Friend saw a psych - Legal obligations?

[U2BassAce]

Wipe your prints off of it and hand it back.

[Tincon]

Theoretically, you have a point. Realistically, you are grasping at straws and "what if's". Find one case, just one, where someone got a "prison trip" for circumstances closely similar to what the OP originally asked about. I seriously doubt you can find one let alone a handful. With all due respect, it would appear you're more concerned with just ginning up work for lawyers.

LOL, yeah, that's what it is. I'm just looking out for the interests of all 200,000 lawyers in this state.

[bluesmoke9]

LOL, yeah, that's what it is. I'm just looking out for the interests of all 200,000 lawyers in this state.

As if we needed 200,000 lawyers. As for the case citation, I'll wait.

[gotshotgun?]

Your legal obligation is to give him back his gun.

Yep, this. That is all. Your analyzing of his issues to determine if he is able to posses the gun is wrong. You are not qualified to do so. You said his psychologist said he just needed to relax. If that is true then you have no further obligations.

[TripleThreat]

Shoot the hostage....

[dfletcher]

Just wondering - is the friend off the hook if "Jim" legally buys and maintains possession of another gun? At that point, if the friend returns the gun he isn't adding to Jim's ability to do damage.

Just trying to be practical and amoral while avoiding legal liability ....

[ojisan]

So, Tincon....your friend shows up at your house and asks you to hold onto his gun for him as he is having a rough time.
You refuse because you know the law and don't want the possible liability.
Your friend goes back home, and in a fit of despair, added to because you, his friend, would not help him, he offs himself with the gun.
Are you liable?
You knew he was upset, he tried to have you hold his gun for a short time, you refused, so now are you guilty of negligence (or whatever the legal term would be)?
(You knew what might happen and did not act).

Legally may be a gray area.
Morally your refusal to help your friend puts the guilt on you...forever.

What's better...to be legally correct or morally correct?

[Tincon]

You are generally never legally liable for not acting, absent risk creation or a special relationship. Regardless, I would take the gun and I would keep it until I was satisfied there was no risk. If I was unsure or legal issues arose, there are ways to legally make such an issue the problem of the local court. Solves the moral and legal problem.

[ojisan]

Doing the right thing is not always easy, that's for sure.

[bluesmoke9]

Doing the right thing is not always easy, that's for sure.

Doing the right thing is usually the easiest solution to come up with, although the follow through might involve some effort. It's the over-analysis and playing "what-if" games where things get complicated.

[dfletcher]

Doing the right thing is usually the easiest solution to come up with, although the follow through might involve some effort. It's the over-analysis and playing "what-if" games where things get complicated.

Unfortunately the "what ifs" are the world we live in and are often exploited by our learned legal professionals, for better or worse. Many, many years ago (as in decades) when "private party" sales were OK in MA I fairly often sold a gun or two to friends & other gun owners. Three occasions didn't end well (one robbery, one suicide and one triple murder). I followed the law and there was no legal action taken, were this to happen today it would be, I think, much different.

[Chewy65]

First, you do have a special relationship of at least one kind with the gun owner. You are a bailee of his property. Then again, you may have assumed a special relationship when you agreed to hold the gun to keep him from doing harm.

Persons with certain kinds of special relationships have a duty to report to law enforcement if they suspect that a person may harm themselves or another. I do not know whether or not the bailee of property would be one.

Should you not return the man's property, you could be held civilly liable for conversion (treating his property as your own without right).

On the other hand, I recently had some deputies tell me it is theft to refuse to return property left at my house by a contractor, even though he failed to complete the contract and damages significantly exceeded the value of the tools. I do not believe the deputies knew what the law, but the question was never put to the test.

You got yourself in a pickle, which is what happens often when you try to do the right thing. I can think of no way out of this short of court action and even then you could still be sued down the road if somebody is shot. Even if you are found to have no liability, it can cost you a ton in attorney fees and defense costs. Do you have homeowner or personal liability umbrella insurance that would cover those costs and any potential judgment?

This may have been covered, but I would sit down with my friend and explain my concerns and how there is no way for me to know that he is now alright to have a gun. I would ask him how he feels about asking the doctor for a quick note saying that you may return the gun. Forgetting your potential civil and criminal liability, it the guy really is thinking about harming himself, is he going to tell you that is why he wants his gun back?