H.R 45 new Gun registration/license bill

[rangersmith82]

Like the old saying goes...once they know where all the guns are, it will be easier to take them....


H.R.45
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

Sponsor: Rep Rush, Bobby L.
.
.
.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings- Congress finds that––
.
.
.
(6) on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting. Chicago already has gun registration and licenses, and still this young man died

Why would we push a law on the rest of the United States that does not work in Chicago???

License and registration has had no affect on murders there. You cannot compare the rest of the United States to Chicago, Hell the Governor tried to sell President elect Obama seat.

It's sad they are using this Child's death to push this anti gun law.

Registration and licenses didn't save his life, what makes them think a law on the national scale will make children safe???

Believe it or not, most of America is not a crime ridden place like Chicago, can we just keep these laws in Chicago please???

[Lasher]

1. They just couldn't wait to come up with national gun legislation.

If they keep at it Obama will have a GOP congress to hound him after his first 2 years in office. It's happened before.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. A little more information:

the kid who shot Holt was given the gun by another kid who got it from an undefined source, so far as i could tell.

The purpose of the legislation is to be able to track the murder weapon back to its owner to find if there is any culpability on the owners part - improper storage or even deliberate abetting of the crime.

Pace could not have shot Holt with no weapon. So how did the weapon get to him? Was the weapon stolen, or 'borrowed' from a relative who didn't bother keeping it secure? It is certain that the 15 year old who gave the weapon to Pace was not the owner.

If a gun owner knows he will be held responsible, to some extent, if his weapon is used in a crime, he will be much more diligent about being sure to keep that weapon secure, in a locked cabinet or with a trigger lock or both.

Or are you arguing that gun owners do not need to be responsible for the safe keeping of their weapons?

[Hangingon]

3. So, as you say in your first sentence, the Chicago law didn't work

Again, why then impose it on the rest of the country. My letters to Texas representatives will against this will go out this morning.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. The purpose of the chicago law is to find culpability for the crime.

Of course, the shooter is primarily culpable. So is the kid who gave the shooter his gun. And so is the LEGAL OWNER of the gun who let it be used in a crime, if he did not take steps to secure it. No information I found has said if the gun was sucessfully traced to its owner - which could simply mean that the owner purchased it outside of Chicago, and it was therefore not registered. If there was a national registration law, as this law proposes, we'd KNOW who the original owner was. We'd KNOW if the weapon was given to the kid (making the owner responsible) or if it was stolen from him despite reasonable precautions (freeing him of responsibility).

Responsibility.

I know it's a big word. Look it up.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

24. Let's look up some other stuff instead...

How about our neighbors to the north - Googling Canadian Gun Registry we stumble upon cited Canadian investigative reports:

...
The registry again became a political issue in the early 2000s when massive cost overruns were reported. The project which was meant to cost approximately $119 million ended up costing over 3 billion dollars to implement.

...

The Auditor General's report also found that there is a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of the gun registry, or to prove that it is meeting its stated goal of improving public safety. The report states:

The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licenses and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms.<4>

Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino is opposed to the gun registry, stating in a press release:

We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."<5>

...

At the end of the day, responsibility amounts to a hill of beans if you can't change the crime statistics. 9 out of ten cases the firearm will be lost, stolen, or untraceable. The fact of the matter is that there are many places to get private guns and there is little difficulty stealing them. If someone wants your possessions (short of storing them in a bank deposit box or a safe which weighs several hundred pounds) they will get them. I keep my firearms in a safe and I know that if someone with my stature REALLY wanted in there... they could get the firearms by unconventional means. Now compound all the problems Canada faces now with the fact that America currently has WAY WAY WAY more guns "off the radar" in private hands. Guns in the hands of people who, most likely, would not register all of them. Hell, if half of gun owning Americans registered all their firearms I'd be speechless. Canada has voted 2 or 3 times already to extend the registry amnesty period... and it's not helping. Let's face it, as of 2007 there were .3 firearms per capita in Canada and nearly .9 firearms per capita in America.

Laws that mandate storage requirements are every bit as unenforceable as the laws making it illegal to shoot somebody.
The only way a registry can work is if almost all existing guns are accounted for and the influx of guns is known/accounted. This will never be true in America.

[tburnsten]

26. Except that it doesn't work

It's a fine theory, but it doesn't work, is a real hassle, and has tremendous potential for abuse. Since it delivers almost no benefit in the real world, and has a variety of very real negatives, it isn't really a good idea to keep trying to implement it.

[one-eyed fat man]

36. original owner

If the gun was manufactured after 1968 the ATF has it listed, by serial number on a Form 1 provided by the manufacturer. From there they can track to the first retail sale (which is recorded on a Form 4473) already.

If the gun was manufactured before 1968 and has ever crossed an FFL's books as a trade-in or a used gun, its transfer has been recorded on a 4473. All of those forms eventually go to the ATF's facility in Martisnburg, WV where they are scanned into the ATF's computer as fast as civil service employees do anything.

Many ardent gun control proponents argue if a guns is stolen, by definition, it was not adequately secured. For someone espousing to be so "progressive" it is amusing to see them resurrect the 12th century notion of deodands.

[iverglas]

45. addendum

If there was a national registration law, as this law proposes, we'd KNOW who the original owner was. We'd KNOW if the weapon was given to the kid (making the owner responsible) or if it was stolen from him despite reasonable precautions (freeing him of responsibility).

You would also have an additional and likely effective DETERRENT to lawful owners transferring their firearms to ineligible individuals.

Anyone who wished to be law-abiding would have to complete the transfer legally, i.e. by registering it, which could not be done if the purchaser (or receiver of the gift, etc.) were not eligible/licensed to receive it.

Transferring a firearm off the books would be illegal. There would be a strong disincentive for anyone with a registered firearm to transfer it illegally, as it would be traceable to him/her and, if found in the possession of an ineligible person or found to have been used in a crime, the last registered owner would have some accounting to do.

Currently, traceability in the US amounts to identifying the first legal purchaser (or a subsequent purchaser, if from a licensed dealer). That purchaser is not accountable for what happened to it afterward -- it was stolen and I didn't bother reporting it because it wasn't insured anyway, it was sold privately to someone who answered my ad and who I had no reason to think was a criminal because s/he looked like a nice person, it was lost in that tragic kayaking accident.

If an owner is accountable, in the sense that any loss or theft must be reported and any transfer registered, it is to be expected that a lot fewer "law-abiding" people will be transferring their firearms to / allowing their firearms to fall into the hands of people who are ineligible to possess them.

Rather obviously, this also addresses straw purchases a lot more effectively than mere prohibitions on making straw sales/purchases.

[Hangingon]

102. Why thank you.

I never would have figured out the supposed reason for this bill on my own. And then the bonus of the word "responsibility". Wow! What an addition to my education. Thanks so much.

[derby378]

5. If the goal is to force gun owners to safely store their firearms...

...then how come the bill doesn't include pump-action 12-gauge shotguns, which are used in more crimes than any other long gun, last I heard?

This bill is worthless as a crime-prevention measure, and a violation of our Constitutional rights.

[gorfle]

7. Simple.

Because the vast majority of firearm crimes are committed with handguns.

[derby378]

10. But HR45 doesn't just cover handguns...

...it also covers any semi-automatic rifle that is fed with a magazine.

Pump-action shotgun owners, therefore, are free to be as irresponsible with their guns as they damn well please without any legal repercussions.

[gorfle]

16. Of course it does

They are still following the meme that assault weapons are commonly used in crime.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. The goal is to identify the original owners of guns used in crimes.

Encouraging owners to lock up their weapons so they will NOT be used in crimes is just a side benefit.

And registering a weapon in no way 'infringes' on 2nd amendment rights.

[derby378]

11. HR45 isn't about registering weapons...

...it's about making it illegal to own a handgun or a semi-automatic rifle without a permit.

And, as I already said, if you own a pump-action shotgun, you're not required to obtain a permit in order to keep it.

Therefore, HR45 does indeed infringe on your Second Amendment rights. And it will do nothing to cut down on violent crime.

Any Democrat who wants to circulate a petition to prevent HR45 from becoming law needs only to PM me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Semantics.

Anyone who is not constrained by law (felons, crazy people) can get a permit. Obviously, if you cannot get a permit, you are a felon or a crazy person. If there was no teeth in it the registration law would be worthless - you MUST register your weapon (but we're not going to do anything about it if you don't).

It amazes me that the gun crowd is always so 'law and order', but will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Cognitive dissonance.

[Statistical]

19. How exactly wil that keep weapons out of hands of criminals?

Currently you can't purchase a firearm without a background check) instant.
Yet criminals get firearms

How exactly is background check + permit going to magically keep said firearms from criminals?
It won't.

[iverglas]

46. are you leaving something out for a reason?

How exactly is background check + permit going to magically keep said firearms from criminals?

The post you replied to seems to be about registration. Maybe you could include that in your question, and then probably answer it yourself, at least if you framed the question so that it is a reasonable one and not this bizarre loaded question.

When no one has suggested there is anything magical about the process, or that the proposed rules would be completely effective at solving the problems it addresses, why would you ask the question that way?

[jmg257]

21. I liked the idea of a federal firearms ID - something issued upon request

once a person is of age, and immediately revoked (or not issued) upon conviction of a violent crime, due to mental health reasons shown via due process, etc. The card would be required to be shown for any gun purchase, period.

This proposal seems to take that simple (admittedly incomplete!) idea and builds on it to extreme - involving registration which is always a tough sell, reliance on the AG - no matter how anti-gun, no provision codified for shall-issue, or codified reasons for refusal, etc. etc.


Most of the gun crowd is concerned about criminals & guns, and they are also aware of the ineffectiveness of most "common sense" gun laws toward curbing that, especially those laws that infringe on secured rights, or can lead to confiscation, and when there are so many other issues involved in gun crimes that remain un-addressed.

Anyway, the initial hurdle is to explain just how sensible is a law that infringes on the rights of 98.8% of the population, because 1.2% may use a firearm maliciously? Especially when so many of those 1.2% have serious criminal records, prior gun charges, drug arrest histories, etc. and are still allowed to be on the streets.

Can more be done - law-wise? Surely. But just because some proposed law is called "common sense", doesn't mean it is.

[iverglas]

47. what nobody ever manages to demonstrate

Anyway, the initial hurdle is to explain just how sensible is a law that infringes on the rights of 98.8% of the population, because 1.2% may use a firearm maliciously?

I am perpetually unable to grasp how requiring that ownership of a firearm be registered infringes on anyone's rights.

There is a constitutional right of some sort to possess firearms. Where is the right not to register one's possession of firearms?

[jmg257]

100. Poor wording on my part.."a law..." as used here was better as "any law".

and did not refer specifically to registration (although I think it could lead to infringments on rights eventually). I live in NY where my handguns are registered with the state, I do not believe on its own it necessarily infringes on a right. I don't like it, but I live here and want to own handguns legally, so...

Anyway, I fear future banning and confiscation of firearms. Now I realize if certain guns were banned outright, people who decided to keep them anyway would not be lawful gun owners any more, so that is a major issue. How many would (unlawfully) refuse to register? How many would refuse to surrender a banned gun, if it wasn't registered? Anyway - I do think registration makes confiscation all the easier, and so more possible.

[derby378]

25. The only "cognitive dissonance" is in the omission of pump-action long guns

That pump-action 12-gauge I keep mentioning? Under HR45, it does not get registered. Ever.

No permit is required to own it. The serial number of the shotgun is not recorded in any Federal or state law enforcement database.

If it gets stolen from its rightful owner, no matter how hapharardly it's stored, that owner will probably not be held accountable for any crime committed with the shotgun. Even if someone is killed by a shotgun blast during that crime.

What HR45 is setting up is a double standard. Pistols get registered, shotguns do not. Semi-auto rifles get registered, bolt-action rifles do not.

And any weapon that is registered cannot be legally owned by a civilian unless he or she obtains a permit from the AG.

Meanwhile, those firearms that aren't registered are still just as capable of being used in a crime as ever.

There's your cognitive dissonance. HR45 turns your Second Amendment rights into nothing more than privileges.

You can call it semantics if you want, but I call them the cold, hard facts of the case, and they are beyond contestation.

[tburnsten]

28. It isn't "semantics" to the people it affects

[slackmaster]

51. It would be a substantial financial hit for me

Pay annual fees for the "privilege" of keeping my valuable property?

That's not semantics.

[tburnsten]

27. Case study

I am the owner of a S&W Model 28-2 Highway Patrolman, which looks an awful lot like this one-







Mine has much more wear, and a larger, more heavily used set of factory grips added later in its life. I bought mine from some grizzled old dude who was helping his nephew, who was probably more than ten years older than me, sight in his .30-06 rifle for deer season. I was at the gravel pit at the same time as them shooting my new-to me and perfect condition S&W 586 for the first time. That revolver looks like this one, only the finish on mine is still brand new-




The Model 28 I bought from a man whose name I never even thought to ask, who originally got it from a friend who was a state trooper back in the day and paid him for some carpeting work in his house with his old duty revolver. Who knows if that former trooper bought the gun new. A "trace" on that gun would amount to absolutely nothing.

The Model 586 I bought from a man who received it from his father when his father passed away. His father bought it with insurance money after a break-in that resulted in a gun of his being stolen. The man sold it for whatever reason, but again, a trace on that gun, at least thirty years newer than the other revolver, would also result in a dead end.



My point is that gun traces sound great on TV and in movies, but in reality they are not feasible. They work out only if the gun is stolen or lent from the original owner by someone who has a personal relationship with the owner. Both revolvers are chambered for .357 Magnum, so they can both fire .38 Special as well. Comparing bullets to match them to a gun also sounds good in movies, but in reality it is extremely difficult and rare for bullets to be in good enough condition after impact to trace them to a specific gun, and when someone fires low-powered .38 cartridges through a .357 revolver that hasn't been cleaned in awhile, once cleaned the profile is substantially different. .38 revolvers and 9mm autoloaders have bullet diameters nearly identical to one another and are the two most common calibers used in crime and murder.

[iverglas]

49. I completely fail to understand

The Model 28 I bought from a man whose name I never even thought to ask, who originally got it from a friend who was a state trooper back in the day and paid him for some carpeting work in his house with his old duty revolver. Who knows if that former trooper bought the gun new. A "trace" on that gun would amount to absolutely nothing.

The gun is now in your possession. Under the new legislation, you register your ownership of it.

The gun is subsequently found in the possession of someone who has a criminal record and is alleged to have used it to hold up a convenience store and kill the clerk.

What was your question?


Aside from that -- that tale makes me queasy. A gun was sold to you by someone whose identity you didn't know, who claimed to have got it from a state trooper. Nice story -- whether it's yours or his. Does anyone know whether either of you is/was telling the truth? Nope. Because there is no way to trace the individual you bought it from, and thus no way to confirm either your story or his.

A member of a police service selling/bartering/giving away a firearm to a casual labourer ... the notion really does just about blow my mind. Sounds like a tale that might come out of Serbia or Nigeria, maybe. If that's how police in the US deal with/in firearms themselves, small fucking wonder every two-bit punk has one.

[tburnsten]

64. Why on earth would I do that?

Registration makes about as much sense as a fat man riding through town on a mustard tiger to deliver dirty burgers to all the children.


And it wasn't a police service. A man who was a state trooper, don't know if he still was at that point, but I got the feeling he was retired, traded his personally owned, former service revolver for work done to his home by a personal friend.


It's nice to know that a person's right to sell give or destroy their own personal property sickens you so.

[iverglas]

67. it's nice to know you have no respect for the truth

You made a statement, I responded to it:

A "trace" on that gun would amount to absolutely nothing.

The gun is now in your possession. Under the new legislation, you register your ownership of it.

The gun is subsequently found in the possession of someone who has a criminal record and is alleged to have used it to hold up a convenience store and kill the clerk.

What was your question?

You said that a trace on the gun would amount to nothing. In point of fact, if the gun were now used in a crime, it would be traced to you, under a registration system, which is, you will recall, what we are talking about.


You say: Why on earth would I do that? (register the gun)

Who cares? You made the statement that a trace on the gun would amount to nothing. Very obviously, if you did not register your ownership of the gun, it might amount to nothing -- or it might trace back to the state trooper in question. He would throw up his hands and say "but I gave it to that nice carpet guy". And that would have to be an end of it, absent any evidence that he broke the law by doing that.

But if a registration system had been in effect, he would be criminally liable for failing to register the transfer. Which would have been a pretty good incentive NOT to give/sell/barter away a firearm without registering it.

Your question: Why on earth would I do that?

has nothing to do with what you initially said: A "trace" on that gun would amount to absolutely nothing.

You would register the gun if you were required by law to do so and chose not to break the law. Maybe even because you also gave a shit about the welfare of other people.


A man who was a state trooper, don't know if he still was at that point, but I got the feeling he was retired, traded his personally owned, former service revolver for work done to his home by a personal friend.

"Police service" is the modern term for what you may call "law enforcement agency".

And forgive me, but the concept of a "service revolver" being "personally owned" is just a little beyond the realm of my own reality.

Your comment has nothing to do with what I said anyway: A member of a police service selling/bartering/giving away a firearm to a casual labourer ... the notion really does just about blow my mind. I don't care who owned the thing; the fact that such a person would do such a thing blows my mind.


It's nice to know that a person's right to sell give or destroy their own personal property sickens you so.

It's nice to know that honesty is evidently such a foreign concept to you.

[tburnsten]

69. Right. why would I register my previously owned firearms?

"And forgive me, but the concept of a "service revolver" being "personally owned" is just a little beyond the realm of my own reality."




What's the problem? I guess I don't understand the difference between a person selling their .357 revolver and someone different who happens to be a cop of some sort selling his former, no longer used service .357 revolver. The only difference is that one is or was a cop and the other isn't and wasn't.

[iverglas]

72. I don't see any difference either

A sale of a firearm is a sale of a firearm. I do expect the actions of some people to meet a higher standard than the actions of some others. For instance, I expect police types to exercise rather particular care in engaging in transactions involving firearms. Not necessarily because I expect them to be more moral than other people; simply because I expect them to be aware of the potential consequences if they don't.

The sentence of mine you have quoted --

And forgive me, but the concept of a "service revolver" being "personally owned" is just a little beyond the realm of my own reality.

-- has nothing to do with that point. I can try to clarify. I am unable to grasp the reason why a member of a police service would "personally own" the firearm used in the course of his/her employment, i.e. his/her service revolver.

The idea of such a person even being in possession of his/her service weapon while not on duty, let alone personally owning it, you understand, is so foreign to me and to anyone who lives anywhere in the comparable (advanced industrial etc.) countries of the world that it boggles the mind. I do understand that this is as difficult for you to get your head around as it is for me to get my head around what you said. But it is true.

[tburnsten]

76. It is a fairly common practice to allow officers

to either supply their own firearm of a specified make, model, and caliber (often there is a short list of acceptable choices), or they can often buy their sidearm from the department. Many times retiring officers buy theirs as a memento. The weapons are no different than any other common firearm, and fall under all the same rules as any other firearm.

