No joke! That's about as pointy-headed as it gets. It looks like they're trying to tie the gun owner to liability even after a weapon is stolen. If it's stolen and you don't know it (therefore don't report it as stolen), you could be liable for damages incurred by the thief as a result of his activity associated with the weapon....

That seems to be an extension of the belief that the weapon does the crime - not the shooter. I can see a narrow opportunity for a charge of "negligent ownership" in allowing a weapon to be left in the open and easy for someone to steal, but that's not the way I read this.

Where is their law requiring liability insurance to be maintained on knives and vehicles that are not in service? I suspect many of those have been stolen with resulting damage to others without charging the owner.

Yikes!

Frank