The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 12, 2013, 02:59 PM   #1
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,295
keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill ?

Instead of bans etc that only affect the law abiding citizen, why not have a requirement of gun owners to have a secure place to keep firearms ? What about a gun safe and trigger locks or chamber locks where the bolt cannot be closed or a magazine inserted ?
Its just a thought, I have no idea how to prove you have a gun safe or locks other than a receipt for payment. Just curious what you guys thoughts are on something like this or along these lines.
rebs is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 03:51 PM   #2
MTSCMike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2011
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 164
Because it's wrong to require those things..."shall not be infringed".
__________________
IDPA Member A00640
Founding Charter Member - Middle Tennessee Shooter's Club
MTSCMike is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 04:09 PM   #3
TexasJim
Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2011
Posts: 71
Any law or restrction is only as effective as it's compliance and it's ability to be enforced. Wealso currently have the protection of the 4th amendment.
__________________
"If you’d like, after the game I’ll take you outside and teach you how to shoot close enough to a raccoon that it craps itself." ( Dr. Sheldon Cooper - The Big Bang Theory)
TexasJim is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 04:44 PM   #4
Battler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2000
Posts: 1,185
The biggest obstacle to gun control in the US isn't the second amendment in that ignored archaic bit of 18th century scrap; but the number of people who own guns. Every new person who becomes a gunowner grows the problem.

Many people who became gunowners started by gingerly buying some $500 pistol and sticking it in a closet. This is how those new shooters you're taking to the range may start out. Any burden that creates a "barrier to entry" persuades these people to go find some other hobby.

This is fundamentally what people like Brit prime ministers refer to as putting tough restrictions on to head off there being a "gun culture", a critical mass of people strong enough to resist gun laws - by getting the gun laws out there early enough to prevent the problem.

Gun nuts overlook this as their 10 AR15s are in a foundation-cracking safe that's worth about 5% of the cost of their collection. But anything that can add to the "barrier to entry" for new people getting into guns has a higher ultimate impact than a mag or "assault weapon" ban.
Battler is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 04:59 PM   #5
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
They have pretty much that exact law in California, ask them how well it works.

Battler hits the most practical aspect, it's a significant barrier to entry, particularly if you require a safety device that will actually hinder a criminal. Why should the person who lives in a studio apartment that can't afford a safe, monetarily or space wise, (Not to mention possibly unable to bolt a safe down) be denied their rights?
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 06:17 PM   #6
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Just get this in your head...any gun control law only effects law abiding citizens and makes gun ownership more difficult and expensive. Think back in the 1870's....they called these laws "Jim Crow" laws.

Those with criminal intent will obtain, and use whatever guns they wish, does not matter what the law is. Remember that!

You can go do some searching, but I was surprised when I saw the % of guns used in crimes...that had been stolen from the POLICE.

It was a higher number than arms stolen from LAC. Sorry I don't have the link on this computer...If I remember correctly it is buried in the FBI stats.
hermannr is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 06:29 PM   #7
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,195
The federal gov't already requires that all handguns sold by FFLs be delivered with a locking device:

Quote:
(z) Secure gun storage or safety device.--(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.
18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)

Negligence law already provides a remedy for negligent entrustment, whether it be negligent entrustment of a firearm, automobile, etc.

Besides, what's to make me believe that the requirement suggested by the OP would have any more effect on the non-law-abiding than any other law would?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs
Its just a thought, I have no idea how to prove you have a gun safe or locks other than a receipt for payment.
Oh, that's easy. Let's just have every law-abiding gun owner sign a Fourth Amendment Waiver so that the gov't can come do in-house safe inspections on demand. [/sarcasm]
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 06:39 PM   #8
Battler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2000
Posts: 1,185
Maybe going off on a bit of a tangent; but I start every "new/casually interested shooter" off by taking a bit of the mystery out of the autopistol by field stripping it. "See this barrel? You stick it in the spare tyre well of your car or some other obscure place, anyone finding the rest of the gun is now a long way away from having something that can fire." Sure you can mailorder a barrel but it presents a barrier to getting a running gun even in excess of the thin tinfoil "safes" everyone's bolting down.

Theft of an expensive-to-replace and denying a casual thief (including a kid) an operational weapon can be thought of as independent problems.
Battler is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 07:25 AM   #9
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,295
Thank you for the replies.
I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, it was merely a thinking out loud thing. Maybe even a senior moment lol

In NYS our rights are already infringed, 10 round mag limit, no folding stock, no flash suppressor and the extremely strict NYC laws. We still have one of the highest crime rates in the country in NYC. Everyone including the government knows gun laws do not lower crime rates.
rebs is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 08:48 AM   #10
testuser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2010
Posts: 495
I not in favor of a law requiring people to have safe storage, but I am in favor or heavily encouraging people to do so. The NRA should so some public service spots!

It seems really unwise to have thousand of dollars with of guns just sitting around the house. If anyone knows you have guns, then you're a target for thieves, even in a rural area. I wouldn't leave $1,000 in cash just sitting in a drawer, so why would I do that with a $1k pistol?

I'm not saying an alarm and a safe will prevent every theft, but a proper safe, anchored to the floor and locked in a secure room in your home will go a long way. If you're keeping a gun for home defense, no problem, there are a lot of quick access solutions. Or do what I do, weapon goes in the safe when I'm not here and out when I return.

A criminal can run off with a lock box, but at least it makes it harder for junior to grab it and take it school.

Last edited by testuser; January 13, 2013 at 08:56 AM.
testuser is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 09:02 AM   #11
Bob2222
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Posts: 2
New York prohibits magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds manufactured after September 14, 1994. (There are probably tons of magazines manufactured prior to September 15, 1994.)

It's also interesting that Connecticut more-or-less copied the New Jersey AWB, except they left out the part about magazine capacity.

I'm no expert about the New York and Connecticut legislative process, but these details wouldn't have been incorporated into the respective laws unless somebody put them there.

Amazon and Cabelas list several small gun safes for less than $100. I wouldn't expect them to stop a dedicated thief, but the idea would be to slow a thief down, since most burglaries are completed during a very short period of time. It seems to me that buying a safe is a reasonable thing to do, but experience has shown me that it's impossible to legislate common sense, and as often as not trying to creates a larger problem than the one that it was supposed to fix.

It should be easy enough to remove the bolt from a rifle or remove the barrel from an autoloader and hide it. At no cost, and it's no longer a functioning firearm at that point. My BIL has an inherited shotgun that he disassembled when his kids were still at home. He's since forgotten where he hid all the parts! (He's sold a couple of his cars in the interim. Maybe he should have checked the spare tire wells!)
Bob2222 is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 09:07 AM   #12
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,195
Between TFL and The High Road, I've seen about 10 threads with similar themes: What about mandating secure storage? While I believe that secure storage is a good idea, I do not believe that mandating it is. One of my problems with the thought is that mandating secure storage has the potential to disproportionately affect those who most need to defend themselves. For example, a single working mother in a less-than-spectacular inner city neighborhood. If the only thing she can afford is a $100 used Hi-Point that she buys from a friend, that additional $20 may be more than she's got. It's certainly a 20% bump in the total cost of exercising her 2A right.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 09:35 AM   #13
Magnum Mike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 334
NO!
Maybe we should mandate all alcohol be locked up! All drugs! Make it so all vehicles be store in a locked garage when not driving to work.
Next it will be to lock all reloading supplies and equipment down.
Lots of knifes are used in crimes, should we lock them down?
Magnum Mike is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09595 seconds with 9 queries