The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Aabraxan]

GS laws and the duty to rescue are two separate things. Whether I have a duty to rescue someone in the first place is different than whether I'm liable for injuries caused by my attempted rescue.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think you guys mean duty to rescue, not good samaritan. There's a good chance that you have duty to rescue in your region, especially with regards to a hazard that you are creating
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

I'm guessing maybe you're unfamiliar with the parable of the Good Samaritan if you are trying to make a distinction like this. The parable is literally about a man rescuing another man. In any case... from the Wiki you linked:

These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws

But that's why I said:

It's generally referred to as the "Good Samaritan"

because I specifically wanted to avoid us derailing into discussing a completely unrelated topic like the definitions and nuances of Good Samaritan law. The point is that gun ownership is mostly voluntary, while cold catching is not. There's also no way to construe Constitutionally protected gun ownership as "creating a hazard" that the gun owner would then be required to "rescue" his neighbor from by... not owning a gun?? That whole line of reasoning would be nonsensical and irrelevant.

My (limited) understanding of Good Samaritan laws is different from what I get from this. (If I've misunderstood you, that's on me.) My understanding of Good Sam laws is not that they attach liability, but rather that they shield the GS from it, to greater or lesser degrees. As an example, if an 80-y.o. man has a heart attack and I do chest compressions to try to keep him alive until EMTs arrive, I might break a couple of his ribs. GS laws (as I understand them) give me some legal immunity from being sued for those broken ribs. But as I mentioned, my understanding of those laws is limited.

That's why I said:

if you take it upon yourself to offer assistance, you then become responsible to some degree for any harm you negligently cause.

I don't want to go any further into the weeds discussing good Samaritan principles/laws since that's not remotely the thread topic and this thread was dedicated specifically to discussing guns. I acknowledge that its my fault for bringing it up.

 

[El_Machinae]

The duty to rescue would kick in with gun ownership if there was some type of harm created by the gun. But it's after the harm is caused.

Viruses are a noxious cloud, so unlike a gun are always being negligently discharged if you're not being careful. Technically the tort is created if my body is forced to defend itself, but that's not practically enforceable

 

[Commodore]

There's a good chance that you have duty to rescue in your region

Actually I don't think there's any jurisdiction in the US that recognizes a duty to rescue. As horrible of a person as it might make you, you can literally point and laugh at someone as they are drowning and you will not be charged with a crime.

Like it or not, in the US you have the right to be as big of a jerk as you want to be as long as you are not the one actively causing harm to people.

 

[El_Machinae]

Actually I don't think there's any jurisdiction in the US that recognizes a duty to rescue.

It's why I included the link, because there's a strong chance that you have it in your region, and that you just don't understand the term, in the technical sense

Like it or not, in the US you have the right to be as big of a jerk as you want to be as long as you are not the one actively causing harm to people.

I know, that's why carrying a gun is different from shedding the virus. In the technical sense, if not in the practical sense

 

[Commodore]

To get this back to guns, one issue I'm having with mandatory mask orders is they are being used as a backdoor way to stop people from exercising their right to carry a firearm in public. A lot of cities have laws against carrying a firearm in public while wearing any kind of face covering. So they issue these mandatory mask orders to force people to wear masks and then also turn around and say that since they are wearing a mask, they can't carry a firearm in public either.

I'll admit it's an inventive way to disarm the people without confiscating or banning firearms. However if cities are going to use mask orders in that way, then I'd say that makes them unconstitutional as it violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. So if these cities are going to issue mandatory mask orders, then they also need to lift the ban on carrying firearms while wearing a mask until the mandatory mask orders are lifted.

 

[Sommerswerd]

To get this back to guns, one issue I'm having with mandatory mask orders is they are being used as a backdoor way to stop people from exercising their right to carry a firearm in public. A lot of cities have laws against carrying a firearm in public while wearing any kind of face covering. So they issue these mandatory mask orders to force people to wear masks and then also turn around and say that since they are wearing a mask, they can't carry a firearm in public either.

