Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG…Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

Firearms Legal Protection

Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    MGO Board of Directors

    President PhotoTom's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    33,706

    HB 6275 of 2022 - Add new statutory civil liability for a person who sells, delivers, or transfers a firearm to a prohibited person

    HB 6275 of 2022
    Civil procedure: civil actions; civil liability for a person who sells, delivers, or transfers a firearm to a person prohibited from possessing a firearm; provide for.
    Last Action: 6/22/2022 bill electronically reproduced 06/22/2022
    Don't let yesterday use up too much of today - Will Rogers
    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.

  2. #2
    MGO Board of Directors

    Secretary matt11's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    48185/49631
    Posts
    4,793
    (b) The person knows or should know that the individual is
    13 prohibited from possessing the firearm under federal law or the law
    14 of this state.
    15 (c) The individual, or another individual who obtains
    16 possession of the firearm, uses the firearm to cause the injury or
    17 death of any other individual or to threaten or intimidate any
    18 other individual

    I would like to know the definition of "Should know" and it looks like it is written whereas if I sold someone a firearm that was totally legally to have it, if it were stolen or they gave it to someone I would be liable for any damages casued by another person.
    Like and follow MGO on FaceBook
    https://www.facebook.com/migunowners.org

    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.

  3. #3
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,562
    This is a passel of dems that have written a proposed law that the common man has no way of being sure that they are complying with.


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  4. #4
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Howell
    Posts
    11,687
    I would like to know the definition of "Should know"
    Agree. That's clear as mud.

    and it looks like it is written whereas if I sold someone a firearm that was totally legally to have it, if it were stolen or they gave it to someone I would be liable for any damages casued by another person.
    That's not how I interpret that.

    I read it as: If you provide a firearm to a prohibited person, then they give it to someone else (or it is stolen by someone else) who subsequently commits a crime with it, you could be held liable.

    Point being, if you had not given the firearm to someone you knew was (or should know, apparently) is a prohibited person, it would never have made it from that prohibited person to someone else who committed a crime with it.

  5. #5
    MGO Member TheWabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Western Wayne co.
    Posts
    1,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoop View Post
    Agree. That's clear as mud.

    That's not how I interpret that.

    I read it as: If you provide a firearm to a prohibited person, then they give it to someone else (or it is stolen by someone else) who subsequently commits a crime with it, you could be held liable.

    Point being, if you had not given the firearm to someone you knew was (or should know, apparently) is a prohibited person, it would never have made it from that prohibited person to someone else who committed a crime with it.
    Yeah, what a piece of crap that legislation is. I don't see any time frames mentioned so if you sell to a friend who 20 years later gives it to someone who robs a store and they can trace it back you would still be screwed. Almost as bad as Red Flag laws!

  6. #6
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    1,140
    Further proof one should only buy and not sell guns! And it may help appease spouses, too!

    “See, honey, I have to buy this other gun but can’t sell off any of my existing ones. Liability and whatnot. It’s best this way.”

  7. #7
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livingston Co.
    Posts
    19,770
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWabbit View Post
    Yeah, what a piece of crap that legislation is. I don't see any time frames mentioned so if you sell to a friend who 20 years later gives it to someone who robs a store and they can trace it back you would still be screwed. Almost as bad as Red Flag laws!
    Wouldn't that mean you can sue EVERY owner over the last 20 years AND the manufacturer?
    Nice to sue 20 -30 people for one attempted robbery that the perp got caught at.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter