How to defend your home defense

[PlatinumCore16]

So I had a thought the other day since I do like to travel and I work during the day, what do you do to keep your home defense gun safe whilst you're away be it at work, the store, on vacation, what have you? A good safe is invaluable to keep guns from sticky fingers and even children(also climate controlled and safe from mother nature however that is outside the scope of this post), but what about the bedside shotgun or nightstand revolver? Do you put them into the safe EVERY morning before you leave? Obviously if you CCW, that one is with you always unless you are going somewhere you can't take it. But seeing as many burglaries occur in daylight hours, what's a responsible gun owner to do?

How do you keep your home defense safe when you're not home to defend it?

[JoeSixpack]

my "HD" gun is what ever handgun(s) im carrying.

it's either in the holster or on the night stand.

I don't live with any children so no concern there.


as far as safe security you have to depends on your safe placement, bolt it down, try to conceal it if you can.
security system is good, webcams are good, dogs are probably the cheapest security.

at my house we don't have dogs but usually someones home so that helps.

[Lohman446]

If it is not in a holster on my belt (or on rare occasion locked in my car unloaded) it is in a safe. Either a large multi-gun safe or a quick access safe. I have a non-verbal two year old and a very inquisitive three year old.

[reddog81]

Three large dogs. I rarely have kids in the house so I don't have to worry about that. The safe is more for climate control and organization vs. security. If someone can make it past the German Shepard, pitbull and mastiff/shar pei mix I'd guess they came prepared and will probably be able to get into the safe.

[PlatinumCore16]

Reddog that's very true. However I'm asking more specifically if you put the shotgun that's at your bedside in the safe every morning? Or if you depend on a pistol on your nightstand, especially if it's not your EDC pistol.

It would seem like a logical thing to do, but I leave way earlier than my girlfriend and I don't want to stash the gun before she's awake. I also don't have a long gun safe where I am currently (I know rather irresponsible of me) so currently it's just out of sight in the bedroom.

I also have dogs and from interviews of burglars that were convicted/caught many times they have stated that if they hear a dog, they'll leave the house along because it's just not worth it. Certainly some cheap insurance, also fun and cuddly and always rewarding because what's better than coming home from work/the gym/dinner/wherever and getting the biggest greeting ever like you've been gone for years?

[FAS1]

I keep a HD gun in my handgun safe that is bolted to my bed frame. Anchored to the concrete floor would be the most secure. At night there is plenty of room for my CCW laying in the bottom.



My 12GA stays loaded in the big safe. If needed my wife goes that direction or if I decide to shelter in place that's where I will be too.

[chupps]

I lock mine in a safe. get one. You'll fell like crap if you leave it behind a door and it gets stolen and used in a crime.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

They make quick access security containers for long guns that fit under the bed. Just sayin'

[Bill DeShivs]

If someone breaks into your home, steals your gun and uses it in a crime, you would feel guilty?
WHY??
No one has any business breaking into your home!
You aren't responsible for others' actions.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

If someone breaks into your home, steals your gun and uses it in a crime, you would feel guilty?....

Whether or not you'd feel guilty it's conceivable that you could be found liable for negligently failing to secure your gun.

Even in the absence of a safe storage law like this, a gun owner could well face civil liability if he improperly store a gun, it gets taken and used to hurt someone. Even without any statute on the books a gun owner has a legal duty to store his guns in a non-negligent manner.

A negligent act which results in the injury or death of another can subject the actor to civil liability to compensate the person who was injured. Negligence in law is basically:

A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).

Negligence is generally a question for a jury. If one is sued for damages base on an injury allegedly arising from his negligence the jury will need to decide, after all the evidence about what took place and what everyone said or did is presented whether the defendant acted as a reasonable and prudent person would in the same situation.

So if you leave your loaded gun out on the coffee table while you're away for the weekend, someone breaks in, steals it and murders someone, you very well could have problems. If the gun was locked in a safe, you'll most likely be off the hook. If the gun was tucked away in your sock draw? There's no way to know for sure.