I'll admit it's an incentive way to disarm the people without confiscating or banning firearms. However if cities are going to use mask orders in that way, then I'd say that makes them unconstitutional as it violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. So if these cities are going to issue mandatory mask orders, then they also need to lift the ban on carrying firearms while wearing a mask until the mandatory mask orders are lifted.

I'd like to see a link to a case where a person was successfully prosecuted under a catch 22 like this. My guess is if you got convicted under a conflict of law like this and took it to the higher Courts, your conviction might ultimately be overturned.

 

[Bugfatty300]

To get this back to guns, one issue I'm having with mandatory mask orders is they are being used as a backdoor way to stop people from exercising their right to carry a firearm in public. A lot of cities have laws against carrying a firearm in public while wearing any kind of face covering. So they issue these mandatory mask orders to force people to wear masks and then also turn around and say that since they are wearing a mask, they can't carry a firearm in public either.

I'll admit it's an incentive way to disarm the people without confiscating or banning firearms. However if cities are going to use mask orders in that way, then I'd say that makes them unconstitutional as it violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. So if these cities are going to issue mandatory mask orders, then they also need to lift the ban on carrying firearms while wearing a mask until the mandatory mask orders are lifted.

I've never heard of any laws against wearing a mask and carrying a gun. I know that armed protesters and open carriers have been wearing masks or years.

I do know of laws where it's illegal to wear a mask for the purpose of hiding your identity while committing a crime and carrying a gun while doing so would be an extra charge. If there are laws against masks and guns then I doubt they're widespread and are just local ordinances.

BTW many cities can and do make it illegal to carry a gun in public at all. They really don't need sneaky backdoor laws to get that done.

 

[Socrates99]

Actually I don't think there's any jurisdiction in the US that recognizes a duty to rescue. As horrible of a person as it might make you, you can literally point and laugh at someone as they are drowning and you will not be charged with a crime.

Like it or not, in the US you have the right to be as big of a jerk as you want to be as long as you are not the one actively causing harm to people.

Totally unrelated to guns but my wife said she could lose her nursing license if she didn't at bare minimum try to give first aid to someone who needs it. EMTs and paramedics are probably in the same boat. Funny part is that doctors are not held to the same standard. They can legally ignore someone bleeding out.

Of course this likely varies state to state since licenses are issued at the state level.

 

[Commodore]

I'd like to see a link to a case where a person was successfully prosecuted under a catch 22 like this. My guess is if you got convicted under a conflict of law like this and took it to the higher Courts, your conviction might ultimately be overturned.

No one has been convicted under this yet mostly because gun owners are law-abiding and have been complying.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No one has been convicted under this yet mostly because gun owners are law-abiding and have been complying.

It might also be because the catch-22 isn't really being enforced at all and the idea that it would be is just speculative paranoia and/or delusions of persecution by gun enthusiasts. There's no doubt in my mind that there is a segment of America that wants to take folks guns away and or substantially limit gun rights. Its also clear in my mind that a segment of gun enthusiast community have a tendency to engage in a lot of hyperbole and conspiracy theorizing about how jeopardized their gun rights really are.

As I've indicated previously, I believe the 2nd Amendment is simultaneously virtually unassailable politically and also the bedrock that makes individual gun-rights legally very difficult to substantially limit. Its not that no one will try, its that they will usually ultimately fail. Gun rights aren't going anywhere and attacking them is a waste of political capital and resources.

 

[Aabraxan]

I've seen posts on other (firearms-oriented) boards about mask requirements and prohibitions on carrying guns while wearing a mask. I think the reason we're not seeing convictions yet is that the mask orders are so new, and lots of courts have been closed. So, it may or may not be a matter of whether these prohibitions are being enforced; they may simply not have had time to work through the court system. I'll also admit that there's some possibility that police simply aren't enforcing them in the absence of other criminal activity.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I've seen posts on other (firearms-oriented) boards about mask requirements and prohibitions on carrying guns while wearing a mask.

