Your opinion on this gun law?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we don't WANT more gun control, we as gun owners have to PROVE we don't NEED it.
Click to expand...

Maybe this principle should apply to the rest of the Bill of Rights:

If we don't WANT to be silenced by the government, we have to PROVE that we don't NEED to be silenced by the government.

If we don't WANT to lose our right to trial by jury, we have to PROVE that we don't NEED to be jailed without trial.

If we don't WANT government agents searching our premises at will and at whim, we have to PROVE that we don't NEED to have our sh¡znit ransacked on a daily basis.

I like the way you think Liko. There's a bright future for you in Sierra Leone...or Zimbabwe...or Liberia..or Cuba!
 
Subsequent clarification: Also note that this law would apply only to those to whom the owner had allowed access. It's not applicable if a secured gun is stolen.

(If this has been discussed before, please just refer me to the thread.)
Click to expand...

NO, reason it makes no sense, if you allow some one access, what is the point of securing them??

who lets a friend borrow a gun and then puts a tirgger lock on it to keep him from shooting someone??

stupid idea, stupid law punish the criminal, this is just like holding a gun manufacture liable for some felons actions because he used there gun!
 
how would you feel if it was a crime to not lock your car? or your house?

securing your firearms is a good idea. but it is not necessarily the government's job to tell you to do so, or to make it a crime not to.
 
It is unfortunate that some gun owners I've come across seem to be perfectly willing to give up some of their rights to make the grabbers happy and, hopefully go away.

Newsflash..... That tactic doesn't work.
 
Your opinion on this gun law?
Click to expand...

My apologies if this has been addressed, I have not read the whole thread. I wanted to get this thought out before it passed through both of my brain cells. :)

Any law that is defined as a "gun law" is an inherently bad idea. A law that attempts to restrict an item, either through restrictions on possession or use, is doomed to failure. The item, a gun in this case, is just a tool in the hand. The person using the tool is wholly responsible for how that tool is used. If a friend asks me to loan him a hammer, and I do, and that friend then smashes all of the windows of all of the cars on his street, should I be held responsible?

Laws should be limited to restrictions of actions against others. We have plenty of laws that restrict physical actions against people. How often does the law need to say that, "attacking people is bad?"
 
If the thief brought a hacksaw to cut through the breech lock of your handgun or a blowtorch or drill to defeat your gun safe, that breach was not something you could guard against without security measures that are not financially feasible and therefore you cannot be expected to guard your guns that carefully.
Click to expand...

Thus, your securing of your own arms is EASILY defeated. A hacksaw costs, what? $15?
By your logic then, if you are not financially able to secure your arms (as you have stated) then you simply should not be allowed to own them. This is a logical step from your requirement that arms be well secured. If you cannot secure them, then you shouldn't own them. You have a RESPONSIBILITY to be sure your arms are not taken and used in a crime and if you cannot shoulder that responsibility, hand in your arms. You don't deserve them.

If you can't even provide a safe that will keep the criminals occupied for 20 mins, why should you be allowed to own a gun!? That's just socially irresponsible.
 
Unauthorized use = theft. We already have laws against theft. We already have laws against harming another individual.

If I don't lock up my house and someone STEALS my television I will not be put in jail because I failed to lock up my house. If I fail to lock my car door and someone STEALS my car I will not be arrested because I failed to lock up my car. My insurance company may some issues with me but not the district attourney. Your law would make a criminal out of a victim of crime.

What would be next? Cable locks on kitchen knives, baseball bats, crowbars, etc.

Your "REASONABLE" law is patently unreasonable.
 
how would you feel if it was a crime to not lock your car? or your house?
Click to expand...

In the D/FW area, it IS in fact a crime to leave your house or car unlocked. You can be ticketed and even summonsed for doing so. The logic being that an unlocked car or house is an easy target through simple negligence, and there is no good excuse not to use a locking feature that is required by housing codes/car manufacturer's requirements. Yet people do so all the time, which wastes law enforcement resources responding to theft calls, drives up insurance premiums for others in the area and yes, often puts people's safety and lives in danger.