In this case in Montana about gun storage, the language of the appellate court decision gives us some clues as to how a court might look at the question of the standard of care where guns are concerned, Estate of Strever v. Cline, 278 Mont. 165 (Mont., 1995), at 174 -- 175 (emphasis added):

...A firearm, particularly one that is loaded or has ammunition in close proximity, is considered a dangerous instrumentality and therefore requires a higher degree of care in its use or handling. This concept is set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides:

Care required. The care required is always reasonable care. This standard never varies, but the care which it is reasonable to require of the actor varies with the danger involved in his act, and is proportionate to it. The greater the danger, the greater the care which must be exercised.

As in all cases where the reasonable character of the actor's conduct is in question, its utility is to be weighed against the magnitude of the risk which it involves. [Citation omitted.] The amount of attention and caution required varies with the magnitude of the harm likely to be done if care is not exercised, and with the utility of the act. Therefore, if the act has little or no social value and is likely to cause any serious harm, it is reasonable to require close attention and caution. So too, if the act involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm, and particularly if it is capable of causing such results to a number of persons, the highest attention and caution are required even if the act has a very considerable utility. Thus those who deal with firearms ... are required to exercise the closest attention and the most careful precautions, not only in preparing for their use but in using them....

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 298 cmt. b (1965).

Accordingly, given the foreseeability of the risk involved in the improper and unsafe use and storage of a firearm; given the strong policy considerations favoring safe and prudent use and storage; and on the basis of the law as set forth in §§ 1-1-204, 27-1-701 and 28-1-201, MCA, our decisions in Limberhand, Maguire, Phillips, Mang and Busta and the above referred to standards of care set forth in Prosser and Keeton on Torts and in comment b to § 298 of the Restatement, we hold that, as a matter of law, the owner of a firearm has a duty to the general public to use and to store the firearm in a safe and prudent manner taking into consideration the type of firearm, whether it is loaded or unloaded, whether the ammunition is in close proximity or easily attainable, and the location and circumstances of its use and storage.

Because we conclude that Susanj owed a legal duty to the general public to store his firearm and ammunition in a manner consistent with this standard of care,...

So in this storage case the court found a duty to store a gun and ammunition in a manner consistent with a very high standard of care.

[Bill DeShivs]

Frank, please don't take this personally.
Lawyers are the reason for insane rulings like the one you cited.
That ruling flies in the face of everything that is normal and decent.
Someone breaks into your home, steals your property, injures someone with it, and YOU are liable. What utter nonsense!

[TXAZ]

To the OP's question, weapons always in a safe but easily accessible.
Multiple lines of defense.
Surprises for the uninvited.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

Frank, please don't take this personally.
Lawyers are the reason for insane rulings like the one you cited.
That ruling flies in the face of everything that is normal and decent.
Someone breaks into your home, steals your property, injures someone with it, and YOU are liable. What utter nonsense!

Phooey!

Here in the real world, things are as I've described. It doesn't matter who's responsible, and it doesn't matter what you might think is normal and decent. It doesn't matter that you think reality is nonsense.

You're welcome to live in your fantasy world. Ignoring reality can have some undesirable consequences. But do as you wish. It won't be my problem.

[Texas45]

My "at home guns" are secured in a separate room in a decent gun safe.
My HD aka CC gun is on my hip always or on the night table next to bed when bed is where I am.

That way my self defense and my home defense weapons is ALWAYS where I am and available should I need it.

Having a HD weapon "in a secret place"'etc in the house is just silly. The chances of you and it being inclose proximity when the "need" arises are nil. Ill keep my defensive weapon close at hand always thank you.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[g.willikers]

Someone breaks into your home, steals your property, injures someone with it, and YOU are liable. What utter nonsense!

Negligence is generally a question for a jury.

If you are ever called for jury duty, do your best to prevent bad things from happening to good people.

[TailGator]

Every gun I own is locked up whenever it is not under my direct control. My usual carry pistol is also my bedside pistol. When I need to pocket carry, the IWB/bedside pistol goes in the safe when the pocket pistol comes out. I have only a couple of long guns, and they don't figure into my defensive plans, so they stay locked up.

When I vacation by car, I check into firearm laws along my route and generally take a pistol or two with me. When I fly, I lock everything up before I leave, and lock the above-mentioned IWB pistol in a quick-access box cabled to the underside of my car seat.

OP, in your situation, I would use a quick access box for your pistol, so that both you and your lady friend have access when needed, but it is secured when you leave with no noise or fuss. Decide whether to invest in a quick access box for your shotgun or lock it up another way. If your situation doesn't permit a true safe, some of the metal locking cabinets are pretty sturdy, and would provide at least some deterrent and security.