[Statistical]

6. What you seem to "forget" is that there ALREADY was a weapon registration system in place

Chicago and IL have a weapon registration, licensing system, safe storage laws, waiting periods, annual fees, etc.

Virtually every gun law every thought up applies to Chicago including a registration system yet it didn't prevent this crime.
Lets forget the usefulness of the law.

Secure storage was found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL by Heller. Weapons have a legitimate purpose for use in self defense. A weapon locked away infringes on that right.

There are about 10 parts of the law that will NEVER pass Constitutional muster. Not even close. What is the point of passing laws SCOTUS will strike down?

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. For the logic impaired:

Secure storage was not found to be unconstitutional - a law mandating safe storage was found to be unconstitutional. Not the same thing. Anybody can choose to safely store or not safely store their weapons. Of course, if they choose to not safely store their weapon they are also choosing to have their weapons stolen and used in a crime. With a registration system in place, if the owner does not report the weapon stolen, he may be held responsible for the crime; if he does report it stolen it goes into the database and, if it is used in a crime he will not be held culpable.

A weapon locked away does not infringe on your right to self defense. It only infringes slightly on your ability to act on that right with that weapon. I do not, and will not, keep a weapon in my house - does that mean I am waiving my right to self defense?

No one ever said that a registration system would prevent a crime. It can, however, discover who is responsible for the crime.

[jmg257]

13. You sound pretty generous-willing to take responsibility for the actions of a criminal.

Let's see, if someone stole your car out of your garage, ran a red light, and killed someone - you want the blame. If some one broke into your house and took a knife you had there, then used it to hack up the neighbors - you want the blame.

So just how much responsibility are you willing to suck up for the criminal actions of others? 25%? 50%? 75%?

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. If I ran down to the quik mart and left my car running while I jump out

to buy a lottery ticket, and an 8yr old kid got into my car and tried to drive off, causing a fatal wreck, would I be responsible?

You bet your ass I would be.

When I fail to take reasonable precautions with my potentially dangerous property, I am responsible. If I leave a gun sitting out where a neighbor kid can see it, and he steals it, I am responsible for allowing it to be stolen.

It's called taking responsibility. Reasonable precautions.

(Not that i expect almost anyone but Slackmaster to be reasonable in this forum.)

[jmg257]

18. That seems reasonable - precaution-wise. Guns locked in your car, or are in your

house are fine, no reason to take responsiblty in those cases for actions due to thefts.

Deadly weapons & dangerous instruments are similiar enough, so agreed some responsibility should be involved with owning such things.


Of course your scenario contrasted greatly with the scenarios I originally posted, but the differences shown in our 2 posts are clear enough to determine your accepted reasonable level of "carelessness" - thanks!

[tburnsten]

32. in the situations you described

you absolutely would be at fault for leaving yuor keys inside the car, but really, you would not be realistically held responsible for the actions of some dudes who broke into your home and made off with your storage unit.



If you failed to secure your motor vehicle in a giant steel holding area while not driving it would you be responsible for anything that happened after some dude stole it from you?

[tburnsten]

39. I believe the parents would actually be the responsible party

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. I have never heard of anyone being held legally responsible for a stolen car in the US??

[gorfle]

15. How to do this while preserving anonymity.

I have floated a proposal previously, based on a posting of another user here, that would allow full firearm traceability and yet preserve anonymous firearm ownership.

Simple pass a law that states when you sell a firearm the seller must keep a record of who that firearm was sold to for 10 years from the date of sale. This will enable tracing of firearms from their initial FFL sale to the last legitimate owner without creating a government database of firearm owners.

Make this law have stiff penalties for non-compliance, and no firearm owner would dare sell or give away a firearm to someone without recording the required information.

[Indy Lurker]

29. You are describing Illinois Law

Anyone selling a firearm must keep a record of the sale for 10 years.


Chicago jailed a homeless man about 5 years ago for not keeping records of a firearm used in a high profile shooting.

He had sold the gun 8 years earlier when he wasn't homeless.

[Statistical]

20. I lock my house, thus my weapons (inside my house) are safely stored

If someone breaks into my house and steals something I should be held responsible?

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Do you have a moat?

This is important..

[Statistical]

23. No. Condo Association has a "no moat" policy. (n/t)

[gorfle]

37. The simple fact is.

The simple fact is it is trivial to break into most houses. You can do it with no tools. This means that the contents of your home are not terribly difficult to acquire - including your firearms. Given that your firearms are more likely to be stolen than used in self defense, it seems if you are keeping weapons for the less likely use of self-defense that you would also also acknowledge the more-likely event of their theft.

A safe, bolted to your home, is a far greater deterrent to theft than your house will ever be.

[Statistical]

38. I don't disagree however

A car locked in a garage protected by cameras, gates, armed security and located in a nice neighborhood near a police station is more secure that a car parked on the street.

If I lock the doors to my car, take the keys with me and my car is stolen & used in a bank robbery would you try to convict me for unsafe car storage?

If I carry a lot of cash and am robbed and the robber uses that to buy a firearm which he uses to murder someone would you try to convict me for unsafe money storage?

If someone breaks into my house and steals my knives and then stabs someone with them would you try to convict me for unsafe weapon (knife) storage?

I agree a safe is a good idea and I do own one, however for self defense 2 weapons are never stored in the safe. The idea that someone should be held criminally or civilly liable because their property was stolen doesn't apply to anything else so it shouldn't apply to firarms.

[gorfle]

40. on cars..

A car locked in a garage protected by cameras, gates, armed security and located in a nice neighborhood near a police station is more secure that a car parked on the street.

If I lock the doors to my car, take the keys with me and my car is stolen & used in a bank robbery would you try to convict me for unsafe car storage?

No. But my point is that leaving your firearms in a closet in your home is not much more safe than leaving your car on the street with the keys in the ignition.

If I carry a lot of cash and am robbed and the robber uses that to buy a firearm which he uses to murder someone would you try to convict me for unsafe money storage?

No.

If someone breaks into my house and steals my knives and then stabs someone with them would you try to convict me for unsafe weapon (knife) storage?

If knife murders come to rival handgun murders, then possibly so.

I agree a safe is a good idea and I do own one, however for self defense 2 weapons are never stored in the safe. The idea that someone should be held criminally or civilly liable because their property was stolen doesn't apply to anything else so it shouldn't apply to firarms.

I used to believe the same thing but I no longer do. It has been demonstrated here to my satisfaction that your firearms are more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense. Thus if you keep firearms for self-defense, as I do, then you acknowledge the possibility of needing them for self-defense. If you acknowledge that risk, then you should also acknowledge the greater possibility that they may be stolen and used in crime.

[Statistical]

41. STRAW MAN ALERT

No. But my point is that leaving your firearms in a closet in your home is not much more safe than leaving your car on the street with the keys in the ignition.

No it isn't. You are throwing an extreme example out there. Leaving keys in the ignition.

A professional thief can break into a LOCKED HOUSE however a professional thief can break into a LOCKED CAR in a matter of seconds. Most can bypass starter interrupt and alarms in few more seconds.

Why throw keys in the ignition crap to muddy the argument?

You believe that citizens should be FORCED to keep all firearms in a safe.
By that analogy all citizens should be FORCED to keep a vehicle in a safe.

Those that can't afford a safe can't have a firearm?
Those that can't afford a safe then shouldn't be able to have a vehicle.

Of course you would never consider such totalitarian restriction on personal property EXCEPT firearms.

The truth is that firearms are used lawfully more than any other piece of personal property.

There are about 350 million firearms in the United States.
According to DOJ in 2005 (latest year) about 400,000 violent crimes involved a firearm (less than 10%).

That's means 0.11% of firearms were involved in a crime; 99.89% of firearms were not involved in a violent crime.

Actually that number <0.11% is much higher than the actual % used in crime. The number compares firearms to violent crimes; it assumes one firearm = one crime. However a single firearm could be used for more than one violent crimes. How many times on average is a firearm used in violent crimes? How many firearms were used to commit 400,000 violent crimes? 100,000 (if each weapon was used on average 4 times)? If it was 100,00 firearms used unlawfully for violent crime then it would be more like 99.975% are used lawfully. Maybe it is more, maybe it is less however what we can confirm is that at a MAXIMUM less than 1% of guns are used unlawfully.





What percentage of vehicles were used unlawfully?

Please don't jump to the conclusion that the stats are non-fatal. If we look at fatal numbers it is much much worse. Number of vehicular homicides far exceeds number of fatalities involving firearms and crime.

[gorfle]

42. You.

No. But my point is that leaving your firearms in a closet in your home is not much more safe than leaving your car on the street with the keys in the ignition.

No it isn't. You are throwing an extreme example out there. Leaving keys in the ignition.

You were the one who brought in the car analogy. My point was that it's so easy to break into a house that it's just like a car with the keys left in the ignition.

A professional thief can break into a LOCKED HOUSE however a professional thief can break into a LOCKED CAR in a matter of seconds. Most can bypass starter interrupt and alarms in few more seconds.


Why throw keys in the ignition crap to muddy the argument?


OK, so a car isn't secure storage either.

Which is exactly why I'm not comfortable storing firearms in my vehicle.


You believe that citizens should be FORCED to keep all firearms in a safe.
By that analogy all citizens should be FORCED to keep a vehicle in a safe.

The problem here is that people don't generally steal cars to kill people with them. This is not true for stolen firearms. Thus there is more of an impetus for safely storing firearms than vehicles.