It is therefore a logical step, when a locking device is supplied with your firearm, that there is no excuse not to use that as well; It is in many states required to provide a lock with each firearm, and there is no good excuse not to use it, when not using it wastes law enforcement resources (far more than a car or home break-in, as a gun on the streets is taken VERY seriously), drives up insurance premiums in the area, and most definitely puts people's safety and lives at risk.

I do not have a responsibility to do anything. The Constitution guarantees me the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. It states nothing whatsoever about the mode, means or manner in which I keep my arms.
Click to expand...

Remind me never to move to your municipality. If you don't have a responsibility to do anything safety-related with your guns I don't want to be in the same ZIP code. Not for my own safety; if your lack of common sense threatens me I am perfectly capable of responding in kind. I just don't want to be tarred with the same brush as every gun owner in your area will be painted with when you act like an idiot with a gun, as is, you say, your right.

With rights COME responsibilities. You can have all the guns you want, it's your right; with that right comes the responsibility to use them safely, and to store them safely so that people who can't or won't use them safely don't end up hurting themselves or others. If it's the criminal's responsibility, then leave your guns in plain view on a table in your home with the door unlocked; by simply opening the door he's trespassed and you are absolved of ALL responsibility. Bull$|-||T. You recognize, against your will, the need, even if not a duty, to provide at least minimal security for your home and possessions. Everything else I've said aside, any laws existing or proposed notwithstanding, all I say is that simply locking your door is obviously not enough, and when a lock comes with the damn gun it makes no sense not to lock the gun when you are not using it. Fine, no criminal liability; you should still as a responsible gun owner take steps to keep your guns in your possession. It's a deterrent at least to those who are planning to break in and grab stuff. Most burglaries are "grab & go"; if you require that the burglar take even five minutes to defeat the lock so they can take the gun, they will simply leave it behind and grab something else.
 
With rights COME responsibilities. You can have all the guns you want, it's your right; with that right comes the responsibility to use them safely, and to store them safely so that people who can't or won't use them safely don't end up hurting themselves or others. If it's the criminal's responsibility, then leave your guns in plain view on a table in your home with the door unlocked; by simply opening the door he's trespassed and you are absolved of ALL responsibility. Bull$|-||T. You recognize, against your will, the need, even if not a duty, to provide at least minimal security for your home and possessions. Everything else I've said aside, any laws existing or proposed notwithstanding, all I say is that simply locking your door is obviously not enough, and when a lock comes with the damn gun it makes no sense not to lock the gun when you are not using it. Fine, no criminal liability; you should still as a responsible gun owner take steps to keep your guns in your possession. It's a deterrent at least to those who are planning to break in and grab stuff. Most burglaries are "grab & go"; if you require that the burglar take even five minutes to defeat the lock so they can take the gun, they will simply leave it behind and grab something else.
Click to expand...

Right cause defeating a breach-lock is way too hard.

You didn't answer my question. If we can require "REASONABLE" securing, why can't we require a safe? If you can't provide a safe for your guns, you shouldn't be allowed to own them.
 
Fine, no criminal liability; you should still as a responsible gun owner take steps to keep your guns in your possession. It's a deterrent at least to those who are planning to break in and grab stuff. Most burglaries are "grab & go"; if you require that the burglar take even five minutes to defeat the lock so they can take the gun, they will simply leave it behind and grab something else.
Click to expand...

In the D/FW area, it IS in fact a crime to leave your house or car unlocked. You can be ticketed and even summonsed for doing so.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't support this either, it is not .govs place. However, as a private company, your home/auto/firearm insurance company may require locks to issue a policy, or may give discounts for an alarm/airbag system/safe, you are then free to choose another insurance company if you wish, or go without and pay for it out of pocket if something bad happens.