I see both sides of the discussion between Frank and Bill. I feel a responsibility about storing my guns similar to the case that Frank cited, and it is case law; but I sure understand Bill's objection to the general principle of being held responsible for someone else's illegal actions because they started with a theft of your property. There certainly is something wrong in that. I have come to accept that my sense of right and wrong doesn't always match with actual law.

[kraigwy]

I don't care about lawyers and what they will say. I do care about kids.

Worse thing I can imagining happening, is some kid getting hurt because they find one of my guns.

My kids are grown, heck even my grandkids are pretty much grown. But they will have kids too some day and I would like to think they would come to visit.

I also have other people who visit that have kids. I don't want to be responsible for any ones kids getting hurt with my guns.

My self defense gun is ALWAYS in my pocket, whether I'm traveling or home. Not much of a chance of some kid picking my pocket.

However, like most on these forums I have a few (lot) of other guns. They are lost in one of my three safes. Kids arnt getting them.

To me a good quality gun safe is and insurance policy. I have car insurance. I have home insurance. But I feel it necessary we insure the most precious around us, that, to me is Kids.

Setting kids aside, one of the most common crimes there is, are vehicle break ins. In my 20 years in LE, almost nightly our 24 hour log contained info of vehicle break ins. I don't leave guns in cars. In fact I don't often lock my car. I just as soon as some bandit not have to break out a window to find I didn't leave a gun or anything else of value for them to take.

Anyway, prices of gun safe's is a cheap price to pay for my peace of mind.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by frank ettin

So in this storage case the court found a duty to store a gun and ammunition in a manner consistent with a very high standard of care.

Where does it say anything about a "very high standard of care"?

I read it as "as a matter of law, the owner of a firearm has a duty to the general public to use and to store the firearm in a safe and prudent manner"(your bold), consistent with the surrounding circumstances.

Depending upon the specific situation, it could easily be found that storing a loaded shotgun under the bed would be "safe and prudent".

Given the information you provided, we have no idea of the circumstances leading to the guilty verdict.

[T. O'Heir]

"...Three large dogs..." And a cat to supervise? snicker. Knew a guy with 3 Rottweiler's. The cat owned the house.
Anyway, storage laws, if there are any where you are, depend on where you are. Up here, you'd get charged with what's called 'Unsafe storage' when you become the victim of a crime.
It's all part of our current governing Party's master plan to remove private ownership of firearms. Have several cases where reason prevailed though, but it still cost the guy(one of who I know) thousands of dollars to win.
And it's lawyers who get elected to office that are the reason for stupid laws. Not all lawyers. Then throw in unelected civil servants being allowed to make laws by regulation.
Like kraigwy says, it's about kids getting access to daddy's toys. Seems to me there was an incident just recently where a kid killed another(a sibling as I recall) while playing with a firearm that wasn't secure. Up to you to prevent this kind of tragedy. It doesn't take much to put a lock on a closet door.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 45_auto

....Where does it say anything about a "very high standard of care"?

I read it as "as a matter of law, the owner of a firearm has a duty to the general public to use and to store the firearm in a safe and prudent manner"(your bold), consistent with the surrounding circumstances.....

It helps to read the whole thing, not just what's emphasized.

So let's try again with different emphasis, Estate of Strever v. Cline, 278 Mont. 165 (Mont., 1995), at 174 -- 175 (emphasis added):

...A firearm, particularly one that is loaded or has ammunition in close proximity, is considered a dangerous instrumentality and therefore requires a higher degree of care in its use or handling. This concept is set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides:

Care required. The care required is always reasonable care. This standard never varies, but the care which it is reasonable to require of the actor varies with the danger involved in his act, and is proportionate to it. The greater the danger, the greater the care which must be exercised.

As in all cases where the reasonable character of the actor's conduct is in question, its utility is to be weighed against the magnitude of the risk which it involves. [Citation omitted.] The amount of attention and caution required varies with the magnitude of the harm likely to be done if care is not exercised, and with the utility of the act. Therefore, if the act has little or no social value and is likely to cause any serious harm, it is reasonable to require close attention and caution. So too, if the act involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm, and particularly if it is capable of causing such results to a number of persons, the highest attention and caution are required even if the act has a very considerable utility. Thus those who deal with firearms ... are required to exercise the closest attention and the most careful precautions, not only in preparing for their use but in using them....

