Any gun laws OK with you?

[Logical]

I actually don't mind the Brady Background Check. Has seemed to only delay me getting a gun for about 15 minutes at the most.

I also have no issue with a law requiring that you report a stolen gun to the police.

Child access prevention laws make 100% sense to me. If you can own a $300 handgun you can afford a $30 safe or trigger lock to keep it away from kids (under 17). I think if a kid under 17 gets a unsecured gun and shoots someone, the gun owner should be punished. If the kid unlocks the gun on their own that is a different story. But if the gun is sitting there unsecured, the parent should have some major punishment for that if anyone is injured or killed. If you want to sleep with the gun on your headboard at night that is no problem. But lock the damn thing up when you are not next to it.

I have no issue with banning Open Carry as long as the state has CC in place. I know many here disagree with that.

Any other laws you think are sensible?

[slackmaster]

1. Background checks are great but should be available for private-party transfers

I am not in favor of mandating that people store their weapons in any specific manner - What makes sense for a household with children may not be appropriate for a divorced empty-nester living alone.

I'm really torn on open carry. I wish the general public would be more accepting of it, but it's socially unacceptable in many places because of peoples' tastes and expectations. For some reason it's OK for a man or woman wearing some kind of uniform (just about any kind) to wear a sidearm, but not for someone in civilian clothes unless they're accessorized with something that looks like a police badge.

Concealed carry should be shall-issue everywhere.

[Logical]

3. Good points....

I agree with you on the Open Carry. It should not be an issue but is and not worth the trouble if CC is available. We need a national law that stops this sate by state rules that no one can keep track of.

The secured gun law would really only be broken if someone used the gun. So the empty nester might not ever have an issue.

The problem is now many people think "no one will ever find this gun" only to be wrong.

Who knows when family members will stop by and some curious kids finds a unsecured gun when the owner never thought they had to worry about kids.

[DWC]

9. Logical wrote

"The problem is now many people think "no one will ever find this gun" only to be wrong."

That is one of the primary reasons I developed The Pistol Pad.

Semper Fi,

[Logical]

16. Nice! n-t

[spin]

32. The Pistol Pad looks like an excellent security measure. (n/t)

[pipoman]

91. Wow..looks like a really great idea..

[ZombieHorde]

2. I am OK with the laws you posted. Another good one is prisoners being forbidden to carry firearms.nt

[oneshooter]

48. Prisoners, as in convicts or felons? n/t

[ZombieHorde]

50. Those who are currently in jail or prison. nt

[oneshooter]

52. It iia already against the law, both Federal and State/Local law. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

53. I know. I was listing another gun control policy I agree with. nt

[Upton]

4. Wait a minute..

I live, once you exclude the animals, in a family of two adults. If you think I'm going to go for any kind of law mandating some kind of gun lock you're crazy..

[Logical]

14. Then don't use one. And if a family friends kid is in your house someday and uses your gun...

and shoots someone or themselves, then you go to jail. I am fine with that.

Just like you only get in trouble drunk driving if you get caught.

[Upton]

17. I could be wrong..

but I don't believe Washington state has a CAP law. You're fine with me going to jail?...well, thanks. :eyes:

As for your drunk driving analogy, it doesn't work. Answer me this...If someone stole my car, and then killed themselves while drunk driving...do you still think I should be held responsible for their death?

[Logical]

18. Only on this forum is a car and gun equal. Most other people see the difference. n-t

[Upton]

21. You're the one who brought up cars..

and if you don't like it in this forum...then take off. Your motives, along with your wishy washy attitude when it comes to gun rights, have always seemed extremely suspicious anyway

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Upton]

30. You've added me

to several of your ridiculous lists already....no need to keep repeating yourself.

As for me sounding "like the NRA" to you...I'm not surprised, considering you were praising the Brady Campaign just a couple weeks ago.

[Logical]

35. I like the Brady group more than the NRA any day of the week......

The NRA are as nutty as the Brady Group. And many of the NRA members are right wing militia nuts. "My Cold Dead Hands" mode is as stupid as you can get.

[rl6214]

78. See Logical, this is what I was talking about in another thread

It's tough to keep track of where your ideas are going sometimes.

[cleanhippie]

101. Only in this forum do people not understand that one is a right and the other is a privilege.

Learn it. Know it. Live it.

[Euromutt]

110. It's called an analogy; that means drawing parallels between things that are NOT equal

Your rejection of the analogy is all the more jarring considering you're the one who introduced it into this thread.

Look, no matter how you try to slice it, a motor vehicle is 2-ton-plus self-propelled bludgeon capable at traveling dozens of miles an hour, by dint of which fact, it is capable of delivering more than enough blunt force to kill quite a variety of animals, including humans. Which is why, even in the United States, half again as many people die in motor vehicle collisions as do from gunshot wounds, in spite of the fact that over 99% of motor vehicle-related deaths are unintentional, inflicted by licensed drivers using registered vehicles. More children under 10 die in "back-over" accidents alone than die from unintentional gunshot wounds.