Those that can't afford a safe can't have a firearm?

You can buy a 5-gun safe at Walmart for $180:

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=42...

This is cheaper than most firearms, and about as much as I spend on ammunition for a day at the range.

Those that can't afford a safe then shouldn't be able to have a vehicle.

When stolen vehicles become a major source of homicide weapons then we will visit this topic again.

Of course you would never consider such totalitarian restriction on personal property EXCEPT firearms.

Not true.

The truth is that firearms are used lawfully more than any other piece of personal property.

I know this. But the truth also is that your firearm is more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense. If you are willing to safeguard against one eventuality, why not the other, more likely eventuality, especially given the deadly outcome?

What percentage of vehicles were used unlawfully?

Please don't jump to the conclusion that the stats are non-fatal. If we look at fatal numbers it is much much worse. Number of vehicular homicides far exceeds number of fatalities involving firearms and crime.

But you are comparing apples to oranges here. I'm sure traffic fatalities are much higher than firearm fatalities. But I'd like to see the data on fatalities caused by stolen vehicles vs. stolen firearms.

Most people don't steal a vehicle to use it as a weapon. This is not true for firearms. Now it may be true that a thief would steal a firearm just to sell it. But I be the odds are pretty good that the person he would sell it too would not be the kind of person who should be owning a firearm - it's probably going to end up being used for no good.

It would be interesting to see again the statistics for what percentage of firearms used in crime are stolen firearms.

[jmg257]

44. Man, I don't know. It is reasonable to assume that if you left your gun out on the sidewalk

that it will be taken. But I do not agree with the notion that it is reasonable to assume that if you leave your gun in your (locked) house it will be stolen. Why the hell would EVERYONE not own a security system, dogs, 24/7 guard, etc. if it is considered reasonable to assume everyone will be the victim of burglary & larceny? If I left a gun visible on the dashboard of an unlocked car on Broadway, it might be reassonable to assume it will be taken. But why would it be reasonable to assume your car WILL BE broken into and your tucked away gun stolen?

Does it happen? Of course. So I do own and use a safe (and have a dog & security system), the safe as much for theft as for fire & child safety. I also try to avoid leaving a gun in a car (locked of course), but some times it is unavoidable.

Though the argument is compelling, I am not convinced that the owner being held responsibile for such criminal actions is reasonable.

[gorfle]

52. On reasonableness.

Man, I don't know. It is reasonable to assume that if you left your gun out on the sidewalk that it will be taken. But I do not agree with the notion that it is reasonable to assume that if you leave your gun in your (locked) house it will be stolen. Why the hell would EVERYONE not own a security system, dogs, 24/7 guard, etc. if it is considered reasonable to assume everyone will be the victim of burglary & larceny? If I left a gun visible on the dashboard of an unlocked car on Broadway, it might be reassonable to assume it will be taken. But why would it be reasonable to assume your car WILL BE broken into and your tucked away gun stolen?

Data has been presented here in this forum that substantiates the claim that your firearm, in your home, is more likely to be stolen than to be used in self-defense. Thus it is reasonable to assume that your firearm will be stolen before it will be used in self-defense.

HOWEVER reasonable it being stolen is, the odds of it being stolen are greater than you using your firearm for self-defense. If the data is correct, why wouldn't you go to at least the same trouble and expense to secure your firearm as you do just to posses on?

Though the argument is compelling, I am not convinced that the owner being held responsibile for such criminal actions is reasonable.

But since so many criminally-used firearms were stolen, reducing firearm thefts would go a long way to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. While certainly the bulk of the blame goes on the person doing the stealing, given how easy and cheap it is to secure them beyond just keeping them in a house, I think part of the responsibility lies with the owner also.

I used to not believe this. But once it was demonstrated that your firearm is more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense, it seems only logical to prepare for the greater eventuality if you are going to bother to prepare for the lesser.

[X_Digger]

93. Thought about the reverse?

I've seen stats that most firearms used in the commission of crimes are stolen, but I've not seen the reverse- are most firearms stolen are eventually used in crimes (other than the theft itself, of course.)

That, to me, would bear on my position.

[iverglas]

55. here, I will add

The post to which you replied said:

A professional thief can break into a LOCKED HOUSE however a professional thief can break into a LOCKED CAR in a matter of seconds. Most can bypass starter interrupt and alarms in few more seconds.

Why throw keys in the ignition crap to muddy the argument?

Because there is no evidence that there is a widespread problem of cars being stolen and used in a way that is dangerous to the public when the keys are not in the ignition.

Cars may be stolen that way for resale, but cartheft for joyriding is more often opportunistic, where keys are in the ignition.

That kind of car theft is what is analogous to firearms theft -- those car thieves commonly proceed to drive the car recklessly and at high speeds. The problem is complicated by police efforts to apprehend them, and the highspeed chases that ensue, too often with crashes or pedestrian deaths then resulting. That is the harm sought to be reduced by laws requiring that keys not be left in ignitions. (And yes, the cost to the public in higher insurance premiums because of theft for resale is another factor.)


The problem here is that people don't generally steal cars to kill people with them. This is not true for stolen firearms. Thus there is more of an impetus for safely storing firearms than vehicles.

Exactly. The important point in the analogy is what happens once the car/firearm is stolen / why it is stolen. Some cars are stolen in order to do things that cause danger to the public, as noted above, and a car without keys in the ignition is much less likely to be stolen for that purpose, just as a firearm in a safe is much less likely to be stolen for criminal use.

[russ1943]

104. Accurately titled.

You’ve post a couple of colorful charts showing info (stats) on non-fatal firearm statistics and ask readers “Please don't jump to the conclusion that the stats are non-fatal.”

Duh?

The charts are, what, irrelevant?

You then finish with the sentence; “Number of vehicular homicides far exceeds number of fatalities involving firearms and crime.”

It would be interesting to see the data and the sources that supports that statement.I doubt we will.

Your post subject is titled “STRAW MAN ALERT”

You have titled the subject of your post, correctly, thanks.

[Statistical]

107. Maybe I wasn't clear

I posted non-fatal stats because they make up the vast majority of illegal firearm uses by a magnitude.

I figured someone would say "wait what about fatalities" even though in other threads is has been thoroughly debunked that firearms are more dangerous that vehicles.

Fatal stats are available from CDC
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

30,694 deaths related to firearms in 2005
43,557 deaths related to motor vehicles in 2005

30,694 deaths related to firearms in 2005
-----------------------------------------------
17,002 suicides
12,352 homicides
789 accidental deaths
330 legal interventions
221 undetermined deaths
(so there were 13,141 homicides & accidental deaths related to firearms in 2005)

43,557 deaths related to motor vehicles in 2005
-----------------------------------------------
16,005 alcohol related deaths

I can't find the stat right now on ALL vehicular homicides but just alcohol related fatalities are 16,005 (21% higher than homicides & accidents related to firearms).
If you want find the stats of total vehicular homicides in 2005 (last year of CDC numbers).
Alcohol (DUI) related offenses make the majority but there are plenty more due to speeding, reckless driving, failure to stop, evading pursuit, etc.

However none of this was the important part. 99.89% of firearms are not used in a crime.

[iverglas]

53. time for the 21-thingy salute

We have agreed on this before, and I would not alter or add to your responses, except in one tiny respect:

If knife murders come to rival handgun murders, and it is established that significant numbers of knives used in murders (and any crimes) have been stolen in break-ins and/or that break-ins often target knives for theft, then possibly so.

[iverglas]

50. why shouldn't you?

If someone breaks into my house and steals something I should be held responsible?

You're the one who failed to secure your firearms. Why shouldn't you be the one held responsible for that?

[gorfle]

56. The usual answer.

You're the one who failed to secure your firearms. Why shouldn't you be the one held responsible for that?

The usual answer here, and it used to be mine, is because the firearm owner isn't the one actively breaking the law to acquire the firearm.

But now I look at it more like owning a swimming pool. If you have a pool, and you don't take reasonable precautions to secure that pool, and someone trespasses on your property and drowns in your pool, you could be held responsible, even though the person who drowned was trespassing and breaking the law when they drowned. This is why in most places you are required to have a locked fence around your pool.

[X_Digger]

79. Glad I live in Texas..

But now I look at it more like owning a swimming pool. If you have a pool, and you don't take reasonable precautions to secure that pool, and someone trespasses on your property and drowns in your pool, you could be held responsible, even though the person who drowned was trespassing and breaking the law when they drowned. This is why in most places you are required to have a locked fence around your pool.

I'm glad I live in Texas.. if anyone broke in and drowned in my pool, I'd have to shoot their corpse. KIDDING!

What you're talking about is called attractive nuisance, and usually only applies to "youths". Texas has a 'zero duty' to trespassers, other than children.

[iverglas]

80. so it wasn't the world's most perfect analogy

The points on which the analogy does stand up are:

- you do something legal, on your private property
- someone does something on your private property without your consent, in connection with what you have done
- it is foreseeable that harm will result if someone does something on your private property without your consent, in connection with what you have done
- you are required to take positive action to reduce the risk of harm resulting when you do something on your private property and there is a foreseeable risk that someone will do something in connection with it, on your private property without your consent, that will result in harm


If two situations were identical on all points ... well, they wouldn't be two situations. They'd be one situation. And we'd be looking elsewhere for an analogy ...

The fact that two situations are dissimilar on some points does not mean that there are no points of comparison on which reasonable arguments for similar treatment can be based.

[X_Digger]

83. But the damage doesn't directly result from inaction / negligence

They are three separate actions-

1) Failure to 'secure' firearm
2) theft of gun by trespasser

Now, 1) can lead to 2).. but 2) is not inherently harmful to the thief, unless they trip over one of my doxies.

