Lost me at forcing the state to not trust their residents.

Also, while active duty members of the military have the serial numbers of all issued firearms tied to their SSN, I see zero benefit of doing so to the general population. That would be creating an index of who owns what and however many they do.

Violence is dropping, non-gun accidents still claim several orders of magnitude more lives than ones involving guns. With over 90% of firearms never being used to harm another human, why set up a database to track who owns them?

This would be a 'tipping point' level mistake if implemented.

TrueTexan wrote:

CDFingers wrote:When we buy a gun in California, we have to answer a question whether we have a safe or some sort of a trigger lock.

Unsupervised guns: there's the culprit. No infringement, no hair afire, no disarmament.

Since it costs money, I'm also in favor of that $3K tax credit for a gun safe. That's fair. No harm--only small economic inconvenience. No foul.

CDFingers

But if your poor you might be able to afford a gun for home defense but can't afford a $3K safe tax credit or not. Just more inequality for the poor.

Trigger locks are six bucks.

CDFingers

CDFingers wrote: Trigger locks are six bucks.

CDFingers

Which comes back to the devilish detail of the definition of "locked storage." Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like these "common-sense" gun laws are usually written with a full and thoughtful engagement with firearms enthusiasts, or an attempt to get the most safety bang for the least buck of money or intrusion. A padlock though the back of the trigger guard will work, but will the law recognize that?

Our stupid I-594 is a case in point. They could have defined "transfer" by including a time period (not more than a day, eight hours, thirty minutes, whatever) and not made it illegal to let a friend TOUCH your gun anywhere outside a recognized shooting range, including in your home. But that would have required thinking.

It's all interesting discussion, but if you barely have money to buy protection a tax credit doesn't do one any good. I do believe in taking safety procedurers and education seriously. There are zero cost tecniques to safely keep weapons safe when not in ones control. Removing bolts, magazines, and ammo and storing them in another locations goes far in securing a weapon that is not meant for self defense. Making laws to require specific methods is not going to help low income people. Education and training is key.

Buck13 wrote:

CDFingers wrote: Trigger locks are six bucks.

CDFingers

Which comes back to the devilish detail of the definition of "locked storage." --snip--

Our stupid I-594 is a case in point.

Yes, about the definition of "locked storage." I can only refer to California, where the trigger lock will suffice. It may be different for hand guns and rifles, though. I forgot, as I store them all in the safe--it's been so long I've had a safe, I forgot to remember about the differences.

Each state by the Ninth and Tenth can come up with different things regarding gun storage. I don't think a national law can be done in this political climate.

CDFingers

CDFingers wrote: I don't think a national law can be done in this political climate.

It's hard to believe ANY national laws can be done in the current political climate.

Except for the TPP rising from the grave like a horror movie's main character. It looks like the only issue with any bipartisan appeal is Corporatism Uber Alles. Thanks, DNC!

But, no, I don't imagine any gun control legislation will pass the US Congress while the Rs hold either house. Which is about the only good thing I can think to say about them.

I think it's fair for gun owners to be really suspicious of calls for 'safe storage' of their firearms. What constitutes 'safe storage' under the law? I'm sure some would write the requirements as basically a bank vault that no regular gun owner could afford. Hoplophobes will emulate what the right is doing with voter ID laws- trying to disenfranchise and discourage the vote by making it expensive and difficult.

I would like to have a gun safe to protect from fire and theft but I live alone, no kids around. No one has access to my firearms unless they break into my house. What level of storage is 'safe' for my guns?

The problem with "common-sense" regulation is that common sense ain't common.

CDFingers wrote: Trigger locks are six bucks.

CDFingers

When must the trigger lock be on the gun? When your two year old nephew is around? Or maybe every moment your gun is not at a State approved range? The right to actually bear arms is infringed if they must be locked up at all times (and yes, this has been seriously proposed by some of the gun grabbers).

The right must be converted to a privilege, and made as difficult as possible to exercise. That seems to be a desired step on the path towards the end goal of owning all private ownership of firearms.

Here's how California phrases it:

When the gun is not in your hands, you must still think of safety. Use a California-approved firearms safety device on the gun, such as a trigger lock or cable lock, so it cannot be fired. Store it unloaded in a locked container, such as a California-approved lock box or a gun safe.

link:

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/tips

To myself, I say "unsupervised guns should be locked up."

CDFingers

In my mind locked behind the front door of my house is enough.

Phaedrus wrote:In my mind locked behind the front door of my house is enough.

Well, you're not the only one. Just about everyone who had their house broken into and their guns stolen probably felt the same way.

In Los Angeles a "CA Approved" trigger lock fulfills the safe storage law. That won't stop someone who breaks into the house from stealing the firearm.

Reasonable common sense tells me the words "reasonable" and "common sense" don't mean anything in actual practice.

MayhemVI wrote:

Phaedrus wrote:In my mind locked behind the front door of my house is enough.

Well, you're not the only one. Just about everyone who had their house broken into and their guns stolen probably felt the same way.

What does that have to do with preventing a four year old from shooting himself? I'm sure everyone that owns a gun safe feels their guns are protected but residential storage containers are routinely defeated every day. Just how much responsibility is on individual gun owners? Is a $250 safe enough? Maybe the law should require a $10,000 safe and iron bars on your windows? That's the sticky wicket, the slippery slope. At what point does a regulation go from being a fair requirement to a burdensome code meant to act as a barrier to firearms ownership?

And why stop there? Why not require all cars to wear a "boot" rendering the vehicle inoperable when the owner isn't driving it? How about a concrete structure around your pool?

Every question you asked, I've already answered.

MayhemVI wrote:... I don't have all the answers. But that doesn't mean I'm determined to duck the questions...

MayhemVI wrote:Every question you asked, I've already answered.

Saying you don't have an answer is ducking the question.



Specifically this discussion was about "safe storage" for children. You brought up the possibility of breaking and entering, and theft. A trigger/chamber lock won't prevent that. It's also somewhat victim blaming.

I'm with Meyhem. If a kid gets your gun and shoots himself or someone else, it's your fault and you should have your right to guns and kids questioned by a judge and/or jury. It takes a law to make that happen.

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your gun and shoots a gas station clerk with it, I feel that's still your fault and your right to guns should be questioned by a judge and/or jury. I'm fine with the same law making this happen too.

REDONE wrote:If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your gun and shoots a gas station clerk with it, I feel that's still your fault and your right to guns should be questioned by a judge and/or jury. I'm fine with the same law making this happen too.

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your Hinkel chef's knife and stabs a gas station clerk with it, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to own kitchen knives should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your Blue Krait snake and facilitates the biting of a gas station clerk by your snake, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to own snakes should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your chainsaw and carves up a gas station clerk with it, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to own chainsaws should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your car and runs over a gas station clerk with it, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to drive should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

ArmedAndLiberal wrote:

REDONE wrote:If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your gun and shoots a gas station clerk with it, I feel that's still your fault and your right to guns should be questioned by a judge and/or jury. I'm fine with the same law making this happen too.

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your Hinkel chef's knife and stabs a gas station clerk with it, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to own kitchen knives should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your Blue Krait snake and facilitates the biting of a gas station clerk by your snake, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to own snakes should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your chainsaw and carves up a gas station clerk with it, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to own chainsaws should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your car and runs over a gas station clerk with it, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to drive should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

When stolen chainsaws and snakes are being used to kill people, I will have that discussion. Right now we're talking about guns.

Here's how California phrases it:

AB 231 establishes the Firearm Safe and Responsible Access Act, creating a third degree misdemeanor if a person negligently stores or leaves a loaded firearm in a location where they know, or reasonably should know, that a child can access the firearm without permission and the person fails to take proper safety measures. A third degree misdemeanor carries a penalty of up to 6 months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine. The bill also requires licensed gun dealers to post this warning in their place of business with other already required postings of child safe storage laws.

link:

http://asmdc.org/members/a19/news-room/ ... -tragedies

Guns are different from knives in many ways, especially when it concerns children. A child can't access a knife and from her living room accidentally kill the kid across the street in her own living room. She can with a gun.

This is reality. It is not "anti gun." There's physics here. It can be measured.

Safe storage laws like this certainly will not bring kids back from the dead, nor will they actually prevent many accidental killings. But they inform the public that physics is a reality which shall not be mocked. To my way of thinking, an informed public is a safer public.

And then there are fines, which is wealth transfer from the infractors to the state, and there is jail time, which transfers that wealth from the state to the private prison companies. What's not to like? I mean, I certainly strongly dislike private prison companies, so I'm going to do my darndest to avoid such wealth transfers.

No kids will be harmed by guns at my house, and no criminals will steal my guns and use them in nefarious ways. Works for me. It will work for others as well.

CDFingers

BKinzey wrote:

MayhemVI wrote:... I don't have all the answers. But that doesn't mean I'm determined to duck the questions...

MayhemVI wrote:Every question you asked, I've already answered.

Saying you don't have an answer is ducking the question.



Specifically this discussion was about "safe storage" for children. You brought up the possibility of breaking and entering, and theft. A trigger/chamber lock won't prevent that. It's also somewhat victim blaming.

Aaaand I've already answered that question.

A kid with a knife can cut himself or anyone near by. The knife is always loaded. A kid with an empty gun may drop it on his foot. An empty gun is always heavy.

All guns not under your control should be locked up. That said, I'm against most manditory safe storage laws.

MayhemVI wrote:

BKinzey wrote:

MayhemVI wrote:... I don't have all the answers. But that doesn't mean I'm determined to duck the questions...

MayhemVI wrote:Every question you asked, I've already answered.

Saying you don't have an answer is ducking the question.



Specifically this discussion was about "safe storage" for children. You brought up the possibility of breaking and entering, and theft. A trigger/chamber lock won't prevent that. It's also somewhat victim blaming.

Aaaand I've already answered that question.

Bang your head harder. I already addressed your objection.

REDONE wrote:

ArmedAndLiberal wrote:

REDONE wrote:If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your gun and shoots a gas station clerk with it, I feel that's still your fault and your right to guns should be questioned by a judge and/or jury. I'm fine with the same law making this happen too.

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your Hinkel chef's knife and stabs a gas station clerk with it, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to own kitchen knives should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your Blue Krait snake and facilitates the biting of a gas station clerk by your snake, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to own snakes should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your chainsaw and carves up a gas station clerk with it, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to own chainsaws should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your car and runs over a gas station clerk with it, do you feel that's still your fault and your right to drive should be questioned by a judge and/or jury?

When stolen chainsaws and snakes are being used to kill people, I will have that discussion. Right now we're talking about guns.

He also brought up kitchen knives, since a common kitchen knife is the #1 knife used to stab people with do you have your kitchen knives locked up?

I'm certainly against the "let the court decide" idea. If you go to criminal court you are looking at a $10k+ lawyer bill. You could also be arrested and spend some time in jail until you get bail.

It doesn't matter if you are innocent.