(Emphasis mine) Exactly my point. I think this is just speculative paranoia that the gun community is engaging in.

I think the reason we're not seeing convictions yet is that the mask orders are so new, and lots of courts have been closed.

No. The Courts are not closed. I communicate with the Court and file things with the Court literally everyday. I met with 3 different Judges last week. Some individual Courthouses are closed, but the Courts are open, especially the Criminal Courts. It has nothing to do with Courts being closed.

I'll also admit that there's some possibility that police simply aren't enforcing them in the absence of other criminal activity.

This. No one is enforcing any coronavirus mask+gun=crime gotchas nor is there any conspiracy to do so. Its just delusions of persecution by some in the gun enthusiast community.

 

[Aabraxan]

(Emphasis mine) Exactly my point. I think this is just speculative paranoia that the gun community is engaging in.

Two separate issues. It may be speculative, but that doesn't mean that: (a) the fact that we haven't seen any convictions yet; (b) cannot be related to court closings.

No. The Courts are not closed. I communicate with the Court and file things with the Court literally everyday. I met with 3 different Judges last week. Some individual Courthouses are closed, but the Courts are open, especially the Criminal Courts. It has nothing to do with Courts being closed.

I also communicate with the court literally every day. I'm an attorney, and have been for almost 20 years. I've worked in several different fields, but right now, I'm working in criminal court. Still, perhaps I was unclear. Courts have technically been open, but only for very limited proceedings. Open for video (jail) dockets, but not necessarily for non-emergency, in-person hearings. I've been fielding calls since March from other attorneys asking what's going on in my court, the circuit courts, etc. Our district (municipal) courts were closed (to non-emergency, in-person proceedings) most of March & April, as were our circuit (county) courts. Some of them are still closed to that extent. Some (I have heard) will not resume 'normal' operations until October.

My best guess (based on those almost 20 years in the courtroom) is that someone charged simply with 'carrying a weapon while wearing mask,' in the absence of other criminal charges would have been cited out of the jail with a P&A date at least a month in the future. If they hired an attorney, the attorney will plead them not guilty, set it for trial, and deal with it later. My court is currently setting trial dates out in October and November, a few in December. Up until the day of trial, the defendant isn't convicted of any of the charges.

If you feel like digging into what courts are open, which are closed, and to what extent, here are a few that you can look at, just drawn off the top of my head:
Arkansas: https://www.arcourts.gov/arkansas-supreme-court-statement-novel-coronavirus-outbreak-and-courts
Alabama: https://judicial.alabama.gov/Announcement/COVID_19
California: https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/coronavirus-updates
Maryland: https://www.courts.state.md.us/coronaviruslocationupdates
New York: http://www.nycourts.gov/index.shtml
Florida: https://www.flcourts.org/COVID-19-Workgroup
Idaho: https://isc.idaho.gov/Emergency Orders

This. No one is enforcing any coronavirus mask+gun=crime gotchas nor is there any conspiracy to do so. Its just delusions of persecution by some in the gun enthusiast community.

I have seen no cases in which anyone has been convicted of that. I haven't claimed otherwise. That said, it's too soon to know whether or not there will be, as I outlined above.

 

[Spidernova]

Judging by the shortage/price spike of common caliber ammunition, there have been a lot of new gun owners in the past few months. And even my left-leaning friends want to go shooting all of a sudden. I imagine that people are going to be a lot more opposed to gun control if it affects them directly.

 

[Socrates99]

Judging by the shortage/price spike of common caliber ammunition, there have been a lot of new gun owners in the past few months. And even my left-leaning friends want to go shooting all of a sudden. I imagine that people are going to be a lot more opposed to gun control if it affects them directly.

Most of the gun control proposals that have any amount of real support wouldn't affect the vast majority of the population.

The funny part of the gun control debate is the people who want to protect the gun rights of former felons and such are the same ones who oppose that same group's right to vote.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Most of the gun control proposals that have any amount of real support wouldn't affect the vast majority of the population.