3) Thief uses gun to shoot someone or trade for drugs or pawns gun.. etc

This is the one that I can't connect to 1).

Under any kind of attractive nuisance law, the harm has to occur to the trespasser, and on my property.

Seems to happen in the UK though.. http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1034997/Poli...

Additionally, the 'foreseeable' part bothers me. Foreseeable that I will get robbed? No. Not with dogs and an alarm. Foreseeable that my gun will be used to harm someone? Not sure there are stats to back that up. I've seen stats that a majority of guns used in crime are stolen, but not the reverse (the whole 'all squirrels are mammals but not all mammals are squirrels' thing.)

[iverglas]

89. you can play that all you like

The harm sought to be addressed by legislation like this is firearms getting into the hands of people who are ineligible to possess them.

So what you can and can't connect has zip to do with anything.

[X_Digger]

92. It would be relevant

It would be relevant under any other interpretation of culpable negligence, which is what you appeared to be driving toward (foreseeable harm and all that jazz.)

[iverglas]

94. okey dokey, we'll play it

They are three separate actions-
1) Failure to 'secure' firearm
2) theft of gun by trespasser
Now, 1) can lead to 2).. but 2) is not inherently harmful to the thief, unless they trip over one of my doxies.

So the hell what? Who said there had to be harm to the trespasser?

Occupier's liability is a civil matter. We aren't talking civil liability here.

You need to get a handle on the concept of ANALOGY, and try addressing your mind to RELEVANCE.


Under any kind of attractive nuisance law, the harm has to occur to the trespasser, and on my property.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

and edit to add:

Seems to happen in the UK though.. http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1034997/Poli...

CIVIL LIABILITY. We are not talking about civil liability.

We are talking about legislation enacted to impose a duty on individuals to take positive action to avert a foreseeable danger to the public.


Additionally, the 'foreseeable' part bothers me. Foreseeable that I will get robbed? No. Not with dogs and an alarm.

Yes. Eminently. Dogs are not impervious to projectiles, and alarms are not preventive, merely deterrent.


Foreseeable that my gun will be used to harm someone? Not sure there are stats to back that up.

Why do I get the feeling that you're speaking to an invisible person over my shoulder who is typing things in invisible pixels in my posts?

Foreseeable that YOUR FIREARM WILL FALL INTO THE HANDS OF INELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.


I've seen stats that a majority of guns used in crime are stolen, but not the reverse

Uh ... so?


(the whole 'all squirrels are mammals but not all mammals are squirrels' thing.)

(Kinda like the whole 'if people do it then then have a right to do it' thing ...)


formatting fixed

[X_Digger]

96. *sigh* and again..

Don't use the analogy of an attractive nuisance if it really doesn't apply.

Foreseeable aka reasonably anticipated.. I don't reasonably anticipate getting robbed, not when I have small noisemakers (dogs) and an alarm.

I can't see asking someone to be liable (either criminally or civilly) for what a third party does after they steal my property.

[iverglas]

98. what are you talking to me for?

Don't use the analogy of an attractive nuisance if it really doesn't apply.

I didn't. Howzat?

I do, however, maintain that there are elements of the attractive-nuisance scenario THAT ARE RELEVANT. All you have done is pick at the differences between the two scenarios, and refused to address the aspects in which the one is relevant in considering the other.

It is simply not an answer to an argument by analogy to say that Thing 1 and Thing 2 differ with regard to X and Y, without establishing how those differences make Thing 1 irrelevant to consideration of Thing 2, let alone to simply pretend that A and B, the points on which Thing 1 and Thing 2 ARE similar, don't exist.


I can't see asking someone to be liable (either criminally or civilly) for what a third party does after they steal my property.

And I can't see how you could imagine that it is decent to keep pretending that the person you are speaking to has proposed any such thing, especially when that person has told you very clearly, several times, that s/he is not.

Have you no shame at all?

Here. You get the weekly award.

[gorfle]

112. On forseeable

If you keep firearms for self-defense, obviously you foresee the possibility of being assaulted. Since your firearms are more likely to be stolen than used for self-defense, it seems to me if you foresee the possibility of being assaulted you should also foresee the possibility that your firearms will be stolen and used to harm someone.

I'm not sure what the solution is now, though, having seen how easy it seems to be to defeat safes. It seems as if breaking into a safe doesn't take much more effort than breaking into a house or a car, unless you can afford to shell out $1500+. That's over 2 years of my ammo budget.

[Statistical]

57. What if anything is stolen.

1) Criminal breaks into your house
2) Criminal steals seomthing
3) Criminal pawns the something.
4) Criminal uses the $$$ from stealing to buy gun illegally.
4) Criminal kills someone with illegally bought gun.

Should you be held equally responsible for the killing?


If you have AIDS and someone rapes you, gets infected, then rapes someone else should you be criminally or civilly liable because you didn't take adequate precautions to avoid rape?

The idea that someone who is looking to murder someone decides "hey I should break into random houses to find a murder weapon" is utter stupidity.

Someone steals guns the same reason they steal anything else...... because they have value.

What about this one
1) Criminal steals my gun
2) Criminal doesn't need gun so he pawns it
3) Criminal later needs a gun
4) Criminal buys a DIFFERENT gun w/ money from #2
5) Criminal kills someone.

Should I be iiable for that?

[iverglas]

59. why do you ask?

Should you be held equally responsible for the killing?

I didn't say you should be held ANY responsible for the killing.

I think I was very clear. I underlined it. I'll do it again.

Why shouldn't you be held responsible for failing to secure your firearms?


The idea that someone who is looking to murder someone decides "hey I should break into random houses to find a murder weapon" is utter stupidity.

Okay. Straw, much? Why are you talking about murders? Why are you excluding the use of firearms to commit crimes like robbery, and to facilitate crimes like drug trafficking?


Someone steals guns the same reason they steal anything else...... because they have value.

In some instances, definitely. They have particular value for use in trade for drugs.

The result is that drug dealers have guns. And this is not a bad outcome, because ...?


What about this one
1) Criminal steals my gun
2) Criminal doesn't need gun so he pawns it
3) Criminal later needs a gun
4) Criminal buys a DIFFERENT gun w/ money from #2
5) Criminal kills someone.
Should I be iiable for that?

I give up. What is this "that" that you should or shouldn't be liable for?

You'd be just as liable for failing to secure your firearms as in any other such scenario you might dream up, by me.


typo

[Statistical]

68. OK I clearly understand you now but that changes NOTHING

YOUR POINT: Why shouldn't you be held responsible for failing to secure your firearms?
MY POINT: Why shouldn't YOU be held responsible for failing to secure ?

In this country (and even in Canada) victimes are not held liable for being victims. Even if they are stupid.

People leaving valuable in the house, keeping cash under the matress, or failing to lock their doors enable criminals. Criminals can use proceeds from crime to purchase firearms.

You aren't advocating that ALL VICTIMS OF CRIME that "allow" criminals to have a monetary gain (which can lead to firearm) be punished JUST gun owners.

You'd be just as liable for failing to secure your firearms as in any other such scenario you might dream up, by me.
By you ok fine. I thought you were arguing some sort of meaningful liability.

In my opinion your enabling of criminals by being a victim and "allowing" your property to be stolen makes you liable for any future actions them commit since the resources they stole assisted them in future crimes. Equally stupid right?

Actually I wouldn't; I am not that much of an asshole to blame the victim for not preventing crime (unlike some people)

[iverglas]

70. try ignoring this now

In my opinion your enabling of criminals by being a victim and "allowing" your property to be stolen makes you liable for any future actions them commit since the resources they stole assisted them in future crimes. Equally stupid right?

What other theft increases the number of firearms in illegal circulation and in the hands of people using them for illegal purposes?

I'd say "none", but then I'll be willing to believe that the odd as-yet unconvicted criminal steals an iPod and sells it and uses the proceeds to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. Call me gullible.

And once again: if you want to argue against people being held criminally liable for future actions committed by people who steal firearms from them, you need to find someone who advocates that this be done to argue with.

[Statistical]

75. There is no need to increase the weapon supply of "street guns".

DOJ estimates there are anywhere from 20 million to 100 million illegal weapons.

Even if somehow you could pass laws that prevent
* all weapons form being stolen
* all weapons from being purchased by straw purchase
* all weapons from being purchased by private party sale (gunshow "loophole")

That still leaves 20 million to 100 million illegal guns.

Once again according to FBI about 100,000 guns were taken off the "streets" via a variety of methods (arrests, buybacks, amnesty, etc).

At the current rate it would take 200 to 1000 years to eliminate them all. Of course we know even with such punative protections in place "some" guns will still be lost/stolen/traded.

So as long as a supply of guns exist (and it will always exist) any valuable stolen property can be sold/traded/bartered for a firearm.

[gorfle]

66. Of course not.

1) Criminal breaks into your house
2) Criminal steals seomthing
3) Criminal pawns the something.
4) Criminal uses the $$$ from stealing to buy gun illegally.
4) Criminal kills someone with illegally bought gun.

Should you be held equally responsible for the killing?

If someone steals something harmless from me, and sells it to buy something harmful and uses it, this is different entirely from stealing something harmful from me and that thing being used to harm others.

If you have AIDS and someone rapes you, gets infected, then rapes someone else should you be criminally or civilly liable because you didn't take adequate precautions to avoid rape?

No. This is a bit of a stretch, I think.

The idea that someone who is looking to murder someone decides "hey I should break into random houses to find a murder weapon" is utter stupidity.

But the fact is, stolen firearms are frequently used in crime.

What about this one
1) Criminal steals my gun
2) Criminal doesn't need gun so he pawns it
3) Criminal later needs a gun
4) Criminal buys a DIFFERENT gun w/ money from #2
5) Criminal kills someone.

Should I be iiable for that?

No, as it was not your firearm that was used to kill someone. Further, where would the criminal buy gun #2? Odds are he can't legally buy them. Which means odds are good he ends up buying a stolen gun. Now it's certainly possible that he could buy from a private citizen at market value. But what criminal would fence a stolen gun at stolen-property prices only to turn around and legally buy another gun at market prices?

[Retired AF Dem]

105. If I can be held responsible for the illegal actions of others

than I'm all for shooting scumbags that break into houses. It is not just a "It's only property" argument anymore.

[iverglas]

109. You obviously inhabit a different universe from the rest of us

The rest of us are having a converation about people being held responsible ... let's say it one more time with feeling, now ... for

FAILING TO SECURE THEIR FIREARMS.

Who did that? "Others"?

If you fail to secure your firearms, what "others" might be responsible for that? The ones living on the island?

What my post, that you "replied" to, said:

You're the one who failed to secure your firearms.
Why shouldn't you be the one held responsible for that?

Maybe you can tell us what you imagined it said.

[Statistical]

111. How exactly would you verify if someone is failing to secure their firearms?

Random inspections?
Door to door searches?
Or would it be when someone steals the weapon?
If so then I guess he was correct. He feels the need to stop someone from stealing items he will be held responsible for.

Lastly what exactly would be considered "properly securing a firearm"?
A $100 box that can be pried open by a thief in about 30 seconds?

If so isn't the law just to place a burden on gun owners without preventing theft at all?

There is no economical way to secure firearms. Anyone who actually OWNS firearms already knows this.
Good security is incredibly expensive.

Those $100-$200 tin lock boxes can be busted open by a child or crackhead looking for something to pawn.
Even a $500-$1000 gunsafe can be opened by brute strength.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.indiv...

Anything less than an RSC is no deterrent. RSC are only rated for 5 minutes of protection.
Real security (i.e TRTL-30 or better) costs $5,000 to $10,000

Congress just saying "Secure Storage" doesn't make it secure.
It is just a punative tax in another form.
Forcing people to buy junk those does nothing to prevent theft.
They would be buying it just to avoid a penalty from the govt.

[iverglas]

113. gosh

Or would it be when someone steals the weapon?

Do you think maybe? Or maybe when a child is found in possession of it?


If so then I guess he was correct. He feels the need to stop someone from stealing items he will be held responsible for.

Correct that he should kill someone attempting to burglarize his house?

The labyrinth that exists inside some people's heads I just don't want to try to even figure out.

If someone is trying to burglarize your home and you have firearms that aren't secured, you are breaking the law by failing to secure your firearms, so you should compound your problem by killing the person trying to burglarize your home.

Yeah. I guess that makes sense. In some universe.

Lastly what exactly would be considered "properly securing a firearm"?
A $100 box that can be pried open by a thief in about 30 seconds?

Well, if the box is left lying around on the coffee table, I guess that wouldn't be too bleeding secure, would it?

I dunno, I kind of like the idea of a room/closet in the basement with no window, a solid-core door and a strong deadbolt. (Yes, I know some of your funny houses don't have basements. I'm sure they have windowless closets somewhere, and you could probably even reinforce the drywall a little for not too many dollars. And don't some people have wall safes where they put, like, money and stuff they don't want stolen? How come people with money and negotiable instruments and jewelery can figure this out, and firearms owners can't?)

A place where the guns go WHEN YOU ARE NOT HOME.

"Secure" really doesn't mean "impregnable". Everybody's fantasies notwithstanding.


If so isn't the law just to place a burden on gun owners without preventing theft at all?

Yeah. That's it.

THEY'RE OUT TO GET YOU!!!! That's what legislators spend their time dreaming up. Ways to get you.

Done the MMPI recently? A qualified professional can administer it.

[Statistical]

114. Sometimes "secure" isn't even secure just a waste

Well, if the box is left lying around on the coffee table, I guess that wouldn't be too bleeding secure, would it?

I dunno, I kind of like the idea of a room/closet in the basement with no window, a solid-core door and a strong deadbolt. (Yes, I know some of your funny houses don't have basements. I'm sure they have windowless closets somewhere, and you could probably even reinforce the drywall a little for not too many dollars. And don't some people have wall safes where they put, like, money and stuff they don't want stolen? How come people with money and negotiable instruments and jewelery can figure this out, and firearms owners can't?)

So a $100 junk safe isn't enough cost for you. You are talking more like $200 door + $60 deadbolt + installation.

Of course without security reinforcement to doorframe that $300-$500 "security" will be defeated by a swift kick.

At least the "el cheapo" gun safe will require a screwdriver to defeat.

So we are talking about a "$500 feel good tax".
A law that will do absolutely NOTHING to prevent theft.
Even CA was "smart enough" to realize is would be virtually impossible to demand any serious level of security against THEFT.
Instead CA guidelines were lockboxes designed for SAFETY.

I have to figure that if someone broke into my house and came across a deadbolted interior door they might do two things
1) stop and think "hmm wonder if there are valuable inside this strange interior door w/ deadbolt".
2) kick it open and steal the guns (no tools required) and anything else I was stupid enough to think could be stopped by a non reinforced door.

Of course reinforcing the doorframe is no trivial task and when not done right is easily defeated. Most FRONT DOORS in US can be kicked open because of impoperly installed locks, poor reinforcement, or poor fitting hardware. How about we just make people put better deadbolts on their front door? Why make people secure firearms in a reinforced closet when you could spend that money reinforcing the primary entry point to the ENTIRE HOME.

Of course all of this is why I keep my firearms in a safe. Even a $1200-$4000 safe (which technically is only an RSC) is only rated as a 5 minute defense against thief with common tools. Of course unlike your stupid locked door idea it also provides one hour of fire protection, keeps the weapons from getting dirty, controls moseture and doesn't require me to lose an entire room.

In this video it only took thieves 2 minutes to get into a UL listed (RSC) safe using a prybar and crowbar.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.indiv...

Real safes are extremely expensive. 15 minutes of protection is good $6K - $10K. 30 minutes of 6 sided protection can run you double that.

So either the law sets the bar so low it is NO DETERRENT AT ALL and acts as a "feel good tax"
OR
It sets the bar high enough to prevent common thieves and costs gun owners thousands of dollars depriving the poor of their 2nd ammendment right

Now that is progressive; Guns only for the rich.

[SteveM]

116. Indeed. Requiring expensive equipment is similar to "melting point" laws...

used in the South. If a firearm's metal melted at a temperature lower than the one set by the Southern state, then the gun was illegal; of course some states blew right through this subterfuge and required that only certain "high quality" named-brand arms be purchased; still others slapped that aside and said you had to pay a direct tax. The truly "honest" Southern states merely said blacks could not own firearms.

Trouble is, under these circumstances poor whites could not own guns either, which is why many of these laws were repealed or became dead letter. Nevertheless, they, like the poll tax, were blatantly unconstitutional.

"Wait a minute, wait a minute, officer. You have the nerve to ask me how come Negroes do so much cutting? 'Cause you don't sell us no damn guns!" -- attributed to Dick Gregory, comedian. Found in FACT magazine, V. 1, issue 2, Mar-Apr, 1964 "The Psychological Meaning of Anti-Negro Jokes".

[beevul]

35. Priceless.

"Of course, if they choose to not safely store their weapon they are also choosing to have their weapons stolen and used in a crime."


Chooses?

CHOOSES??

Would that be like someone (of iether gender) deciding to go without a chastity belt, thereby choosing to be raped?



Blame the victim much?

[X_Digger]

81. bump

Statistical makes an excellent point here that I think got overlooked- that Chicago already had every gun law under the sun on the books, and yet, it doesn't appear to be effective at decreasing gun violence.

If a law doesn't have a demonstrated benefit toward it's stated goal, why expand it nationwide?

[iverglas]

90. let's play

You try. I'll bet you can play advocate for the angels, and come up with an answer to that one.

There's a post in this thread about moats. That might give you a springboard for your thinking.

[X_Digger]

95. How big do YOU want the moat?

Unless you can moat / barbed wire the nation and force registration, it isn't going to help. Seems as though you think there'd be 100% compliance just because it's a national law.

How's that mandatory registration system in Canada working?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

"It has been estimated that as many as five million gun-owning Canadians have not registered their firearms. As of June 2003, only 6.4 million firearms had been registered, despite a 1974 estimate of 10 million guns in Canada. In February 2003, the government announced plans to strengthen the administration of the gun control program. Two days before the election in May 2004, the government dropped all fees for transferring firearms.

*snip mark so that you don't get your knickers in a twist*

The Auditor General's report also found that there is a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of the gun registry, or to prove that it is meeting its stated goal of improving public safety. The report states:

The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms."

[iverglas]

97. "How's that mandatory registration system in Canada working?"

Quite well.

Do have a read of the discussion page for the charming wiki article. The NPOV principle just isn't quite being followed there.

It has been estimated that as many as five million gun-owning Canadians have not registered their firearms. As of June 2003, only 6.4 million firearms had been registered, despite a 1974 estimate of 10 million guns in Canada.

Hmm. Citation needed, methinks.

Do you really have no clue what fantastical bullshit that is?? The population of Canada is about 32 million. Five million is not far off a third of adult Canadians. A third of adult Canadians do not own unregistered firearms. Seriously.

Have you tried doing the math in that snippet? Doesn't quite work, does it?

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/media/news_releases/2002/surv...
(news release)

Ottawa, August 20, 2002 – There are approximately 7.9 million firearms in Canada, according to a comprehensive study released today.

The study is based on a national survey undertaken in the autumn of 2001 by GPC Research at the request of the Canada Firearms Centre. Dr. David Zussman, President of the Public Policy Forum, an independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization, was asked to review the study methodology employed by GPC, as well as the survey's results and findings. The review was conducted by Dr. Zussman and an independent statistical expert appointed by the Forum.

... This estimate was based on a survey of 3,011 of Canada’s 2.3 million firearm owners. The findings are a complementary piece to an earlier GPC Research study in the autumn of 2000, which surveyed 6,145 Canadian households in order to estimate firearm ownership in Canada. At that time, findings indicated that 2 million (17 percent) Canadian households had at least one firearm owner.

Since 1998, the Firearms Centre had been using an estimate of about 7 million as the number of firearms in Canada.

In addition to providing an update on the number of firearms, the survey identified a significant decline in firearm usage. Almost two-thirds (61%) of respondents now indicate that they use their firearms very infrequently (once a year or less) or never.

The study confirms a concentration of firearms ownership. Approximately 15 percent of Canada’s firearms are held by just three percent of firearms owners. As well, this small group owns just over one-third of all handguns in the country. On average, these firearms owners are estimated to hold 15.5 firearms each.

The licensing phase of the firearms program has been a success, with 2.1 million individuals in the firearms database (90% of the estimated number of firearm owners).

Some people just don't seem to realize how ridiculous they make themselves look when they decide to talk about things they know absolutely nothing about.

[X_Digger]

99. Nevermind the MPs

Who say otherwise *snort*.

If your government is like ours, they could turn non-compliance into a budget request for more funding.

"Understanding firearm owner behaviour in Canada continued to be a priority for the Centre, for example, clients who move or change address but do not advise the Centre or leave a forwarding address. Another challenge pertains to a minority of firearm owners who still do not renew their licence despite repeated attempts at simplifying client compliance."

[iverglas]

101. yeah, love those MPs who say otherwise, snort

The main one being Garry Breitkreutz, filthy right-wing scum extraordinaire. Like I don't know whose numbers you're using.

And how 'bout that Vic Toews? Which is a filthier piece of right-wing scum: Garry Breitkreutz, Vic Toews; Garry Breitkreutz, Vic Toews ... Rick Santorum, Jesse Helms ...

I don't quote your filthy right-wing scum politicians at you; why on earth would you do it at me??


I have no idea what the rest of your post was about.

[X_Digger]

9. Would you..

advocate that car owners be responsible if their car is stolen and used in a crime? Would you make it a felony to leave your car unlocked? Any other restrictions on private property you'd like to see enforced?

[gorfle]

43. When...

Would you..advocate that car owners be responsible if their car is stolen and used in a crime? Would you make it a felony to leave your car unlocked?

When stolen cars become a serious risk to public welfare then I'll consider it.

Stolen cars usually end up as cash.

Stolen firearms usually end up in the hands of criminals who use them to commit crimes with.

[X_Digger]

48. How far would you take that analogy?

Stolen cars lead to cash which leads to drugs and guns.. That's a two step process.

Just like saying that stolen guns lead to crime.. two step process (gun gets stolen, gun gets used in crime.)

I'm not sure the ends justifies the means in this case, especially when there's not a direct correlation between the two.

[gorfle]

54. Not quite.

When someone steals a gun, instantly we have a weapon in the hands of a criminal.

Not so when someone steals a car, or just about anything else.

Quite simply, the consequences of a stolen firearm are more dire than for most other stolen things. Even just from a purely selfish perspective, firearm owners should be doing their part to keep their firearms from ending up in the hands of criminals, if for no other reason than to stop one more person from doing something with a firearm to give fodder to the anti-firearm crowd.

[Statistical]

58. You assume a criminal who steals a gun was looking for a weapon

Criminals steal because it has value.

A criminal who wants/needs a weapon for crime isn't going to break into random houses (commiting more crimes) in an attempt to secure a weapon.

He/she will simply buy illegally or legally the weapon.

What if someone steals my gun then sells it, then a different criminal uses it in a crime. Is that my fault?
Or is it only when the stealing criminal uses it directly in a crime.

[iverglas]

60. why do you keep changing the subject?

It went like this:

Q. Would you..advocate that car owners be responsible if their car is stolen and used in a crime? Would you make it a felony to leave your car unlocked?

A. When stolen cars become a serious risk to public welfare then I'll consider it.


"Make it a felony to leave your car unlocked". NOT "hold a person who leaves his/her car unlocked criminally liable for the harm done with the car after it is stolen".

Make it a felony to leave a firearm unsecured. NOT hold a person who leaves his/her fiearm unsecured criminally liable for the harm done with the firearm after it is stolen.

Has someone proposed the thing you are busy skewering? Not that I've seen.

[Statistical]

61. Fine.

When we are forced to lock cars in safes under penalty of law.
When we are forced to lock all valuables in safes under penalty of law.

THEN

I will be fine if such a law included firearms.

My firearms are secured. They are secured within my house. You may say that is "not enough" that firearms whould be held to a higher standard.

I was just pointing out firearms are stolen because they are small, portable, easily sold, and valuable.
Ipods are stolen because they are small, portable, easily sold, and valuable.

It makes no sense to hold guns to a higher standard than any other valuable property.

I know you rebutable will be: "when Ipods are used to kill people we should require that they be locked up"

that doesn't address the point that ipod->stolen->$$$->firearm

Any valuable propery can be sold for cash to obtain a firearm.

Lastly I don't know why we are even debating this. Heller found that trigger locks and other such mandatory (under penalty of law) storage to be Unconstitutional.

[iverglas]

62. amusing

So people steal guns in order to sell them for cash to buy ... whatever.

And people steal iPods in order to sell them for cash to buy ... guns.

Hmm.

[gorfle]

65. Now we come full circle.

When we are forced to lock cars in safes under penalty of law.
When we are forced to lock all valuables in safes under penalty of law.

THEN

I will be fine if such a law included firearms.

We don't and won't have laws to keep cars and other valuables in safes because nothing terribly deadly usually happens if they get stolen.

This is not the case for firearms!

My firearms are secured. They are secured within my house. You may say that is "not enough" that firearms whould be held to a higher standard.

I do say that that is not enough, and firearms should be held to a higher standard. I can probably break into your house with my elbow.

I was just pointing out firearms are stolen because they are small, portable, easily sold, and valuable.
Ipods are stolen because they are small, portable, easily sold, and valuable.

It makes no sense to hold guns to a higher standard than any other valuable property.

I know you rebutable will be: "when Ipods are used to kill people we should require that they be locked up"

Yes, that is precisely the rebuttal. It doesn't matter why they are stolen. The simple fact is, when they are stolen you instantly have a deadly weapon in the hands of a criminal, and it's likely to end up in the hands of another criminal and be used in crime.

that doesn't address the point that ipod->stolen->$$$->firearm

I do not understand what you are trying to say here.

Lastly I don't know why we are even debating this. Heller found that trigger locks and other such mandatory (under penalty of law) storage to be Unconstitutional.

I am not familiar with the actual reading on this part of Heller. But it would seem to me that security devices that negate the usefulness of the weapon for self defense would be unconstitutional. There are, of course, security devices available that secure firearms but still make them rapidly available for self-defense.

[Statistical]

73. but not as rapidly

I am not familiar with the actual reading on this part of Heller. But it would seem to me that security devices that negate the usefulness of the weapon for self defense would be unconstitutional. There are, of course, security devices available that secure firearms but still make them rapidly available for self-defense.

1) The quick open safes (like GunVault) can be opened in about 30 seconds with a screwdriver. Don't believe it, just check youtube. They are more useful to prevent accidents or to prevent a child (or anyone else who may have access to the house) from taking the weapon without authorization.

So no quick open safe will be a deterrent to a criminal. Passing a law to require the use of such a limited deterrent will not prevent weapons form being stolen. It simply passes an additional cost on to the gun owner.

Now for the record I think items like GuVault are great especially for households for children. I just think the govt has no right to force someone to use it.

2) A "real" gunsafe is going to cost $500+. The $180 Walmart safe you showed can be opened by dropping it one story or with a crowbar. A real safe is both expensive and essentially prevents the weapon from being used for self defense. Once again I think they are a good idea for people who have valuable collections, I just don't think the govt has the right to require their use.

So either the safes used will prevent theft but also infringe on right to self defense OR they will not prevent theft and are simply a burden on gun owners. FAIL-FAIL

[gorfle]

85. On safes.

1) The quick open safes (like GunVault) can be opened in about 30 seconds with a screwdriver. Don't believe it, just check youtube. They are more useful to prevent accidents or to prevent a child (or anyone else who may have access to the house) from taking the weapon without authorization.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8i3zVGQFKo

This is very distressing and I'm glad you pointed this out as I was considering buying once of these for keeping my self-defense weapon in.

2) A "real" gunsafe is going to cost $500+. The $180 Walmart safe you showed can be opened by dropping it one story or with a crowbar. A real safe is both expensive and essentially prevents the weapon from being used for self defense. Once again I think they are a good idea for people who have valuable collections, I just don't think the govt has the right to require their use.

