AndyC wrote:...So, let's not nit-pick and split hairs and try to pull apart what was a brief (and pretty reasonable) emphasis on personal responsibility - there may be a weird situation that it doesn't cover, sure, but that would likely be 1 chance in 100,000 to my mind. I stand by what I said.
I find it difficult to believe, Andy, that there can be any differences of opinion on this, among a group of men and women who hold themselves out as being among the most responsible of gun-owners.
Having said that I must also pick a little-bitty nit myself. In my opinion your "reasonable man test" fits
all situations, with
no exceptions. One can quibble over gillions of particular circumstances, and whether or not the steps taken in those circumstances with respect to the security of one's weapons was reasonable under those circumstances, but I stand by my earlier suggestion that, regardless of the circumstances, and regardless of the responsibility shown by the gun-owner, the ultimate question for the jury remains the same -- in 100,000 out of 100,000 cases.
And in the case of CHL-holders we are faced with that same question ourselves most likely every single day. Let us all hope that we are never second-guessed after a tragedy, but if that should unfortunately happen, we owe it to ourselves, and to the lives of others, that we are always confident, in advance, that we made the right decision.
Elmo