As a SUGGESTION to keep your firearms secured, I can agree, but as a LAW, no way. The problem is the insinuations that a law like this makes, and most other laws that single out firearms as a cause, not a tool of crime. In the same way, murdering someone with a hammer vs a gun should carry the same harsh penalty. Way back when, there were few laws, and the purpose was to punish criminal actions. Now with millions of laws on the books, many for victimless crimes or technicalities, it has overcrowded the prison and court system, and as a result there are more "criminals" than ever, but punishments for even violent and heinous crimes have been watered down enough to make them nearly ineffective. This is the "nanny state" legislation that has caused many freedoms to be lost, and personal responsibility to be diminished.

Now in keeping with what seems like the intent of the OPs "law" there are many things that can be done as an upstanding and law abiding gun owner to help. How about publishing a pamphlet on the ins and outs of securing firearms. I have perhaps a dozen trigger/cable locks in a bottom corner of my safe that are not needed, how about taking up a collection of locks for distribution to people who want and need them, but cannot afford them. Even a youtube video of how to properly use a triger lock would be a step in the direction it looks like you want to go.

Long ago, if there was indeed a minor social problem, people worked with others to solve the problem, .gov need not intervene. Now it seems that any time any little thing scares people, there is clamoring for a new law that while it may have been well intentioned, always comes back to bite personal freedom and responsibility in the A$$.
 
It stinks!!!

A gun lock bill would give many jurisdictions the green light they are waiting for to snoop into the homes of law abiding gun owners. How i keep the guns in my home is not the business of any government official.

Twice in my lifetime i have had to defend our home from gun armed home invaders. Take my word for it: You do not even want to be unlocking and loading guns when some scumbag is threatening your wife.
 
Right cause defeating a breach-lock is way too hard.

You didn't answer my question. If we can require "REASONABLE" securing, why can't we require a safe? If you can't provide a safe for your guns, you shouldn't be allowed to own them.
Click to expand...

You can't require a safe because guns don't come with a safe. Guns come with breech locks; in many states it is illegal to sell a new gun without one. In addition, a breech lock is very cheap to buy for a gun you bought used or before manufacturers had to hand out locks for their guns.

Therefore, it is not a big step to say you should have and use breech locks on your guns; the lock if bought seperately generally costs less than a few boxes of ammo, and if you can't buy a few boxes of ammo for the gun, the gun's a club in your hands anyway. It is a HUGE step to say you must have a gun safe, when even a 15-minute model (defeatable by a skilled thief in 15 minutes) may cost 2 or 3 times what you paid for the guns you put in it, and thus a gun safe requirement establishes a huge money hurdle to owning a firearm, in violation of the Second Amendment.

Think of it as insurance; you are required by practically every state law to have car insurance. Why? It doesn't prevent you from getting in an accident. If you're a perfect driver you should never need it right? Wrong. You are required to have insurance because even if you are a perfect driver, others aren't, and they're only liable if they're caught and THEY have insurance. If they show empty pockets, you're SOL. Now the minimum insurance coverage is laughable; $50,000 per car, $100k max per accident property liability in Texas; T-bone a Hummer and you're still out of pocket especially if someone goes to the hospital. Can you have more than the minimum? Sure; I have 100k/300k/100k coverage plus rental car plus additional personal injury. Is it required by law? No.

A breech lock is similar; in an ideal world you wouldn't need it. You wouldn't even need to lock your door. However, the world is not ideal, even if you wouldn't break in, a criminal would, and therefore it makes sense to provide as many safeguards as you can as insurance against theft. Locking your door is the bare minimum. It's laughable; a locked door takes 10 seconds to defeat or work around. A breech lock protects that gun specifically, cannot be worked around (You can enter a house with locked doors; you cannot use a gun with a lock in it) and in absence of the key the lock must be cut, broken or picked to defeat. That discourages a grab-and-go thief, who's looking to take whatever's valuable and sell it for cash over the next hour for his next meal or fix. Therefore even though a breech lock may not be required or even requireable as minimum gun security by law (you win; I've given up on that), it's a REALLY good idea and a no-brainer, and I still go so far as to say it is basic firearm safety, and failure to follow that simple step is negligent. Using the breech lock to keep the gun in the home by also securing it to a bolt in the wall or something not easily moved goes even further; the thief must defeat the lock while in the home. A gun safe is better still, as is a built-in vault over a safe. However, cost is an issue, and a breech lock by itself comes with the firearm, is cheap to buy if not, and gives you one extra step, however small, in protecting your property; why not use it?
 
