3447

You’re right – IANAL, so I just assumed that if he wasn’t charged it was because there was no applicable law. But of course charges can follow some time after the actual event.

Again, IANAL, but “criminal negligence” law exist. I’m not sure how many are vector-specific like a “criminal negligence while operating a motor vehicle (Connecticut)” law, but generally to be “Criminally Negligent” there has to be some level or recklessness that is far beyond the pale. I think that accidentally failing to snap the holster-flap or catching the butt of the pistol on a sales rack possibly doesn’t qualify (but see below). An honest accident shouldn’t result in jail time. But see below.

I disagree. Civil penalties are ALSO a way for our society to make our collective displeasure with undesirable outcomes known without actually depriving someone of their liberty. They are adjudicated by elected or appointed judges. They are often decided by juries consisting of the citizenry.

Forgetting to clip your holster may not be illegal. Carrying a loaded gun with a round in it chamber may not be illegal. Carrying a gun with the safety off may not be illegal. And all those things together might not be illegal and/or criminally negligent (though I agree it should be). But if such behavior results in damage to someone else, their property, or even their mental health, they can demand restitution in the form of money.

And if this guy is successfully sued for some significant portion of his income, I would argue that such an outcome would send a stronger societal message. I mean really - if he was convicted of criminal negligence, he’d get probation and a few hours of community service (assuming a first offense). Other gun owners might shrug and tut tut the stupid, unlucky bastard. But if he gets sued for his actions and has to sell his car to pay the fine, I bet other gun owners might actually be more inclined to avoid such situations.

As an aside, the family and I stopped at an ice cream stand on the way back from a volleyball tournament Monday. The guy in front of us had a grim-looking Glock on his hip, some 2nd-Amendment-related slogan on his t-shirt, and a ridiculous pork-pie hat. The whole time we’re waiting in line, he’s casting about trying to catch someone looking at his gun so that he can stare them down. It’s like he planned his whole day and dress around trying to make people notice him so that he could then take offense at it.

I dunno if he was trying to make a point about gun rights in the middle of a sea of children or what, but it backfired on me. I’m fairly moderate about gun control, but at that point I would have gladly passed an anti-douchebag gun law.

3448

I strongly disagree on this one. Criminal negligence is, generally, a lack of reasonable care that rises to a certain level. It need not be a blatant and conscious disregard of potential consequences (recklessness), but some people can be so blatantly unreasonable in a manner that risks harm (or harms) others that society must intervene. Put it this way, if the same guy, or some other guy, has another “honest accident” tomorrow, do we just shrug our shoulders again and say it was an accident? Now, could this particularly incident have been the result of freak accident, despite reasonable precautions? Sure. But I wouldn’t agree that as long as an accident is honest, that the person should be let off the hook. The bad (and avoidable) act that should be punished is the blatant lack of care that precipitates an accident, when that lack of care has relatively foreseeable potential consequences.

On civil remedies, they are not substitutes for criminal justice if for no other reason than the fact that the other party is steering everything and can let the offender off the hook. This can happen by proxy, of course, for criminal matters when a victim refuses to cooperate, but that’s a failure of evidence, not a decision to let them off the hook. The decision to press or not press criminal charges is state action (via proxies, of course). The two systems are parallel, not substitutes for each other.

3449

This seems to be the new black for a lot of people. Legally I can open carry, but I generally don’t. Why? It makes people uncomfortable and I don’t feel like talking to cops all the time or being asked to leave places.
If I go to the gas station with a concealed weapon, no one looks twice at me. Even if my weapon might be printing, it’s not an issue. If I walked in open carrying, odds are it would make people nervous and the cops might get called or I would be asked to leave. Does getting thrown out of a Kwik Star or talking to a cop for five minutes make people more comfortable about open carry? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.

Hell even most self defense guys say it’s a bad idea based on the idea that if something does go down, you’ll be the first guy that gets shot. Better to blend into the background and have time to prepare than stand out with a spotlight on you (or at least that’s the theory, seems a little too paranoid on some levels to me). The guys that go looking for trouble aren’t helping anyone. Going to Chipotle with your AR-15 or Texas Road House with bunch of guys packing open heat and getting thrown out isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. If anything it will only reinforce the idea that your side is crazy.

3450

This presupposes that punishment** deters lack of care or rehabilitates the negligent. Perhaps it’s possible that someone is more afraid of a year in jail than a lifetime knowing they’ve killed someone accidentally. It’s difficult for me to relate to that.

** Or rather jail time, because I’m always happy to hear out of the box – dare I say unusual? – solutions that punish without putting someone in a cage.

3451

I’ve got no particularly attachment to jail time. Community service, wearing an embarrassing sign in front of Walmart, your proposal of losing their right to have a firearm for X time, etc. That all works for me. I just don’t agree with “honest accident” equaling a pass, as far as government action goes.

Here, a woman and/or her baby nearly died. If you’re going to be walking around a crowded place like a Walmart with a loaded gun, the reasonable standard of care goes way up.

3452

cross post from OO:

Even the NRA thinks some Open Carry advocates are dicks:

“Not only is it rare, it’s downright weird,” to go to the fast-food joint draped in assault rifles, the NRA said. “Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners.”

Wow. Some sanity @ the NRA. Who woulda thunk it? Next thing you know there will be some sort of bi-partisan agreement in Congress…

3453

There must be some sort of political or debate term for using fringe elements to firm up your own credentials as a reasonable centrist. Like a kind of strawman piñata show.

3454

What’s the term for, “I can’t be Xist, some of my best friends are X?” This is the reciprocal of that.

3455

Well it DOES actively hurt the NRA’s cause. All it does is make places think about enforcing stricter gun laws to keep the weirdos from going to Denny’s with their AKs.

3456

So you mean disowning extremists of your own side, right? Probably moving the Overton Window would cover it. Picking out extreme elements of your opposition would be nutpicking.

3457

It’s definitely similar, but it’s sort of the converse of the Overton Window.

3458

No, I think it fits. (I’m going to use right-wing for the rest of the post, but it’s just an example) What you’re doing is establishing that your extremists represent the right-wing position, while your own position, which is right-wing as well, represents sensible centrism because you’re not as far right as your extremists. By doing so you shift the Overton Window right.

3459

Yeah, I guess you’re right. Overton shift-by-proxy, or something.

3460

Yeah, I’m curious if the NRA are at all worried about losing their traditional identification with shooting sports and—especially—hunting, with all its associated Good American Values, and getting lumped together instead with fringe paranoiacs and dopes who treat weapons like toys.

But maybe that doesn’t matter as long as it doesn’t affect their membership and ability to lobby in Washington.

3461

Oops, never mind…

NRA Apologizes For Calling Open Carry Protests “Downright Weird,” Says Statement Was “A Mistake”

3462

God damn it NRA.

3463

Wow!

5

3464

Way to double down on the extremism, guys. I remember the NRA of the late 1970’s/early 1980’s. They had some important points to make and I often agreed with them. The current incarnation, though, is loathesome. And I say that as a gun owner.

3465

They already have, trust me. I’ve tried to defend/explain them in the past, but the line between the NRA and the NRA/ILA keeps blurring further. I don’t know if I can lay all the blame at the NRA’s feet, after all most people won’t even entertain the idea that they have some good points, so in some sense they’ve been pushed along to the right by the left’s refusing to acknowledge they have any positives. Even in reference to the original post calling the OC people “weird,” some of the articles I read made sure to put in three or four paragraphs of NRA-bashing before actually quoting the positive post. But they’ve gone too wacky for most people to deal with, especially casual shooters or people with a single gun in the house for defense.

The Left, however, does itself a disservice to constantly yap about the NRA’s lobbying strength. They confuse the NRA with firearms owners, and the two are very different things. The NRA’s spending is pretty small, but the amount of voters that care about the 2nd Amendment is huge, and only a few of them are NRA members. If the Left would move away from extremists like The Brady Campaign and work with some of the less-nutty gun rights groups to draft legislation that made sense, was self-limiting, and correctly focused they might be surprised at how much they could get done.

3466

Meanwhile in Texas

If the Left would move away from extremists like The Brady Campaign and work with some of the less-nutty gun rights groups to draft legislation that made sense, was self-limiting, and correctly focused they might be surprised at how much they could get done.

This is BS. Gun advocates see the 2nd Amendment as a carte blanche and they want no legislation whatsoever, from anybody, in any form. No background checks, no licenses, no permits. After all, “responsible” gun owners don’t need any of those. Only the “criminals” do, and since they break laws anyway, fuck it, why should we bother with laws anyway?