keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill ?

rebs · January 12, 2013, 02:59 PM

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.

MTSCMike · January 12, 2013, 03:51 PM

Because it's wrong to require those things..."shall not be infringed".

TexasJim · January 12, 2013, 04:09 PM

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.

Battler · January 12, 2013, 04:44 PM

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.

sigcurious · January 12, 2013, 04:59 PM

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?

hermannr · January 12, 2013, 06:17 PM

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.

**Spats McGee** · January 12, 2013, 06:29 PM

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]

Battler · January 12, 2013, 06:39 PM

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.

rebs · January 13, 2013, 07:25 AM

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.

testuser · January 13, 2013, 08:48 AM

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.

Bob2222 · January 13, 2013, 09:02 AM

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!)

**Spats McGee** · January 13, 2013, 09:07 AM

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.

Magnum Mike · January 13, 2013, 09:35 AM

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?

January 12, 2013, 02:59 PM	#1
rebs Senior Member Join Date: January 10, 2012 Posts: 3,881	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.

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

January 12, 2013, 04:09 PM	#3
TexasJim Member Join Date: December 22, 2011 Posts: 72	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)

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.

January 13, 2013, 09:07 AM	#12
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	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. __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

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.

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?

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.

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.

January 13, 2013, 07:25 AM	#9
rebs Senior Member Join Date: January 10, 2012 Posts: 3,881	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.

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!)

January 13, 2013, 09:35 AM	#13
Magnum Mike Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 2007 Location: Rochester, MN Posts: 347	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?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search