The usual bromide that "cars aren't intended to kill" doesn't alter the fact that they do.

[iverglas]

23. and nobody ever steals guns ...

Just you and your co-vivant and your guns, snug in your bungalow.

Until one day you're not there, and somebody breaks in and steals your gunz.

And uses them to hold up a liquor store, or protect drug trafficking activities, or kill someone on the street in the course of a robbery ...

I don't say you should be charged with the crime committed with your firearm. I say you should be charged and meaningfully punished for unsafe/insecure storage of a firearm.

Whether any harm results or not. Charging only after harm has occurred is barn-door locking.

The drunk driving analogy? Where I live, municipal bylaws prohibit leaving the keys to a car in the car. There should perhaps indeed be stronger legislation requiring better anti-theft devices in new cars, and requiring that they be activtated. Stolen cars, driven by drunks or (usually) otherwise, are a serious issue because of the traffic deaths and injuries caused by those driving them, and car owners should certainly be required to take all available reasonable measures to prevent that happening.

[Upton]

26. Laws, laws and more laws...

Let me get this straight. If someone breaks into my home, steals my firearms and/or car, I'm the one who should be punished..

Well, how nanny state of you..

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. Irony ;)

It is rather ironic that some folks would jail you for shooting someone trying to break into your home and would also jail you if those breaking in weren't shot and succeeded in stealing your guns.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. Do you work for...

...Lamar Burgess?

[iverglas]

41. do I know who

Lamar Burgess is?

More to the point: do I care who Lamar Burgess is?

I think probably not.

That fell flat, didn't it?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

47. I think probably not.

He's the director of pre-crime, of course. ;)

[MicaelS]

40. Pleasae define "all available reasonable measures" with MODERN cars

My current car does not use a key, like many modern cars it uses an electronic key fob, and a pushbutton start / kill switch. There is no conventional mechanical keyswitch. No key fob, the car will not start. The car has an immobilizer built into the system, so theoretically the car can't be stolen, and driven.

But what some engineer can make, can be cracked by another, say a very good hacker, who know how to hack the system from outside the car with a laptop. Which has been done, on some luxury models.

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/how-to-steal-a-car-with-a-laptop-ar8250.html

What precisely else would you suggest be done?

[iverglas]

42. sounds good to me

Mine has none of those things, and I hate the electronic lock things because the ignorant cretins who use them generally honk their horns in the process. But my car is an old Mazda van and not a major target of theft.


But what some engineer can make, can be cracked by another, say a very good hacker, who know how to hack the system from outside the car with a laptop. Which has been done, on some luxury models.

Yes, and then said engineer has gone joy-riding around residential neighbourhoods at high speed, resulting in a police chase and the death of a pedestrian.

Happens a lot, does it?

[oneshooter]

51. Why should we care what happens "where you live"? n/t

[iverglas]

56. you're an odd little fellow, aren't you?

You haven't been adding any sarcasm tags to your endorsements of right-wing politicians and such. Should I read anything into that?

[oneshooter]

66. No. I don't like your "style " of writing. You are much to rude to believe.

That, and I see no reason why I should listen to a foul mouthed Canuck. I believe, sort of, that you could voice your views with out the cursing and insults. Polite conversation is much more believable than your ranting.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

If you ever come to Texas I will buy you a round of skeet.

[iverglas]

68. I've been to Texas

and as I've said before, twice was enough.

I just love the vision of you sipping tea with your pinky extended and a few guns tastefully affixed to your torso, instructing the locals to mind their language.


If you want to bring your skeet north, I would not be averse. If I had the time and initiative, I would very probably take up sports shooting, at a local facility I know of that is not run by gun militants. I am very sure I would be very good at it.

I soundly beat one of the occasional posters here at a shooting booth in an amusement park north of the border here a while back. And he was no stranger to firearms. ;)

[oneshooter]

71. Never been to Canukland

Cold makes my old injuries hurt. Don't care for hot tea, iced with no sugar and a touch of lemon is more to my taste,or some iced coffee, black of course.
I am only offering my views on the language that I personally find distasteful. But you and jpak make a real fine showing of progressives to others that view your posts.

Carry on.

Offer still open, I will even have some hot tea available for you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

75. bleah

I can't stand tea, hot or cold.

And maple syrup turns my tummy.

Just not a good colonial or canuckistanian.

Now, a good plate of poutine ...

http://www.awesomecanada.ca/things/poutine.php


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sashamd/99436565/


http://lactuparetudiant.unblog.fr/2010/11/07/poutine-sessaie-a-la-f1/


I was going to say: a total of about a month spent in Texas, and no local delicacies. Not true. A little place about halfway between Dallas and Austin with tamales I was not allowed to miss.

[oneshooter]

90. Looks interesting, but would not agree with my diabetes.

You seemed to have missed a lot of Texas and Tex-Mex cuisine.

Mesquite smoked beef brisket and ribs

Barbaquoa (slow cooked cows head)

Enchiladas (beef,cheese and shrimp)

Rocky Mountain Oysters

Fried catfish and okra

Baked redfish


So much more, most of which I can not eat(see above)

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rl6214]

79. "punished for unsafe/insecure storage of a firearm."