Last edited:
Liko81 said:
Remind me never to move to your municipality. If you don't have a responsibility to do anything safety-related with your guns I don't want to be in the same ZIP code. Not for my own safety; if your lack of common sense threatens me I am perfectly capable of responding in kind. I just don't want to be tarred with the same brush as every gun owner in your area will be painted with when you act like an idiot with a gun, as is, you say, your right.
Click to expand...
I didn't say I don't secure my firearms, I said the Constitution does not require that I secure my firearms. Don't let that stop you from not moving here, though. We have enough people trying to curtail the miniscule gun rights we have left around here; we don't need "help" from pro-gun folks like you.

I think you need to study up on the definition and derivation of the word "infringe."
 
You can't require a safe because guns don't come with a safe. Guns come with breech locks; you cannot buy a new firearm without one. We require manufacturers to provide one and it's included with every new gun.
Click to expand...

The trigger/breech lock requirement may be a good idea for firearms not customarily kept at the ready (in other words, if I decide I need a bedside gun, which is no one's business but mine and my family's in any case, I'll be damned if it has a trigger or breech lock).

However, the present breech/trigger lock requirement is a matter of law, not prudence. There is nothing preventing a government from requiring a safe at some later time. In fact, there have already been proposals for things like "arsenal storage." Furthermore, the trigger lock requirement provides a legal precedent that makes further infringements, like requiring a safe, easier.

One may pooh-pooh the slippery slope as much as one likes, but the fact is, it's happened more than once. In Canada, safe storage requirements are about to be enforced by inspection. In California, "assault rifle" (kaff) registration very nearly became confiscation, and was thwarted only because the authorities became convinced the price would be too high.

This thread reminds me very much of a discussion I had at another blog, wherein an anti (at least he was polite about it, I'll give the gentleman that) "advised" us that we should accede to an AWB now in order to avoid something worse the next time someone shot up a mall.

The obvious flaw in the argument is that we could accede now, were we so inclined, and still get something worse, if someone who already doesn't obey gun or any other laws, shoots up a mall. I advised the gentleman that we wouldn't be giving him an unearned victory.

I like to think of it as football (gridiron, for those of you accustomed to metric football ;)): Some representative of my opponent comes to me on Tuesday, and says, "Let me give you some friendly advice. Forfeit now, and we'll put the final score in at 14-10."

"Naw," says I.

"Well, you should really take this deal, because you might get beat 80-0. That would be a lot worse for you, wouldn't it?" says the guy from the other team.

"See you Saturday," says I.

Compromise is not losing less. Compromise is getting something we didn't already have in return for giving up something (something nonessential, one hopes). I prefer to make them earn their victories, because I don't think they can beat us if we bring our A games.
 
Last edited:
The trigger/breech lock requirement may be a good idea for firearms not customarily kept at the ready (in other words, if I decide I need a bedside gun, which is no one's business but mine and my family's in any case, I'll be damned if it has a trigger or breech lock).
Click to expand...

K. You keep a handgun on your nightstand, a shotgun or AR-15 in the closet and you have a smaller/more comfortable/whatever handgun for carry. While in your home, you can expect, if someone barges in, to need the closest gun you can get your hands on. You can't feasibly expect someone to lock a gun when they step away from it, therefore all guns you have for use in case of a home invasion should be kept ready while you are in the home.

Now, you leave your home. You take your carry gun with you. You leave the shotgun and bedside gun there. They are no longer "at the ready" since you have to be in close proximity to them to use them, and you're miles away. If visible to someone casing the place (such as a gun on your nightstand), they are a target of immediate opportunity.

I would advocate at least breech-locking the non-carry guns before you leave, and unlocking them when you get back. If you spread a few guns around the house so you have quick access without carrying one around, quick-access safes are a good investment (and you can leave them open when you're home so they're even faster), but they are exactly that; it costs money. If you only have one or two you'd use, locking and unlocking takes about 10 seconds, and can easily become part of your home-after-work routine; set your briefcase down, kiss wifey, head to the bedroom and lose the tie, and take your keys out and unlock the nightstand and closet guns. If wifey can handle the guns and is home most of the day then don't even bother with that; she needs em too while she's home, but if she leaves she should lock them up just like you should.

It doesn't have to be a breech lock; put a trigger lock on if that's easier. Or put then in a safe or security box. Or hide them and invest in a home alarm system that would discourage a burglar from sticking around long enough to look for guns. All of these trade cost for convenience; with one or two guns in the house a breech lock is cheap and easy. With multiple guns convenience is a factor and a faster, easier way to lock up your weapons when not at the ready would be called for. I'm simply focusing on breech locks because you have them, and by advocating their use I don't have to advocate guns for only the rich because only the rich can afford to secure them properly; anyone with a gun and the money to maintain and practice with it can get a lock if they don't have one already.
 
Liko,

I'm glad to see you've given up the Legal requirement argument.

THIS was the point of contention. I don't think anyone here advocates keeping all guns out, loaded and ready.

I quite agree that is prudent and responsible to lock and secure your guns. I keep mine in my locked case and a locked gun cabinet. (The cabinet, unfortunately, is easy to defeat, just break the glass).

The problem I had was when the government comes in with the force of arms and law to make you do something, this is a breach of your rights. This is why we argue against government control.

Beyond that, many people have pointed out the slippery slope arguments because we have seen it happen. What begins as a "reasonable" restriction can quickly become unreasonable and oppresive. Just check out what C.S. Lewis said in my sig. These people will think that controlling us and our guns is for our own good, so they will never stop pushing for more.

This is why the response has been so adamant against government control.
 
"Reasonable" is a piece of content-free semantics. If someone decides a home alarm system is required for "reasonable," what happens to the person who can't afford one or the renter whose landlord says nuh-uh?
Click to expand...

Furthermore, it's subject to completely arbitrary interpretation.

Is it reasonable to require someone to arm a house alarm when going out for thirty seconds so the dog can pee? What about five minutes to chat with a neighbor? Twenty minutes to grab a few groceries? What is "reasonable", i.e. an effective balance between costs and benefits, security and convenience, risk and time savings?
 
A few Liko81 quotes-
“Fine, I'll specify, and just because you're being a d*** about a term commonly used…”

Do you visit The High Road often? Have you met Art, yet?

“(like a cop in your house for something unrelated notices a gun with no lock being carried out to you by your 4-year-old going "look Daddy!")”

Got the “For the Children” outta the way. Check.

“So go ahead and roll the dice; when your gun collection goes missing and a gang-banger shoots someone in my apartment with the result that the apartment manager bans guns on their property, I will come and thank you personally.”

Got the “Victim” part done. Check.

“However, the naysayers I am angry at don't want a tenth of that protection.

Got the I’m angry and I’m not gonna take it anymore. Check.

“I am advocating that weapons not in use or of which you do not have conceivable need are kept locked. It's very simple, and advocated by practically everyone on both sides. Yet you refuse to see a need. That infuriates me.”

Got the superiority complex AND played the trump card to basic anger. Check + bonus points for the combo play.

“I'm angry because not only do you not want to codify these rules…”

Got the condescending lord to serf, how dare you defy me umbrage. Check


“THAT is why I say you are being irresponsible and undeserving of your rights.”

Got a Second Coming here. The Creator speaks to the American populace. CHECK.

“A gun is also a tool, but its primary purpose is to cause damage at a distance. It is ill-suited, because of its power, the noise created, and the potential for unintentional damage even when tightly controlled, to use it anywhere other than a safe practice environment or a survival situation.”

Got Brady poster # 357 here. Lies 12, 26, 44 and 58 reinforced. Check.

“That's because a gun's primary purpose is to kill, whatever other useful purposes it has, and very few would think the thieves were looking to melt them down and sell them for scrap.”

Brady poster #1 The BIG ONE is entirely played out. Earlier bonus points subtracted. Additional loss of 50 points for lack of creativity. Check.

“Remind me never to move to your municipality. If you don't have a responsibility to do anything safety-related with your guns I don't want to be in the same ZIP code. Not for my own safety; if your lack of common sense threatens me I am perfectly capable of responding in kind. I just don't want to be tarred with the same brush as every gun owner in your area will be painted with when you act like an idiot with a gun, as is, you say, your right.”

Got the ostracism, the self-effacing bravado topped off with a delightful touch of old-fashioned threat. Impending feather toss by the peasant crowd rapidly approaching prompts additional name-calling. Rights again questioned. Check.

“With rights COME responsibilities. You can have all the guns you want, it's your right; with that right comes the responsibility to use them safely, and to store them safely so that people who can't or won't use them safely don't end up hurting themselves or others.”

Got the Rights with codicils, criminal gun safety course begins. Check.

“I say is that simply locking your door is obviously not enough, and when a lock comes with the damn gun it makes no sense not to lock the gun when you are not using it.”

Got the obvious anti-gun disdain and vehemence that eventually comes to light, given enough time & words. Bonus points for controlling the usual frothing though. Quack, quack, quack. Check & mate. :evil:

Thanks for playing.
 
Thank you, ArmedBear (comment #118), that's precisely my point. I have, now and then, taught a graduate-level class in business, government, and society. One of the topics we discuss toward the end of semester is sexual harassment law.

It's true that "reasonable" has been used to construct legal tests...and one need only peruse "hostile environment" litigation and policy literature to see what a dog's breakfast the "reasonable person" standard can produce.
 
Last edited:
The only "reasonable" view of this law is if your gun was kept from plain sight. As an example, in your drawer ready for use but not visible to a visitor. No person should be held responsible for snoops that go into a room and start opening drawers or moving cloths and discovers a firearm. On the other hand if you leave a loaded, ready to use gun in the open (on a coffee table, etc.) and don't stay in that room you may be held responsible if a child shoots themselves or another playing with that gun. Just my opinion.
 
The gun lock thing is actually quite silly . I have taken a few off of friends guns at the range when they forgot their keys . They are not hard to defeat and people that WANT to steal your guns are not going to think twice that there's a trigger lock on it . It is , at best , a feel good measure .

Heck , even teenagers etc have figured out these locks are not hard to defeat .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6PeeDty9Ks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNxn7a-_fHI&feature=related

I guess the best way to secure a firearm is to put it in a state sponsored armory or not own one at all :scrutiny:
 
if you leave a loaded, ready to use gun in the open (on a coffee table, etc.) and don't stay in that room you may be held responsible if a child shoots themselves or another playing with that gun.
Click to expand...

Sure. However, this is not firearms-specific.

A hot stove, a cup full of Xylene, an open pocket knife, lots of things pose a danger to a child.

What I have a problem with is holding an owner criminally responsible for what happens when his property is stolen.
 
Nope.

I can't hold you responsible for the actions of others, even if they used one of your tools to do it. Same with cars and anything else that could be used for harm.
 
Shootings are going to happen. In a free society, a man's actions are his own; there's nothing to prevent someone with no priors from walking into a gun store, plunking down the cash, carrying out the pistol, walking next door and killing 15 people before eating the last one. That, believe it or not, is as it should be. Any attempt to prevent said man from doing exactly that is by definition a restriction of his rights in a free society. Waiting/"cool-off" periods, background checks, ID checks, registration, permits... none of this is going to stop someone determined to cause pain.
Click to expand...

Liko81


none of this is going to stop someone determined to cause pain
Click to expand...

Except gun locks:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
Seattle Gun Safe/Stolen Gun Law
Replies
1
Views
608
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Justin
  • Locked
Gun storage bill being debated in Colorado legislature
Replies
11
Views
646
fjolnirsson
F
D
  • Locked
(NY) 1 year wait for replacement guns in the works
Replies
12
Views
748
Poodleshooter
P
W
  • Locked
illinois firearm storage laws?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Davey Wavey
D
T
  • Locked
States Consider Gun-Access Laws
Replies
8
Views
493
eric.cartman
E
Back
Top