Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

New York

SevenSixtyTwo

(255 posts)

1. I would have thought

Reply to hrmjustin (Original post)

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 03:22 PM

Apr 2014

A "Safe Act" would require that firearms not in the possession and control of the legal owners would be required to be secured in a safe or other secured manner to keep emotionally unstable people like Adam or sticky fingers from neighborhood thieves from gaining easy access to them. Not banning features or firearms based on emotional response to their appearance.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

SAFE Act opponents suffer setback in court ruling [View all] hrmjustin Apr 2014 OP

I would have thought SevenSixtyTwo Apr 2014 #1

This was not a constitutional challenge to the SAFE Act. ABCin2014 Apr 2014 #2