Budget Trunk Gun - Cheap but reliable

[glocktogo]

Per your original post it sounded as if you were OK with this rifle being stolen should someone break into or steal the vehicle. I am against so-called truck guns or leaving guns in vehicles except as absolutely necessary. If I have my rifle in my vehicle I park so I can see it and it is totally out of sight.

When people say "truck gun" they are often referring to something cheap they just leave in the vehicle and are don't care if it is stolen. Considering all the times we read stories about weapons being stolen from fed/local LE vehicles or firearms being stolen and used i crimes, I think it's irresponsible.

I understand this concern. I work in a place where I can't legally carry or store a firearm (federal law). However, the employee parking lot is not off limits. It is under surveillance and patrolled. I keep a gun in that vehicle, as it's the only way I can have a gun at all. It does stay in the car if I'm not wearing it (such as if I stop someplace after work before going home). At home, the car is locked inside my locked garage.

Do you consider this acceptable?

Thread relevant: Nice build!

[scottryan]

You can be held civilly liable if your gun is stolen from you vehicle and used in a murder.

[Eurodriver]

You can be held civilly liable if your gun is stolen from you vehicle and used in a murder.

Bullshit. Proximate cause doctrine says that any gun stolen from me used to deliberately kill another person has the sole blame falling on the thief, not me. The only way this would stand up would be if my car were unlocked, the rifle were loaded, and a bunch of 10 year olds wandered in and accidentallly killed themselves.

If you live your life based on things you can be sued for it would certainly explain your posts on this forum. Relax brother!

Either way, as I (hopefully) clarified in my response to IG, this rifle will not live in the vehicle and I'll be taking every measure necessary to ensure it isn't stolen.

How about this for a new title guys:

Cheap rifle that I won't miss keeping it in a "GHB" 24/7.

[BuzzinSATX]

Nice set up...love that gear bag..

[Eurodriver]

Euro, I got the same blem upper as you on the BCM sale and was thinking of using it for as similar purpose. Only real difference so far is that I will be using an issued Matech BUIS instead of the carry handle.... but this has given me some good ideas of where to go for the lower. Thanks!

Throw on the Matech buis and run drills with it. In fact, try to hit anything with it. The aperture is so tiny that it's practically useless.

Nice set up.
How do you plan to carry spare magazines? A "battle belt", chest rig, plate carrier, some kind of "active shooter" style hip bag?

Also, Why leave the 0-2 aperature up? I've just never heard of that before and would like to hear the thought prosses.


I'm planning on building a similar set up for the same reason. The only difference is I'll be using a spare Elzetta mount for my surefire 6p and I'll be chopping the carry handle.

I don't foresee a situation where I will be kitted up like GI Joe. Spare mags are in the bag and can be easily accessed if necessary.

0-2 is much faster for target acquisition than the standard aperture is.

I actually get the idea behind having a lower cost trunk gun. Nobody wants their gun stolen, or would be okay with it. But having a "beater" gun makes sense to me, and not just due to theft, but also risk of it being damage/destroyed in an accident.

Also, Eurodriver, is that as in, Euro-Copter driver?

It's "European Automobile Driver"

[glocktogo]

You can be held civilly liable if your gun is stolen from you vehicle and used in a murder.

Prove it, or I call BS.

[scottryan]

Bullshit. Proximate cause doctrine says that any gun stolen from me used to deliberately kill another person has the sole blame falling on the thief, not me. The only way this would stand up would be if my car were unlocked, the rifle were loaded, and a bunch of 10 year olds wandered in and accidentallly killed themselves.

If you live your life based on things you can be sued for it would certainly explain your posts on this forum. Relax brother!

Either way, as I (hopefully) clarified in my response to IG, this rifle will not live in the vehicle and I'll be taking every measure necessary to ensure it isn't stolen.

How about this for a new title guys:

Cheap rifle that I won't miss keeping it in a "GHB" 24/7.

You mean like this court case:

http://www.pressherald.com/2012/07/0...n-nh-shooting/

Or this one:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...0&slug=2153661

[LoveAR]

^^^ Um…there are two already.

[SeriousStudent]

You mean like this court case:

http://www.pressherald.com/2012/07/0...n-nh-shooting/

Or this one:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...0&slug=2153661

Do you have the results of those lawsuits?

The two articles you list here say that lawsuits were filed. It gives no rulings or that the persons being sued were found liable.

I'm not endorsing leaving weapons in a car at all. But there is a difference between being sued, and being found liable by a judge or jury.

[Koshinn]

Do you have the results of those lawsuits?

The two articles you list here say that lawsuits were filed. It gives no rulings or that the persons being sued were found liable.

I'm not endorsing leaving weapons in a car at all. But there is a difference between being sued, and being found liable by a judge or jury.

You can sue anyone for anything.

If you can win or get a favorable settlement is another matter entirely.


If the 1995 case went anywhere, we'd have heard by now. It'd be common knowledge.

The Jones v Secord was thrown out by district court, appealed, then thrown out by the First Circuit.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1605331.html



"New Hampshire adheres to the general rule that “a private citizen has no [ ] duty to protect others from the criminal attacks of third parties.” Dupont v. Aavid Thermal Techs., Inc., 798 A .2d 587, 590 (N.H.2002); accord Ahrendt v. Granite Bank, 740 A.2d 1058, 1063 (N.H.1999); Walls, 633 A.2d at 104. “This rule is grounded in the fundamental unfairness of holding private citizens responsible for the unanticipated criminal acts of third parties, because under all ordinary and normal circumstances, in the absence of any reason to expect the contrary, the actor may reasonably proceed upon the assumption that others will obey the law.” Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 816 A.2d 1001, 1006 (N.H.2003) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted); see Walls, 633 A.2d at 105 (“Although crimes do occur[,] they are still so unlikely that the burden of taking continual precautions against them almost always exceeds the apparent risk.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted))."