I also found this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBhOjWHbD6M


Here is a testimonial on Walmart's $440 14-gun safe:

"We have had this safe in our home for about six months or so. This last weekend our home was robbed and they were able to break into this safe.
They used a skill saw, pry-bars, hammers and even set it on fire. They entire area above the door was pryed up the top locking bolt was pryed back into the door, the side of the safe was also pryed to bypass the locking bolt...one of the bolts was broken off. It took some time for the safe to be broken into but it is definatly possible to get it open. My suggestion is if you have valuable items.. spend the money on a better safe...I wish we would have..

I don't doubt that these sub-$1000 safes are not nearly as protective as the high-dollar guys, but for Walmar's 5-gun safe they say,

"Meets California Department of Justice standards for firearm safety "

So, now I'm torn. On one hand, it appears that unless you are going to invest $1500 or so for a 1500 pound firesafe you may be wasting your time with a safe at all.

On the other hand, surely this will dissuade casual thieves and certainly will keep out inquisitive children.

I will say this: If the government were ever to set a requirement for safes, then there would have to be safes made and qualified to that standard such that if you used such a safe and your firearms were still stolen you would not be held liable.

This thread has certainly made me re-evaluate the effectiveness of safes against theft.

[slackmaster]

87. I paid close to $3 K for my gun safe, and I know that someone with enough time could get in

Using tools that I have in my garage.



ANY safe can be opened. A good safe just takes longer to breach than a cheap one.

[gorfle]

108. I just don't have that kind of money.

I just don't have that kind of money to spend.

[Statistical]

106. Education is never bad thing . . .

This is very distressing and I'm glad you pointed this out as I was considering buying once of these for keeping my self-defense weapon in.

Sorry we broke any illusion that you can easily or cheaply protect assets but education is always a good thing. Right?
Don't be distressed just understand what those boxes are designed for. I own a gunvault and I love it.

They are designed to prevent:
* curious child
* unauthorized access
* guest "borrowing" your weapon
* placing weapon in drawer w/ other junk and having a ND

They are not designed to stop a determined thief. I have two pistol in the gunvault, a shotgun in the bedroom closet and the rest of my firearms in my Winchester safe.
The gunvault allows me to safely store my home defense weapon w/ round in chamber and no external safety with no risk on ND caused by myself in the dark or someone "casually" finding the weapon. The second pistol is my carry piece (LCP) so it is not there when I am away from home.

"Meets California Department of Justice standards for firearm safety "

Notice the key word. SAFETY. Not THEFT. The goal of the CA design requirements is exactly what I listed above. If you start talking about laws to prevent even the most basic THEFT there will be 0 products <$1000 period. Anything between $1000 and $5000 will not stop a serious attack. Real security is very expensive.

So, now I'm torn. On one hand, it appears that unless you are going to invest $1500 or so for a 1500 pound firesafe you may be wasting your time with a safe at all.

I wouldn't say no safe is better. Even something like GunVault is good for the reasons I listed above. Just remember the differences in security between a $500 safe and $2000 safe are not much. The $2000 safe is likely larger, nicer, probably more reliable, made by a name brand, and has good warranty. The $2000 safe may not offer much more protection than the $500 one. Look for an RSC rating. If 2 safes are RSC rated regardless of price they both offer the same minimal security.

RSC = Residential Security Container. Prior to RSC UL had security standards for safes. The problem is even the most basic (TRTL-15x6) in a box big enough to hold long guns costs in the ballpark of $8000-$10,000. UL came out with RSC standards to provide a minimal level of security. Most entry level RSC run $800-$2000. There are time rated RSC but they ONLY are rated on the door. A TL-30 rated RSC (highest rating for RSC) will cost $5000-$6000. This means the DOOR ONLY is rated for 30 minutes of attack with TOOLS ONLY (not torches). True safes need to have a TRTL rating on all 6 sides and provide rated protection against tools and torches. A TRTL-30x6 safe (torch & tool rated for all 6 sides) will run you $10,000-$50,000+.

Essentially there are three categories of security
1) No UL rating - junk. I likely could open it by playing around a few minutes in my garage
2) RSC - slightly better. Takes "some skill" and most basic tools like a prybar.
3) True UL time rated devices. Like a TRTL-30x6 safe. Good but out of price range of consumers.

Each level the price increases by a magnitude.

I will say this: If the government were ever to set a requirement for safes, then there would have to be safes made and qualified to that standard such that if you used such a safe and your firearms were still stolen you would not be held liable.

Now here is my problem with that. If we agree that any govt rating for "secure storage" for devices less than couple thousand dollars won't stop a thief with the most basic tools then what have we accomplished?

In my opinion it is a "feel good" law that imposes a burden on gun owners while not providing any benefit. We already have theft standards by UL. A TRTL-15x6 safe is a good compromise between security and cost. I would LOVE to have one. The bad news is they cost about $10,000. Most gun owners will comply NOT to prevent theft but to avoid a punitive penalty imposed by the govt for NOT complying.

This thread has certainly made me re-evaluate the effectiveness of safes against theft.

Safes (RSC) are useful for safety and preventing casual theft. Insurance is far more useful/economical than a safe (unless you pay $10K+ for real security) to protect your loss from serious theft. I own a $1800 Winchester safe but I still have insurance for my firearms. The safe is UL rated as an RSC but a good thief likely could open it in less 5 minutes.

If you really want to feel bad take a look at this
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.indiv...

[gorfle]

63. True, but...

Criminals steal because it has value.

True, but like I said, I bet in these cases it gets sold to another criminal and put to bad use.

A criminal who wants/needs a weapon for crime isn't going to break into random houses (commiting more crimes) in an attempt to secure a weapon.

He/she will simply buy illegally or legally the weapon.

Precisely - and given the number of stolen firearms used in crime, odds are probably good that the weapon they buy will be a stolen weapon - especially if they already have a criminal record that prevents them from legally buying firearms.

What if someone steals my gun then sells it, then a different criminal uses it in a crime. Is that my fault?
Or is it only when the stealing criminal uses it directly in a crime.

If a firearm of yours ends up being used in crime because you didn't reasonably secure it, then I think you bare some of the blame.

[Statistical]

74. I do "reasonably secure" my weapons.

I lock my doors, I have an alarm system, and pay for monitored service.

There are only two types of safes in the world

Cheap or Quick Open Safes ($100-$200): which are no deterrent to a criminal.

Real Safes: $500-$2000, very heavy, massive doors, can withstand dropping or prying pressure.

Cheap Safes are no deterrent. Any law that mandates that is just "feel good". Real safes being required are unconstitutional as they prevent/delay weapons from being used for self defense.

So exactly what type of safe are you advocating should be required? A law saying "safe storage" is hugely ambiguous.

[iverglas]

77. there's some disingenuousness going on here

Cheap Safes are no deterrent. Any law that mandates that is just "feel good". Real safes being required are unconstitutional as they prevent/delay weapons from being used for self defense.

If you're needing a firearm for self-defence, you are present on the premises.

Is there some reason that the firearm in question could not be securely stored when you are not present?

Most firearms stolen from homes and businesses really aren't stolen when the occupants are present.

[Statistical]

82. Getting a little better

The bad news is virtually all "safe storage" laws proposed make no mention of an exemption when the residence is occupied.

Now granted laws like CA safe storage are more intended to prevent accidents and unauthorized access not intentional theft.

My concern is that any national "safe storage" law would:
1) would make no mention of occupied exception.
2) would be ambiguously defined.

Another couple of issues would be:
1) How would the law be enforced?
2) What would the penalty be? I wouldn't accept a felony as accidental mis-storage?
3) How would we ensure safes are compliant?
4) How do you deal w/ fact that cheap economical safes really are no deterrent against theft (even popular ones like Gunvault).

[gorfle]

86. What kind of safe.

So exactly what type of safe are you advocating should be required? A law saying "safe storage" is hugely ambiguous.

This is a good question. Obviously many of the safes out there are not very secure at all.

As I said in another post: If the government sets requirements for safe storage, then safes should be tested and qualified to that standard.

[slackmaster]

88. The state of California has a (mostly) objective standard for "approved" gun storage containers

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/gunsafe.php

[X_Digger]

71. I can see your logic

Just not sure I can go down the path all the way to gun violence, which is what I'd like to see go down.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. H.R. 45 makes *changing your address* without notifying the AG a crime

Note that it doesn't say 'with your guns', just *moving* without notifying the Feds would be a crime.

In other words, if you have a license, move, and don't notify the DoJ, you're a felon

Even if you do not currently own a gun!

SEC. 304. FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101, 201, 301, 302, and 303 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(ff) Failure To Provide Notice of Change of Address- It shall be unlawful for any individual to whom a firearm license has been issued under title I of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 to fail to report to the Attorney General a change in the address of that individual within 60 days of that change of address.'.

Did Bobby Rush have Alberto Gonzales write this for him, or is this payback for all those
years of being an FBI informant?

Can you say 'internal passport'?

[jody]

31. CCW holders are treated like convicted sex-offenders. I'll bet the Joyce Foundation and Annenberg

Foundation support the bill.

[tburnsten]

34. I'll bet nopone else does

Except canadians and people who just view all gun control as good gun control, regardless of the actual impact and effect of their particular gun ban.

[tburnsten]

33. Dontchaknow it could be dangerous for t\he gov to not know where we are

Whether or not we still own guns. Looks like anyone who even appears to not fully oppose this bill is just making millions of steadfast enemies in the U.S,

[rangersmith82]

78. The whole thing pisses me off so bad right now

That I plan to spend another 2K on guns, ammo and reloading supplies next payday.

Its ridicules that I should have to worry about elected officials outlawing my hobby, and then kicking in my door to take property that I have worked hard and paid for.

I really hope this isn't the change I voted for.