Your gun? Your fault
Mother to alleged school shooter: “Ethan, don't do it."
Too late.
Gun control: a modest proposal.
Strict liability is a theory that imposes legal responsibility for damages or injuries even if the person who was found strictly liable did not act with fault or negligence. This theory usually applies in three types of situations: animal bites (in certain states), manufacturing defects, and abnormally dangerous activities.
Isn't a handgun, kept where it can be stolen or brought to school by a troubled teen, an abnormally dangerous activity?
A college classmate from Connecticut suggested I consider a proposal he presents in all seriousness. Why not treat the owners of guns the same way we treat the owners of dogs? In his state dog owners have strict liability for injuries caused by their dog.
There are places where the government places certain burdens on people, and the risk of lawsuits and the cost of insurance place additional ones. People may be allowed by zoning to build homes in fire and flood zones, but then they pay more to get insurance. Drivers with multiple traffic tickets pay more. Teenage drivers pay more.
Liability risk and the cost of insurance has an effect on behavior. Licensed professionals bend over backwards to avoid client complaints. Homeowners clear firebreaks, because their insurance would be voided if they didn't. Teenagers get Drivers' Ed certificates.
The classmate wrote me:
There is something we can do about getting better control of guns. Whatever the course of Second Amendment jurisprudence, I don't foresee a judicial conclusion that the Constitution prohibits legislation regarding safe storage and use of firearms and liability for failure in those regards.
Connecticut, by long-standing statute, imposes strict liability on the owner or keeper of a dog for damage caused by the dog, with only a couple of defenses. How about we impose strict liability on an owner of a gun for injury caused by one of his or her guns? This would include if the gun is stolen or sold or given away without full compliance with transfer laws. Why not? The number and severity of injuries from guns today dwarfs the number and severity of injuries from dogs. Connecticut seems to me to be a good place to start a nationwide movement.
Responsible and prudent gun owners would want liability insurance, and I presume Insurance companies would welcome the business--for a price. Companies would want to know their risk, and so would presumably require disclosure of the number and type of guns sought to be insured, as well as documentation on where and how they are stored--just like they do now regarding automobiles and their drivers. (Finally, guns would be registered and accounted for.)
If insurance companies refused coverage, or more likely simply priced the risks and charged a higher premium to insure certain kinds of weapons or storage situations, the law would have a salutary effect. AR15s might have a higher cost to insure, so people might think twice about having one sitting in the closet. Safe storage would become a higher priority for gun owners. Perhaps, the cost of insurance (or the risk of liability) would slow the rate of growth of the number of guns, something I would favor. At the very least, it would assign the financial cost of gun risks to the gun owner, and not to the general public or the innocent people who are victimized by gun violence. Bit by a neighbor's dog? The neighbor (or his insurance company) pays. Shot by a neighbor's gun? Same thing.
Damages aside, the elements of the civil statute I contemplate are just two, making court cases that come out of this simpler: 1) Did the defendant own or keep a firearm, legally registered or not? The mental state of the defendant would be irrelevant. 2) Did that firearm cause injury or loss to the plaintiff? The burden of proof in civil cases is, with rare exceptions, proof by the preponderance of the evidence. It would be the defendant's burden to prove facts showing the defense of self-defense or justification of lethal force applies if the gun is used to shoot somebody.
Is this hard on gun owners? Yes, and it should be. Dog owners know they can't let their dogs run loose and bite people, or even run into a street and cause an accident, without--at least in Connecticut--strict liability for the resulting injuries. Gun owners should exercise the same caution.
I can imagine an objection to this. If the gun is misused by someone else, without the owner's knowledge, why should the owner pay the price? The owner didn't have intention. We don't require proof of intention when a pipeline spills oil or a demolition company blows up a building with TNT. Some things are known to be dangerous so the people who have the power to be careful must do so. Only the gun owner has the power to maintain control of the gun. With ownership comes responsibility.