say no?" Let me help you, Lagerhead. The Defendant, Mr. Ash, isn't being charged criminally, he's being sued by someone totally innocent, you know without any fault, for damages that occurred to them, to determine what, if any responsibility, he bears for their damages. Are you seriously arguing that having your car stolen and misused isn't reasonably foreseeable if you leave your keys in the ignition? How about this? If he left a big sign on the windshield saying "Steal the Car." Would that be enough conduct that you might think he owes a duty? I'm not saying that I'd find him reasonable for the damages here, what I'm saying is that there are sets of facts under which he MAY share some of the responsibility.

Hmmmm. I actually read the case, it's here: http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/newmans_120810.pdf The defendant argued that the criminal's intentional acts were unforeseeable and the COA disagreed. In this case I happen to agree with the COA. It is perfectly foreseeable that if you leave the keys not only in your car but in the ignition that it might be stolen and operated in a negligent manner causing injury to innocent third parties. Tennessee apportions fault between negligent parties and it's perfectly appropriate to allow a jury to apportion fault to a negligent driver who enables his vehicle to be stolen. As with most cases this is extremely fact sensitive. Had the keys not been in the ignition but under the floor mat, it might well have changed the outcome as each act would make the theft less and less foreseeable for a reasonable person. By the way, the COA, simply reversed the summary judgment, not ruled that the defendant was, in fact, negligent. A summary judgment say that under no set of facts could the defendant have been negligent, they are disfavored in law as in our system questions such as this ought to be decided not by a judge but rather by a jury of citizens from the community.

I, too, shoot from a modified Weaver stance. I don't have body armor either and I find since I'm right hand/left eye dominant that the modified Weaver allows me quick target acquisition and relatively accurate shooting.

Negative. Consult a lawyer or one of the online services. A spouse only receives it all if she is the only heir. Do a will, it's easy, cheap and makes sure things go where you want, not where the state thinks they ought to go.

With all due respect, Robo, I have read the statute and have violated no law. So long as it is lawful for my son to receive the rifle, it is lawful to loan it to him. Now, a hand gun is clearly different, but for long guns loans to lawful persons for lawful purposes for temporary periods is perfectly permissible.

It is split between you principal heirs. She would take a share but would not necessarily, take it all.