@Misty Mountain: "If you lend your car to someone, you are responsible for
any damage that happens as a result of that person driving your car."No, I am not. I defy anyone to show me statute making me liable for the
deliberate criminal conduct of an adult who borrows my car. Show me the statute,
in Utah code, or it doesn't exist.My auto-insurance will cover
financial liability from accidents. But check your policy. Liability insurance
does not cover deliberate criminal conduct. So, if I lend my car to someone and
he ends up committing a crime, whether DUI or deliberately using the car to run
down and murder a group of people, my insurance isn't paying out. And
neither am I personally unless someone can demonstrate that I knew or should
have known that the person borrowing my car had criminal intent."Why should it be different if you lend your gun to someone?"How about we do treat guns like cars? Once licensed in any State, I can drive
my car in every State even if that State would not license my car there.
Similarly, my Driver License is good nationwide.When my permit to
carry my 15 round self defense handgun is recognized nationwide, you can compare
cars to guns.
No matter whether a law like this is enacted or not, every college freshman or
transfer student should be REQUIRED to sit through a presentation on this and
other tragic, senseless situations. They should be taught their personal
responsibility not to fall for con men like this murderer was. Meet in groups,
don't give out your phone number and address to anyone who wants it and
pays attention to you. Spending the night is a sure way to get yourself in
trouble. You could end up with a disease or an unwanted child or some
compromising photos and videos.Maybe this will save another
innocent, naive young person from making the bad choices she made in the
beginning. Please don't misinterpret this as me believing she is
responsible for her death, but she put herself in a bad situation.Hopefully, parents, police officers, coaches, friends, whomever will believe
those who are trapped in these situation and physically help them get out of
them. It may require the parents coming to the school and getting their child
and taking her/him home.
Concealed carry holders are about 1/6th as likely to commit a gun crime than
the average citizen.
This bill was flawed and rejected by our wise legislators because it had the
potential of imposing "strict liability" on a totally innocent person.
Common law already imposes liability on someone who negligently loans anything
to someone he or she knows could harm another with the object. However, there
is no justice in punishing an innocent person in loaning something to someone
not knowing the loan is going to result in another person being harmed. This
bill proposed to do just that. Read the bill.
The right to keep and bear arms is meant for two purposes: 1) for self defense
and 2) to protect against tyrannical governments that think they should rule
with an iron fist because they know better than you.In other words,
to protect against the current Democrat/Socialist party. It's no wonder
the left is so fired up to seize weapons of the law abiding. All of these
"gun control" measures are not aimed at criminal gun violence; they are
explicitly aimed at targeting the law abiding. And that is because
throughout history, the left's plans of total governmental dictatorship
have relied on a disarmed populace. Never forget: the Revolutionary War's
first battles at Lexington and Concord were fought because the British were
trying to seize the citizenry's weapons. The King was very,
very pro "gun control" because his control of what he called his
subjects depended on said subjects being unable to fight back. Just like
today's Socialists want subjects, serfs, and ultimately slaves. The places with the highest levels of leftist control, with the strictest gun
laws, are also the places with the highest criminal gun violence.
Lauren's Law made too much sense.No wonder it was put on hold
by Utah republicans.Spare me all the nra bromides.The
nra and the republican party do not want anyone who happens to own a weapon to
be held responsible/accountable for anything that happens to anyone who happens
to use that weapon to murder another human being.Perfect.
The Second Amendment Prevails. Pretty simple. Shall not be infringed.
Misty mountain,That's simply not true. Your insurance may be
used, but that's because the insurance is insuring the car, not the
driver.Please cite an example of someone being held personally
liable for others damages caused by a borrowed car, or stop spreading
If you lend money to someone and they commit a crime, are you supposed to go to
jail with them? If your employee commits a crime, is the employer
going to jail or pay the damages?If you buy someone a lunch, and
they get sick am I liable for the damages? Our cry baby, belly
aching society is always looking to put the blame on someone else. We have
created a cage of 80,000 laws and regulations for the illusion of a perfect
life.We just don't need 500 new State laws a year to live.
This was a stupid bill.
Once again the legislature goes Pro-Gun even though it could and has put the
lives of citizens at risk.I've never seen such a group of
people that support guns more than they support people.Owning a gun
is a right, but not one without consequences.
@1ReaderYou really appear to be naive on this issue. You are right
that the murderer is not licensed, but no one is. There is no licensing of guns
in most states and for sure not in Utah.Let me pose this one to you.
If you loaned your car to your neighbor who you thought was a good upstanding
citizen, but on his way to return it to you, stopped at the bar and had a couple
drinks and then killed someone on the way to you house because he was driving
under the influence. How liable are you for that murder? If you loan your car
to someone, you have some responsibility for what they do with it. Right? And as a gun owner, we are way down the road of "impinging" on
my gun rights.
"Nancy Halden, representing Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah,
disagreed. She said Utah code relies on prohibitions of criminals owning
firearms, which she said did not deter McCluskey's killer from obtaining a
gun."Surprisingly, criminals do not obey laws, and laws to not
prevent crimes. Laws only aloow prosecution of someone after they break a
law.Lauren's killer violated numerous existing laws- murder
(illegal since the 10 Commandments); possessing a gun on the U campus; carrying
a concealed weapon without a permit; possession of a gun by a prohibited person;
stalking; making threats, etc. He was a glib con man, fooling
Lauren and also the gun owner into thinking he was a nice guy, not a sex
offender felon. He borrowed the gun with a plausible excuse for a legal
purpose.The parole board, parole officers and U police failed to
detect his criminal acts, and bear much more responsibility than the gun
owner.Let's start by enforcing the laws against illegal gun
possession, especially the 1,300 felons, druggies, mentally ill, or domestic
abusers turned down by background checks who were not prosecuted last year.Enforce current laws!
If you lend your car to someone, you are responsible for any damage that happens
as a result of that person driving your car.Why should it be
different if you lend your gun to someone?
Guns are particularly lethal. What would be the harm in holding people
accountable for giving weapons to murderers (who are not licensed)? If I loan
my lethal weapon to someone, I have some responsibility for what they do with
it. This bill would only be a "slippery slope" to safety and
responsibility. We are so far from impinging on fair and reasonable gun rights.
At least 4 different government agencies failed to protect the citizens in this
case:-The Parole board released a man early who clearly wasn't
rehabilitated.-The Parole Officer failed to recognize problems that would
have put the man back into prison.-The University of Utah police failed to
respond to the victim's concerns.-The Salt Lake City police
department failed to respond to the victims concerns.All of these
agencies and their individual officers/employers had access to the criminal
records of the man accused of murder. All are professionally trained to deal
with criminals.The proposed bill imposes zero liability on any of
these agencies or individuals.Instead, it focuses on the one,
private citizen who--without access to any criminal records--made the mistake of
lending a gun to a friend who turned out to be a violent felon.Why
does the bill sponsor ignore 4 professional, government agencies and their
officers/employees while focusing on the 1 private individual who had the least
amount of information available?Is this a sad attempt to divert
attention from the real problem? Or another attack on the individual right to
own firearms for self defense?
This law wouldn’t have saved Lauren. The U of U Police doing their job may
have helped more. It’s a shame that they used her name to attempt to pass
a law that puts gun owners at risk without any real benefit to society.
Good, sanity prevails!