iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:11:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:21:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The permit is issued yearly based on an inspection of the stables, barn,
and grounds by the animal control inspector. She checks to ensure
sanitary and safe conditions for both the horse(s) and that may visit in
the barn area.

Is that any different than home inspections for the safe storage of
firearms?

===

Yes, big difference, unless your stable is also your dwelling.

Inspecting the interior of a home except at the time of construction
or renovation generally requires a search warrant and probable cause,
and that's the way it should stay unless you want to roll the clock
back to colonial times and British rule. It's another example of
northeastern nanny state mentality run amok.

Yeah, what he said.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

It's the GOP that doesn't want progress.....

Progress? Maybe all progress is not good. Illegal search was very
important to the Founders of this country.

On 11/13/13, 12:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/13/13, 7:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/13/2013 7:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/13/13, 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote:


The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this
would be acceptable is
unfathomable.


John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable
cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal
is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit
to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally
own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun
permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home
ahead of time.

If there is a local law requiring guns to be locked up safely, how is
that law to be enforced?

Here's an idea:

If you have a gun and it is supposed to be locked and a kid gets his
hands on it and shoots himself or someone else, *you* go to prison.

Or, if someone steals a firearm and you don't report it right away, you
go to prison.



Those are already distinct possibilities. You can be charged for
negligence and for not storing the firearms in the prescribed manner by
law.

This will **** off the Tea Party types here, but I would not object to
an inspection of my firearm storage. If a cop knocked on the door
right now and asked if I voluntarily agreed to him coming in and
checking how my guns are stored, I'd say, "Come on in".




I don't have any problem with such an inspection, either. There are no
kids running around here, and all but one home defense weapon are locked
up in a safe. We don't get many doorbell ringers around here, other than
UPS/FEDEX and the Sunday church ladies, and I always peek on the video
monitor before I open the door anyway. Anyone breaking in at night meets Mr. 12 Gauge.


Paranoid, or you live in a high crime district.


I have video cams around the exterior. Nothing paranoid about that.

What's paranoid about greeting someone breaking in at night with a 12 gauge?



--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 11/13/13, 1:22 PM, Charlemagne wrote:
On 11/13/2013 12:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:11:25 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:21:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The permit is issued yearly based on an inspection of the stables,
barn,
and grounds by the animal control inspector. She checks to ensure
sanitary and safe conditions for both the horse(s) and that may
visit in
the barn area.

Is that any different than home inspections for the safe storage of
firearms?

===

Yes, big difference, unless your stable is also your dwelling.

Inspecting the interior of a home except at the time of construction
or renovation generally requires a search warrant and probable cause,
and that's the way it should stay unless you want to roll the clock
back to colonial times and British rule. It's another example of
northeastern nanny state mentality run amok.

Yeah, what he said.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

It's the GOP that doesn't want progress.....

Progress? Maybe all progress is not good. Illegal search was very
important to the Founders of this country.


Really, when did "progress" start to mean, go back 400 years???


Wow...you really did skip through a lot of school.

2013 - 1776 = 237 years.

And, actually, "progress" goes back to the beginning, either 6,000 years
ago if you are a stuporstitious bible-thumper, or much much farther if
you are not.

You know what progress is, right? It's the opposite of what you believe:
regress.



--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:57:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/13/2013 7:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/13/13, 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote:


The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this
would be acceptable is
unfathomable.


John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable
cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal
is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit
to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally
own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun
permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home
ahead of time.

If there is a local law requiring guns to be locked up safely, how is
that law to be enforced?

Here's an idea:

If you have a gun and it is supposed to be locked and a kid gets his
hands on it and shoots himself or someone else, *you* go to prison.

Or, if someone steals a firearm and you don't report it right away, you
go to prison.



Those are already distinct possibilities. You can be charged for
negligence and for not storing the firearms in the prescribed manner by law.

This will **** off the Tea Party types here, but I would not object to
an inspection of my firearm storage. If a cop knocked on the door
right now and asked if I voluntarily agreed to him coming in and
checking how my guns are stored, I'd say, "Come on in".



I am not sure I would trust just any cop who knocked on my door

When I got my original machine gun stamp I did have an undersheriff
(2d in command for Lee County) make an appointment to interview my
wife and I and look at my gun safe.

I don't trust cops in general. Now days that have WAY too much power.
Probable cause is a joke, so that makes search and seizure a joke. The
stupid war on drugs has caused a big problem with planting evidence,
they get a lot of revenue that way, when they can just take your car,
boat, plane etc. You'd better have plenty of lawyer money, because they
can make your life hell and it can cost you a LOT to get your name
cleared.

In article 14377863406053108.919177bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:11:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:21:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The permit is issued yearly based on an inspection of the stables, barn,
and grounds by the animal control inspector. She checks to ensure
sanitary and safe conditions for both the horse(s) and that may visit in
the barn area.

Is that any different than home inspections for the safe storage of
firearms?

===

Yes, big difference, unless your stable is also your dwelling.

Inspecting the interior of a home except at the time of construction
or renovation generally requires a search warrant and probable cause,
and that's the way it should stay unless you want to roll the clock
back to colonial times and British rule. It's another example of
northeastern nanny state mentality run amok.

Yeah, what he said.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

It's the GOP that doesn't want progress.....

Progress? Maybe all progress is not good. Illegal search was very
important to the Founders of this country.

So was witch hunting.

In article , says...

On 11/13/2013 12:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:11:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:21:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The permit is issued yearly based on an inspection of the stables, barn,
and grounds by the animal control inspector. She checks to ensure
sanitary and safe conditions for both the horse(s) and that may visit in
the barn area.

Is that any different than home inspections for the safe storage of
firearms?

===

Yes, big difference, unless your stable is also your dwelling.

Inspecting the interior of a home except at the time of construction
or renovation generally requires a search warrant and probable cause,
and that's the way it should stay unless you want to roll the clock
back to colonial times and British rule. It's another example of
northeastern nanny state mentality run amok.

Yeah, what he said.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

It's the GOP that doesn't want progress.....

Progress? Maybe all progress is not good. Illegal search was very
important to the Founders of this country.


Really, when did "progress" start to mean, go back 400 years???

WTF are you yammering about now, you insane little dolt?

On 11/13/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:58:49 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

There are several of those cases working their way through the court
as we speak.


Florida? $25 fine, right?

2d degree misdemeanor
$500 and 60 days in jail for the first offense, if there are no other
charges present.

If you knowingly provided a weapon to a minor or anyone else who was
prohibited from having one you can get up into felony territory.



Here's the law in MA:

Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm,
rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons,
or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked
container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other
safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable
by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.
For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or
kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully
authorized user.

(b) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a
firearm, rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon, by a fine
of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not
more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and in the
case of a large capacity weapon or machine gun, by a fine of not less
than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than
one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.


That's just for them finding out you didn't secure them as required.

In article ,
says...

On 11/13/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:58:49 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

There are several of those cases working their way through the court
as we speak.


Florida? $25 fine, right?

2d degree misdemeanor
$500 and 60 days in jail for the first offense, if there are no other
charges present.

If you knowingly provided a weapon to a minor or anyone else who was
prohibited from having one you can get up into felony territory.



Here's the law in MA:

Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm,
rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons,
or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked
container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other
safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable
by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.
For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or
kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully
authorized user.

(b) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a
firearm, rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon, by a fine
of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not
more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and in the
case of a large capacity weapon or machine gun, by a fine of not less
than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than
one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.


That's just for them finding out you didn't secure them as required.

The last sentence in (a) gives you an easy out.

Man...you guys in Massachusetts are practically Canadians.
Congratulations.

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:39:49 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

Probable cause is a joke

===

When they can search you or your car because a dog barked, I tend to
agree. I cringe when I see LEA K-9 dogs going up and down the waiting
area in airports sniffing out carry on luggage.