The funny part of the gun control debate is the people who want to protect the gun rights of former felons and such are the same ones who oppose that same group's right to vote.

Those proposals also do almost nothing statistically.

 

[Farm Boy]

The funny part of the gun control debate is the people who want to protect the gun rights of former felons and such are the same ones who oppose that same group's right to vote.

Well, that's because people who fall on the "standard battle lines" of this and that don't actually give a flying **** about the felons or their God-given rights. Other than as a backstop to their own self interest. People who follow the norm on that can be safely discounted, on both of these issues as least, as selfish pieces of horsehocky.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Two separate issues. It may be speculative, but that doesn't mean that: (a) the fact that we haven't seen any convictions yet; (b) cannot be related to court closings.

I agree that those two things are separate issues. I did not present them as otherwise. Issue 1:The gun-enthusiasts who are touting mask-mandates as a gun-grabbing conspiracy are engaging in paranoid delusions of persecution and unwarranted fear-mongering, that is based on zero (AFAICT) actual, real-life examples. Issue 2:You personally, Aabraxan, were incorrect to state that the Courts were closed. However, you've admitted/clarified that, so that issue is resolved. So all that remains is Issue 1, which brings us to:

My best guess (based on those almost 20 years in the courtroom) is that someone charged simply with 'carrying a weapon while wearing mask,' in the absence of other criminal charges would have been cited out of the jail with a P&A date at least a month in the future. If they hired an attorney, the attorney will plead them not guilty, set it for trial, and deal with it later. My court is currently setting trial dates out in October and November, a few in December. Up until the day of trial, the defendant isn't convicted of any of the charges.

And my best guess based on my 20 years experience is that your best guess is wrong. My best guess is that the reason no one is able to produce any real-life cases of people being charged or convicted of carrying while clearly covid-masked is that there are no real life cases of it. I will gladly acknowledge that I was wrong when someone produces some real life cases. Until then, my position remains firmly that this is just a made-up boogeyman, by some in the gun enthusiast community based on paranoid delusions of persecution and unwarranted fear-mongering.

I will add that I find credible @Commodore 's opinion that some gun-owners, who have been taken in by this fear-mongering, might be voluntarily giving up their rights to carry out of a good faith fear that there really is a risk that they will be charged for carrying while covid-masked.

 

[Socrates99]

Those proposals also do almost nothing statistically.

Oh? Which ones are those?

Massachusetts is the only state with a universal safe storage law and it has a firearm suicide rate that's only a third of the national average. I wouldn't call that insignificant. Unintentional firearm deaths by young people fell by 23% in states with CAP laws. Doesn't sound insignificant. https://www.ideastream.org/news/do-safe-storage-gun-laws-prevent-gun-violence

60% of 749 mass shootings unrelated to other criminal activity in the last six years were committed as part of or by someone with a history of or during domestic violence. Barring those with a history of domestic violence (36% of the 749) from having access to firearms is something we federally do have on the books. Unfortunately most states have no confiscation laws for people currently under domestic violence restraining orders. It seems like it'd have a significant impact if that were made universal. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-mass-shootings-domestic-violence-connection/

~10% of all homicides are committed by individuals with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other psychotic illnesses. https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/1000-homicides.html Strengthening current background checks combined with CAP laws could have a significant impact.

I'm pro 2nd amendment. I own firearms. I like to shoot. I want to keep that right. The best way to keep that right from being attacked isn't to oppose every common sense law. It's to reduce the access the wrong people (either too young, too violent or too crazy) have to weapons. I don't think it'd be insignificant to institute some laws that wouldn't necessarily hinder most of us.

Well, that's because people who fall on the "standard battle lines" of this and that don't actually give a flying **** about the felons or their God-given rights. Other than as a backstop to their own self interest. People who follow the norm on that can be safely discounted, on both of these issues as least, as selfish pieces of ****.

Yeah, I wouldn't call those people the norm either.