This isn't canada, keep your nonsense laws to yourself.

[iverglas]

80. what are you afraid of?

:rofl:

[rl6214]

84. The stupidity that is found up there drifting south to the US

[pipoman]

93. I consider my locked doors

sufficient to exclude me (or anyone else) from prosecution for "unsafe/insecure storage of a firearm". If someone breaks down my door why should I be responsible for their illegal acts? At what point am I no longer liable? If my guns are in a safe and they drill the door am I liable? If it is in a lockbox attached to a piece of furniture and they steal the furniture? If it is cable locked to an anvil and they use cable cutters? Where does it end? Or does it?

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

102. See, your idea of a problem which needs solving

is of so little concern to anyone who wishes to actually blame the criminals you seem to wish to coddle, that it makes the rest of your opinion on the subject irrelevant. Most reasonable people realize that criminals do criminal shit. They are virtually undeterred by any measure you would like to see imposed on those of us who live and act responsibly. The answer of the great white north is to take the crayons away from all the kids because Bobby always eats them.

[iverglas]

104. what exactly is my idea of a problem that needs solving?

If you tell me what you imagine it is, I'll tell you where you've gone off the tracks.


anyone who wishes to actually blame the criminals you seem to wish to coddle

Ah. I seeeeeeem to wish to coddle.

The the proverbial blind horse.

[pipoman]

106. And there you have it folks, in a nut shell

If you are relatively new to this forum and have been previously unaware of our long time compadre from the north land, this series of exchanges just sums up the poster's style and method of communicating with those of us she disagrees.

You will see in post #97 this statement: "A problem needs solving." I believe we can all see this is intended to be a statement of fact..not a question, or sarcasm, but a statement. From the context of the previous posts we all can figure out what the perceived "problem" is....no, you're right about what it is, don't get distracted...

Now you see in this post #104, the poster states, "what exactly is my idea of a problem that needs solving? If you tell me what you imagine it is, I'll tell you where you've gone off the tracks." In other words, I couldn't possibly have enough intellect to actually understand the goings on behind the glasses of the great thinker. There is no way I could decipher the previous posts to actually understand her point. And...this is the important part right here..even if I do state accurately the perceived problem, which is so obvious from the previous posts, the poster will, through linguistic gymnastics, deny that I have been able to noodle through and understand.

So you see, to expect any kind of honest exchange of ideas is to expect too much. Don't be frustrated, this has been going on for years. You aren't the first to fall into this skillfully laid trap. Others who read the thread understand that you are right and this poster is merely contorting to fit into the acrylic box.

[iverglas]

108. was that a polka or a waltz?

I'm waiting for you to quote ANYTHING I have said about how criminals should be treated, let alone something that substantiates your allegation that I want to "coddle" criminals.

Anything.

Anything?

[iverglas]

109. I'm going to coddle you

You really really seem to need it.

"A problem needs solving."

The problem is that crimes are committed with and facilitated by firearms that are stolen from "law-abiding gun owners".

Now you go ahead and tell me those crimes are not a problem. Please.

[MicaelS]

19. The problem with child access prevention laws is that

They will inevitably be applied when some minor breaks into someones home, steals a gun and then uses it.

As long as the law clearly prohibits any and all criminal prosecution of the homeowner, AND clearly prohibits ALL civil penalties or lawsuits, for the above type of situation, then I'm amenable to child access prevention laws further. If not, I'll oppose them utterly.

I'm a SWM, no children, nor do I have any family or friends who have minor children. In other words, I have no expectation of any children legally entering my home. So the only way a child gets in my home is to enter illegally. I will not be treated like a criminal, because some criminal enters my home.

[Logical]

20. I agree, crimes should not count. n-t

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

57. there was a problem?

Your attitude is one of supreme self-interest and self-centredness, and I said so.

Seems reasonable to me.

I will not be treated like a criminal, because some criminal enters my home.

But evidently it's perfectly fine by you if someone else gets treated like a corpse if the criminal who entered your home got your gun and killed them with it while holding up a local business.

Sorry, but this is the only conclusion I can reach when someone asserts they will not secure their firearm.

[MicaelS]

58. My firearms are secure...

They are behind multiple locked doors in my home.

So, if they're locked in a safe, and the criminal uses a torch to cut it open and steal my guns, am I still going to be liable?

[iverglas]

62. it's always an open question

There are many instances in laws where there will be a question of what was reasonable in the circumstances.

Locked doors may or may not be reasonable. I always thought a sort of closet built into a corner of a concrete basement with a very strong wall and door would be a good idea, myself.

The case I just cited in another post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=119761&mesg_id=119761

actually involved a vault that it did take the thieves two days to torch their way into. However, the vault was in an otherwise unoccupied apartment in Toronto (the alleged tenant was living in Florida) in a social housing complex in a high-crime area. That strikes me as not reasonable. Circumstances, cases, noses, faces.

Foreseeability is important, certainly, and good guidelines would be needed.

[petronius]

63. Even if he had asserted that, your conclusion would not be logical

:shrug:

[iverglas]

67. oh yeah?

"As long as the law clearly prohibits any and all criminal prosecution of the homeowner, AND clearly prohibits ALL civil penalties or lawsuits, for the above type of situation, then I'm amenable to child access prevention laws further. If not, I'll oppose them utterly."

Seems pretty unequivocal to me, coupled with the rest of that post.

And there actually is only the one logical conclusion.

[petronius]

69. Nothing in that quote is a refusal to secure a firearm, and even if he had asserted that it

would not lead to the conclusion that he was "perfectly fine" with dead people. Do you truly not see the failure of your logic? I thought better of you...

[pipoman]

92. I might agree if these laws were applied universally...

they're not. Rarely is a parent or owner of a swimming pool prosecuted when a child dies or is injured in one. Same for accidental poisonings, atv accidents, falls from dangerous structures, bicycling w/o head gear, etc. All go to parent irresponsibility, yet guns are the only risk recognized as being unacceptable and worthy of prosecution.

[PavePusher]

5. "I have no issue with banning Open Carry as long as the state has CC in place."

Only if it is no-cost, requires no licence, and has no restrictions.

And, actually, not even then. Open carry is not at all harmful, and there is no reason to ban it.



"It should not be an issue but is and not worth the trouble if CC is available."

Peaceful exercise of a non-invasive Civil Right is always worth the "trouble".

[Oneka]

8. I may

Be more of a Purist than most when it comes to the 2a, bu I believe
That the founders meant exactly what they wrote.

I think that , Prohibited persons , that are not encarcerated,
Is offensive.
If someone is too dangerous to own a gun , then they sure
As fuck shouldn't be allowed to be roaming free in society. Having unfettered access to my family.

Of course line of thought would end the need for Brady background checks.

I also think that there plenty of laws that restrict using arms , there need not be
Any that restrict ownership.

[Logical]

13. Some people do not realize that Open Carry scares people. You can....

think they are wimps or cowards or paranoid but it is real life.

It hurts the gun cause more than helps the issue.

Especially these idiots carrying at Obama speeches just to make a point.

All rights have limitations. I am fine with no Open Carry being one of them for the 2nd.

[PavePusher]

22. Lots of things "scare people".

That's not a legitimate basis for a ban unless you can prove actual harm.

And again, CC would have to be unrestricted.

[Logical]

29. CC needs training and a license I think. That way you can take it away if they are stupid. n-t

[PavePusher]

31. Please show me your First Amendment Licence and proof of training...

And your Thirteenth as well.

[Logical]

33. Give it a rest. Old argument. Blah Blah Blah......

All rights have limits. This is a valid one for the 2nd.

[PavePusher]

36. Old argument, but just as valid as ever.

What other Civil Right do I have to pay an annual fee and carry a government issued card to exercise?

Serious question for a serious subject.

[Logical]

39. Permits to protest. Register to be a lobbiest. Etc. nice try.

[PavePusher]

59. "Permits to protest."

Because you are actually going to impede public areas and utilise public resources (police monitoring, emergency response, blocking pedestrian/vehicle traffic, monopolizing a public area).


"Register as a lobbiest."

I think that should be illegal. (edit: the registration requirement) On the gripping hand, an elected or appointed public offical should have to publish daily logs of all their meetings and funding. Transparancy, etc.


What else ya got? :toast:

[Logical]

72. LOL.....I cannot explain this to you any simpler.......

You did not counter my point at all. The point is that you need a permit (license) to express your 1st amendment right. And you need a permit to express your 2nd edmentment right because the state decided that they want to track it (like tracking protesters). Etc. You helped my point!! Thanks!!

Let me give you a quote of one of your heroes.....

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote concerning the entirety of the elements of the Second Amendment; "We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." However, Scalia also continued, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Let me repeat this part for you....

"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

[PavePusher]

77. Err, no. You don't need a permit to express your First Amendment Right.

You need the permit to block traffic, tie up public services, impede the public, etc. If the state is "tracking protesters", unless they are breaking laws, that is deeply disturbing, and needs to be addressed. But I don't think that's what they are doing.

Neither is the government empowered to "track" the peaceful exercise of any other Right, without some reasonable suspicion of a crime. The apparent fact that you appear to be O.K. with the government tracking non-criminal activity concerns me greatly. I hope I have mis-read you, or you simply didn't make yourself clear.

And since that court case had nothing to do with carry, and he neither suggested nor implied any specific limitations, it is pretty irrelevent to the current topic.

[Logical]

81. OK, I give up. The courts have NEVER held CCW licensing is illegal. So I guess I am right! LOL. n-t

[PavePusher]

82. Has anyone brought it up post-Heller?

I think there is a case that just got shot down in NJ, but it's ripe for appeal. The courts also said "seperate but equal" was legal too... until they didn't. And there have been numerous court cases that said you can not licence or charge for a Civil Right.

[Logical]

86. And plenty of court cases saying all rights have limits. The CCW program nationwide....

has been unbelievably successful. And no one complains except the extreme gun rights people who think there should be no limits on guns. Nothing wrong with the states requiring some training and checks on people wanting to carry a gun concealed. I actually think it is better. Some gun rights people are extreme.

[PavePusher]

94. Of course Rights have limits.

I don't see anyone saying otherwise.

I'm saying it is wrong to require a fee and government permission for that right. I see no fees or licences required to buy newspapers or write letters.

Note that the states that do not require licences for OC or CC do not seem to have any significant problems directly attributable to the lack.

[DWC]

6. Honest question. Honest answer.

I accept the concept that every individual right carries with it an equal responsibility to society that the exercise of that right not be injurious to others (except in self defense).

I accept that the possession and use of tools (many are deadly) is one of the rights we enjoy. Whatever the tool, our responsibility to society that the exercise of that right not be injurious to others (except in self defense) is the same.

I am aware of no laws specific to the possession, registration, or storage requirements of baseball bats, hammers, axes, screw drivers, meat cleavers, rocks,...the list is endless. IMO a firearm is simply a tool.

I am strongly in favor of laws against injuring others (except in self defense) whether a tool, any tool, is used or not.

Semper Fi,

[Hangingon]

7. + 1

Good post

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. gets my vote

very reasonable

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. +2

[eallen]

95. Try buying dynamite.

Just a tool, right?

:hippie:

[DWC]

98. No Problem

Buying dynamite has the same basic restrictions as gun power and many other hazardous materials.

Semper Fi,

[eallen]

100. TuesdayAfternoon doesn't want restrictions on buying a tool.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Can't agree with banning open carry.

Certainly not while engaged in suitable outdoor pursuits.

Most of our current gun laws are pretty reasonable.

[eallen]

96. Texas has quite a reasonable law against open carry.

Open carry is illegal in Texas. If you walk into town with a pistol strapped to your leg, you likely will get arrested for that.

But "public" is not your home, nor the range where you shoot, nor the ranch where you hunt. Those places, you can walk around carrying whatever guns you want. And you're allowed to transport your guns to and fro. Cased and unloaded.

:hippie:

[rrneck]

11. A gun in public is a gun in public.

Regulating concealment or display is regulating how people are supposed to look. Is serves no practical purpose and impairs important human interaction.

If the voters have decided it's legal to carry a gun, then the voters need to get used to seeing them. We can't use the power of the state to save ourselves the trouble of learning how to get along with each other.

[Euromutt]

65. Oh, I'm SO stealing that last sentence.

I'll make sure I attribute it to you, though.

[rrneck]

74. As long as i can claim it was good enough for you to use. nt

[RSillsbee]

27. I think it should be against the law to register firearms on ANY level NT

[Flyboy_451]

34. A few issues with some of you ideas...

With regard to reporting of stolen guns; this seems to me to be nothing more than a feel good law with no real purpose other than to vilify a victim of a theft for not being aware of said theft. I can think of no reason that a law abiding, legal gun owner would not report the known theft of a firearm. If we are trying to address non-law abiding owners, isn't it a bit of a stretch to think that they would comply with any law that would incriminate them to possession of a firearm? Laws like this could be far too easily abused to attack an owner that was not aware of a theft.

Using myself as an example, I own in excess of 200 firearms. Granted, with exception of my duty gun, they are kept in a locked vault, or otherwise secured against unauthorized access, but I could see such a law requiring me to take inventory every time that I return home from any absence, just to keep from being prosecuted for the crime of not knowing about a theft. Guns are not large objects, and while many may think otherwise, gun owners do not get out their guns and lovingly oil and pet on them into the late hours of the night. The theft of a gun, particularly a handgun, could easily go unnoticed for a substantial period of time. If the law is written such that it would require the reporting of a theft within a prescribed period of time after knowledge of the theft,it serves no purpose, as the victim of the theft could simply say they were not aware of the theft. If it is written with no such time reference, it requires that any owner be omnipresent so that they may know the location of their property 100% of the time. This is a law that solves nothing, and places an unnecessary risk upon law abiding citizens.

Child access prevention laws are also a bit more complicated than they look on the surface. Often, those who favor tighter controls on firearms will pose the question, "How many lives lost are enough before gun owners are willing to accept more laws?" This is simply a variation of the "If it saves one life" argument. Recently, there was a story posted here about a a young girl that defended herself with a shotgun, by shooting an intruder in her home. I do not recall the specifics of this particular case, but it was a case of a young person legally accessing a gun, for legitimate defense. This is a situation in which a law could easily have cost a life. While this is not common, if we argue in the same manner as those calling for tighter laws, how many is enough? If it saves one life, isn't it worth it?

Laws with regard to access are, in my opinion, government overstepping their authority into the private lives of citizens. I prefer my government outside of the home, not inside of it. Irresponsible owners can be charged with child endangerment or reckless/negligent endangerment, if the case against them merits such. No additional laws are needed to hold reckless/negligent behavior punishable.

Open carry laws serve several purposes. They allow the carry of a readily accessible firearm for hunting purposes. They protect concealed carry permit holders from being charged with such silliness as brandishing, should their jacket ride up while reaching for something on a high shelf at the grocery store, and exposing their holster or gun. They protect owners from being charged with a crime for simply carrying a firearm from their house to their vehicle in preparation for a trip to the range or the hunting fields. It could be argued that the gun should be in a case, but then, it could be argued that it was concealed. How would you like to be the owner that was loading up for a trip to the range, when a cop drives by, and suddenly you are being arrested for carrying concealed without a permit, or open display of a firearm? Do you really think that there are not public officials that would happily prosecute on such matters? Not to mention that to restrict open carry, even if concealed carry is provided for, there is a cost factor in most states. Permits generally have the requirement of training cost and application fees. This could easily be used to regulate who can and cannot carry, by mean of disposable income. That doesn't seem like an equitable application of law to me.

You specifically asked about laws that others find acceptable. Background checks for sales from a licensed dealer are fine as long as there is no attempt at creating a registry or compiling a list of owners.

I have only two objections to concealed carry permits. They should be "shall issue" rather than "may issue" and they should be financially accessible to those of meager income. Eliminate any chance of restriction of rights by financial or bigoted means.

I am fully in support of opening access of NICS to individual transfers, but not of making background checks mandatory. To make it mandatory would be unenforceable, unless we create a registry of firearms, which I am opposed to.

I support mandatory minimum sentencing for crimes committed with firearms. In the case of crimes of intent, verses crimes of error, I oppose any pleading down of the charges. If an act is committed with criminal intent, particularly violent criminal intent, I see no benefit in not charging to the full extent of the laws. To do otherwise is failing to uphold and enforce the law.

I would also support laws that require public officials to be subject to the same restrictions placed on average citizens. Chiefly, if the average person is not allowed to possess a firearm for protection in a given location, then neither should public officials. This would include security details and bodyguards. Exceptions would include any place that strict security measures are taken to insure that weapons are not present; court houses, presidential appearances, ect. If an official is not willing to take measures to insure the safety of others, as well as themselves, then they should be required to allow individuals to provide for their own safety. If they want a secure environment, they should be forced to take the steps required to make it truly secure. Everyone passes through security checks that rival or exceed the full body searches executed at airports. No privilege of protection for the lords and not the vassals.

JW

[MicaelS]

44. That is one of the best posts I have ever read here, thanks!

[Flyboy_451]

45. I don't post often...

But when I do, I try to make a reasonable effort to post something meaningful. Unfortunately, I have on several occasions, asked what I thought were very reasonable questions, only to be ignored by those questioned. Interesting how that works...

And, by the way, thanks for the compliment!!

JW

[rrneck]

46. How might we encourage you to post more often? nt

[Flyboy_451]

49. I reply when it seems the opposition is truly seeking honest debate....

I don't engage in flame wars or respond to baiting. It seems to me that too many people on both sides of the debate are far more interested in casting insults and engaging in third grader finger pointing, than they are in coming to any real resolutions or actually debating with any measure of honesty or integrity.

If you can fix that, or if the moderators could/would, I would likely post more frequently. But, for now, it is time to scrub my armpits, brush my fangs, put on a uniform, and go catch bad guys.

Have a great day all,

JW

[rrneck]

55. Lol! I guess were screwed. Have a good day and be careful. nt

[PavePusher]

61. While I don't agree with a number of Logical's stances...

s/he does seem to be here for genuine debate.

[DWC]

54. Outstanding Post !!! We need more like it. n/t

[iverglas]

60. and a few rebuttals

With regard to reporting of stolen guns; this seems to me to be nothing more than a feel good law with no real purpose other than to vilify a victim of a theft for not being aware of said theft.

Actually, it is a deterrent to straw purchases and illegal transfers.

Not an especially effective one, but it is too plainly the purpose.

If we are trying to address non-law abiding owners, isn't it a bit of a stretch to think that they would comply with any law that would incriminate them to possession of a firearm?

It's no stretch at all to think that a non-career criminal pressed into making a straw purchase, or an average not especially thoughtful individual considering making a private transfer of their firearm to a questionable individual, would think twice if they planned to come up with the "dog ate my homework" excuse when the gun was used in a crime and traced back to them. If they hadn't reported the theft, the excuse would not be very credible. So requiring reporting impresses on them that they should not try evading the law in other ways.


Using myself as an example, I own in excess of 200 firearms. Granted, with exception of my duty gun, they are kept in a locked vault, or otherwise secured against unauthorized access, but I could see such a law requiring me to take inventory every time that I return home from any absence, just to keep from being prosecuted for the crime of not knowing about a theft.

So?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=119761&mesg_id=119761

What happens when someone does not keep tabs.

Your choice to own all that crap; your responsibility to keep track of it.


Laws with regard to access are, in my opinion, government overstepping their authority into the private lives of citizens. I prefer my government outside of the home, not inside of it.

You're all right, Jack ...

What you do in your bedroom affects no one else. (You know, it was a Canadian who spoke the famous words: The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.)

The firearms you keep in your home have the potential to affect many other people, with devastating consequences.

Grow up and stop using big words to say "you aren't the boss of me". It sounds the same no matter how many syllables you use.


I am fully in support of opening access of NICS to individual transfers, but not of making background checks mandatory. To make it mandatory would be unenforceable, unless we create a registry of firearms, which I am opposed to.

And there is no way to interpret that other than: I do not have an iota of concern about the harm caused to other people as a result of firearms obtained by straw purchase and other illegal transfers. If you did, you would advocate ways of reducing that risk, but you actively oppose them, so your feelings are clear.


Chiefly, if the average person is not allowed to possess a firearm for protection in a given location, then neither should public officials.

The green envy on display hereabouts is always quite amusing.

Yes, there is just no difference at all between the average person and public figures, who are all vulnerable to the hatred of opponents and the obsession of the unbalanced. I'm not in favour of them carrying weapons either, of course, although I can see possible temporary exceptions. I'm just amused at how the politics of resentment rears its head in so many ways.



typos fixed

[pneutin]

64. It will not work against straw purchases

A law requiring reporting of a stolen firearm, by definition, cannot be used against a straw purchaser. A straw purchaser is defined as someone who knowingly bought a firearm and transferred it to a prohibited person. The firearm was never stolen, so straw purchasers are immune from being prosecuted for failure to report.

You're right in that this proposed law is not especially effective. In fact it is 100% ineffective.

[iverglas]

70. oh, argh

Let's look at what I said again.

If a straw purchaser tried to say "it was stolen" when the gun turned up used in a crime, the fact that the straw purchaser did not report the theft, as the law required, would be a major chink in their credibility.

Ditto someone who made a private transfer to someone ineligible to possess the firearm. It turns up used in a crime, "law-abiding gun owner" says it was stolen. Law-abiding gun owner's failure to report the theft, as the law required, makes said law-abiding gun owner look less than credible on that point.

There is simply no reason not to require that thefts of firearms be reported to police, and there are very good reasons to require it; and all the "what if"s anybody might toss around just fail to overcome that.

[pneutin]

73. So let me get this straight

Gun owners must somehow be clairvoyant and immediately know when a gun of theirs is stolen. Or else you automatically assume they are a straw purchaser?

What if a gun owner legitimately did not know their gun was stolen? How can they keep tabs on their possessions 24/7? You are willing to prosecute legitimate victims of theft?

[iverglas]

76. you let me know when you've got it straight, now

Not doing too well so far, but maybe if you try harder.

[pneutin]

83. Nice evasion, but your original post makes no sense

Let's look at what I said again.


Let's.


If a straw purchaser tried to say "it was stolen" when the gun turned up used in a crime, the fact that the straw purchaser did not report the theft, as the law required, would be a major chink in their credibility.


You make some wild assumptions here. If a gun is used in a crime and police trace it back to a possible owner, they then knock on the guy's door because there was no report of theft. This can play out in several different ways:

1. Guy is a legitimate victim and did not realize his gun was stolen. Congrats, you just punished a victim of theft.
2. Guy is a straw buyer. Congrats, you can charge him with a federal felony of straw buying. Oops, you can't charge him with misdemeanor failure to report a theft, because there was no theft to begin with.
3. Guy is a prohibited person and thus cannot be compelled to incriminate himself by admitting he owned the gun in the first place. Oops, you can't charge him with misdemeanor failure to report a theft because you don't even know if he owned the gun.

Looks like the only people this law works against are legitimate victims of theft.


Ditto someone who made a private transfer to someone ineligible to possess the firearm. It turns up used in a crime, "law-abiding gun owner" says it was stolen. Law-abiding gun owner's failure to report the theft, as the law required, makes said law-abiding gun owner look less than credible on that point.


If "law-abiding gun owner" unknowingly made a private transfer to an ineligible person, why would he say the firearm was stolen?

If "law-abiding gun owner" knowingly made a private transfer to an ineligible person, he is a straw buyer and thus not a "law-abiding gun owner".

[iverglas]

87. congrats?

Did I say anything about a STRICT LIABILITY offence?

No, I DID NOT.

So why are you saying to me:


1. Guy is a legitimate victim and did not realize his gun was stolen. Congrats, you just punished a victim of theft.

If the police -- or, ultimately, a jury, if there is some basis for some kind of charge -- find his explanation credible, that's the end.

Why are you spewing this crap at me?


2. Guy is a straw buyer. Congrats, you can charge him with a federal felony of straw buying. Oops, you can't charge him with misdemeanor failure to report a theft, because there was no theft to begin with.

Oops. I DID NOT SAY he should be charged with failing to report a theft. How thick are the heads around here, really? How many times does something have to be said until nobody tries to misrepresent it?

The idea is to apprehend STRAW PURCHASERS and people who engage in ILLEGAL TRANSFERS to disqualified persons.

