On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:41:55 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/1/2015 7:19 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:56:32 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


If a gun is stolen from my house, I would share the responsibility if it
was not kept in a locked safe (as required by law).

Why? The gun was in your possession, inside of your home. A crime was committed (breaking and entering, burglary), and the gun was taken from you by a criminal. If your car is stolen from your garage and the perp kills a pedestrian with it, you aren't held responsible. Why would you be for a stolen gun?

See how twisted the laws have already become?



Believe it or not there are many states that (by law) require firearms
that are not being used to be stored in a safe or otherwise locked.
You may argue that the safe or the trigger lock is nothing but a minor
inconvenience to a burglar but you can be held responsible if it can be
proven that you did not properly store the firearm as required. MA is
one of those states.

You live in SC right? I'll betcha all the guns, rifles and shotguns
in your local police station that are not in current use are not just
laying around. They are locked up.

You misread my post. I completely understand that some states have this law. I was expressing why I believe the law is wrong. It was a step towards making the act of owning a gun so onerous that most would not want to.

Don't get me wrong... I'm in favor (and I practice) keeping guns in a safe location when not in use. Especially when there are children in the household. But in an adult only household where both can safely handle a gun, it should be *legal* to keep one or more within quick and easy access, without fear of being held liable in the case you become a *victim* of a robbery.

The police station argument doesn't really work. Their excess may be secured, but they're all walking around with one on their belt.