tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post9181946665882714270..comments2023-10-16T07:06:52.428-05:00Comments on Armed and Safe: New Jersey uses Bill of Rights as Charmin substituteKurt '45superman' Hofmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post-25768758864981833202008-01-06T17:09:00.000-06:002008-01-06T17:09:00.000-06:00I'll probably link to this tomorrow and make a cla...I'll probably link to this tomorrow and make a clarification in the post so my New Jersey readers get that too. They might also not understand why that clause was a problem.Sebastianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11539262551583143190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post-5702483085958081672008-01-06T15:41:00.000-06:002008-01-06T15:41:00.000-06:00Ah--guess I should have looked into that before co...Ah--guess I should have looked into that before complaining about it. Thanks for the clarification.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post-59284073801728679422008-01-06T15:01:00.000-06:002008-01-06T15:01:00.000-06:00Yep--the bill initially contained language that wo...<I>Yep--the bill initially contained language that would protect the owner from liability stemming from his being the victim of a crime, but the legislators, in their infinite wisdom, removed that provision.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, we wanted that provision removed. There's currently no tort that would make you liable for the actions of a criminal who stole your property an misused it. By having it in the law, it implied such a tort existed, which could have created not only civil liability, but criminal liability for a gun owner who failed to report it.Sebastianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11539262551583143190noreply@blogger.com