If there is a case to be made for one of them -- and failure to report the theft would be ONE FACTOR that would undermine the credibility of some other explanation for how the firearm made its way from Person A to Person X -- then that is the charge.


3. Guy is a prohibited person and thus cannot be compelled to incriminate himself by admitting he owned the gun in the first place. Oops, you can't charge him with misdemeanor failure to report a theft because you don't even know if he owned the gun.

But if there is EVIDENCE that he owned the firearm, then you can charge him with whatever looks good.

If there is no such EVIDENCE, why are the police talking to him in the first place??

This little scenario is of your own making in any event, and has nothing to do with what I said -- which was that the reporting requirement is a deterrent to STRAW PURCHASES and ILLEGAL TRANSFERS. I don't even know how this #3 would arise, and I have no idea why you are dragging it into this discussion.


I sincerely, truly hope that this is clearer for you now.

If not, perhaps you would just give up and walk away, because I can't think of any other way I could try to get it across to you, and I have no actual desire to try.

[pneutin]

105. Fail harder

If the police -- or, ultimately, a jury, if there is some basis for some kind of charge -- find his explanation credible, that's the end.

Right, so the innocent has to spend time and money disputing a charge. Glad you agree that it is a form of punishment.


The idea is to apprehend STRAW PURCHASERS and people who engage in ILLEGAL TRANSFERS to disqualified persons.

If there is a case to be made for one of them -- and failure to report the theft would be ONE FACTOR that would undermine the credibility of some other explanation for how the firearm made its way from Person A to Person X -- then that is the charge.


LOL. Glad you want to catch straw purchasers, so do I. But you're saying that if you don't have a sufficient case for a straw purchase charge, you want to find some other way to punish an innocent person. Good one.


"...the reporting requirement is a deterrent to STRAW PURCHASES and ILLEGAL TRANSFERS.

Um, no, it is not. A straw purchaser could just report the theft on time.

[Flyboy_451]

85. wow...i respond to the original post with a polite and reasoned post...

And you respond with all of the hatred and animosity normally achieved only by the self proclaimed righteous. Thanks for the demonstration of exactly the type of third grade type behavior I spoke of in a following post.

Am I to understand, from your comments, that you are advocating for a law that in you own words is "not especially effective"? If so, can you please explain how the downsides of this law, which I pointed out, are somehow justified?

As for putting word in my mouth with your comment about government not being the boss of me, you did at least get close to the mark. Government, in America at least, is not the boss of the people. It is the other way around. This is why they are often called PUBLIC SERVANTS. Elected officials serve their terms by permission of the people. They are not overlords or dictators. They are temporary employees, subject to the will of their employers.

And now for your comments about my level of concern...I have, for the past fourteen years, demonstrated my concern for problems relating to crime, by putting on a uniform every day and placing my safety at risk in an attempt to protect others form the criminal element. Now, I don't know what you do for a living, but I am guessing that your demonstration of your concern for such things is somewhat less impressive.

Envy? That's an interesting way of interpreting what I said. You also failed to quote me with regard to exceptions for when said officials put measures in place in specific circumstances to provide for true security. Did you fail to read it as well? Clearly, this idea would stand to have more of a negative effect for me personally than a positive one. There are very few places that I cannot go with a firearm. How does that translate to envy on my part?

One of the interesting things about this country is that we believe in equal rights to all people. We do not have a royal class, or people that are more equal than other. At least that is the way our government was set up. Yet, somehow, there are always a few that seem to want to change that, and always a few that will go along with the idea that somehow it is beneficial.

As for the manner of your response, if you would like to behave as an adult and converse in a respectful manner, I would be happy to continue discussing the issue. If you prefer to hurl insults and hatred, I will accord you the
same respect I did to the turd I flushed down the toilet this morning.


Jw

Edited for typo

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DWC]

89. Extremely Well Said. Semper Fi, n/t

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

113. You have now crossed paths with iverglas and her own

special brand of snark and insults. She never answers a question directly but responds with another question or some sort of misdirection.

[Flyboy_451]

114. Having been a member here for quite sometime...

I kinda knew what to expect from various posters. My initial response was to the original post, and as I said in a previous post, I prefer to let others decide who was rude, childish or irrational, based on the content of everyone's responses. It would seem that the moderators have made a decision and acted according to that decision. Funny how that works...

JW

[spin]

43. I have no problem with reasonable gun laws ...

Of course, the problem is what is "reasonable".

I live in Florida and I find the gun laws here very reasonable.

The Brady Campaign disagrees with me. http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/FL

[ileus]

99. Why ban OC because people are afraid? what if I'm scared of bicycles?

[YllwFvr]

103. Im ok with background checks

But nothing else you said

[benEzra]

111. I'm OK with background checks (sans registration), most of the GCA '68, most of the NFA,

the 1986 AP handgun ammo restrictions, and such. Not OK with registration, not OK with restricting carry licensure to the politically connected or well-to-do, and not OK with new restrictions on Title 1 civilian firearms (such as capacity restrictions).

[Kayso]

112. Most gun control laws are solutions looking for a problem.