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 298 cmt. b (1965).

Accordingly, given the foreseeability of the risk involved in the improper and unsafe use and storage of a firearm; given the strong policy considerations favoring safe and prudent use and storage; and on the basis of the law as set forth in §§ 1-1-204, 27-1-701 and 28-1-201, MCA, our decisions in Limberhand, Maguire, Phillips, Mang and Busta and the above referred to standards of care set forth in Prosser and Keeton on Torts and in comment b to § 298 of the Restatement, we hold that, as a matter of law, the owner of a firearm has a duty to the general public to use and to store the firearm in a safe and prudent manner taking into consideration the type of firearm, whether it is loaded or unloaded, whether the ammunition is in close proximity or easily attainable, and the location and circumstances of its use and storage.

Because we conclude that Susanj owed a legal duty to the general public to store his firearm and ammunition in a manner consistent with this standard of care,...

Originally Posted by 45_auto

...Depending upon the specific situation, it could easily be found that storing a loaded shotgun under the bed would be "safe and prudent"....

Really now!

Originally Posted by 45_auto

...we have no idea of the circumstances leading to the guilty verdict.....

What guilty verdict? It was a civil case.

[ShootistPRS]

I suggest that having your gun on is not safe from capture by someone else. It happens all the time. Most cops that die from gunshot are shot by their own gun.
You should keep all guns in a safe with the ammunition locked in a different safe at least 30 feet away.

OK, I have heard that BS and none of my guns are in a safe. When children visit we keep an eye on them and their parents keep an eye on them. If you can't be mature enough to be aware of what is going on around you then you should have your guns in a safe.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by ShootistPRS

...If you can't be mature enough to be aware of what is going on around you then you should have your guns in a safe.

So every time a kid has found an unsecured gun and injured himself or someone else it was the immaturity of the gun owner failing to be aware of everything that was going on in the house?

It's also possible that the "immaturity" of the gun owner is reflected not by his inattention, but rather by his refusal to make the effort to secure the gun from unauthorized access.

[ShootistPRS]

Frank,
I raised 4 of my own and I was engaged with them when I was home. When the grand kids came over I was engaged with them. When my great grand kids are over I engage with them. We do things together. You have to actively ignore a child for him/her to get a gun and injure them selves or others.
When my kids showed interest in the guns around the house we talked about it, I showed then how to clear the gun before doing anything else. When they realize that its just a tool like any other and you have to clear it before you can handle it the fascination wears off and they lose interest until they are big enough to fire it. Then we go to the range and they learn to load the guns and how to aim and trigger control and all the stuff that goes into shooting small groups. In short, if a child it brought up learning how guns are properly handled on their time scale there is no fascination in them. The problem is that some parents ignore their children. They ignore the child's education and recreation. It's inconvenient to get involved with their children. I was involved with my kids . I'm involved with my great grandkids. We do things together. There is no TV or X-box so we spend time making things or working in my shop. They like working in the garden a little and learning how to prepare a meal. If more people were parents to their children -
Let me put it this way; in four generations we have not had any negligent discharges or gun accidents. Maybe my family is just lucky or maybe education is better than ignorance. Maybe being the biggest part of your growing child's life is better than letting tv and game-boy be the influence that you should be.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by ShootistPRS

....I raised 4 of my own and I was engaged with them when I was home. When the grand kids came over I was engaged with them. When my great grand kids are over I engage with them. We do things together.....

Good for you. But I stand by my comments.

One's personal, unique experience is not a sound basis for a categorical, general statement such as you made. And it is irresponsible to suggest that because of your good fortune only someone who is immature needs to bother securing his guns from unauthorized access.

[TailGator]

I agree that there are a lot of positives with being in your kids' lives and sharing experiences with them. I agree completely that kids should be educated about guns. I disagree with the implication that complete supervision of children 24/7 is possible. I am sure you slept, and I rather imagine that you did things like mow the yard and clean out gutters, and you very likely took a shower at least occasionally. I know I did, and my guns were under lock and key at those times, even though my kids understood gun safety.