On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 20:34:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

===

Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to
think that a new law or two will change that.


How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns?

It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check
and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody.

No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights".

===

There is quite a lot of evidence to show that law enforcement officers
almost never try to trace the chain of custody with a murder weapon.
Their primary focus, as it should be, is on apprehending the
perpetrator and any accomplices.

Registration of all firearms is the first step down the slippery slope
of taxation, regulation and confiscation. It would also create a
nation of law breakers. Be careful what you ask for, and do not
always assume that government has your best interests at heart.

On 6/30/2015 9:03 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 20:34:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

===

Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to
think that a new law or two will change that.


How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns?

It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check
and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody.

No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights".

===

There is quite a lot of evidence to show that law enforcement officers
almost never try to trace the chain of custody with a murder weapon.
Their primary focus, as it should be, is on apprehending the
perpetrator and any accomplices.

Registration of all firearms is the first step down the slippery slope
of taxation, regulation and confiscation. It would also create a
nation of law breakers. Be careful what you ask for, and do not
always assume that government has your best interests at heart.



Could it be that law enforcement doesn't bother tracing the chain of
custody simply because there isn't one?

I understand the slippery slope concerns but I am not a believer that
confiscation is in the cards ... other than for those who obtain
firearms illegally and without undergoing a background check. That's
the whole point.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:24:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I understand the slippery slope concerns but I am not a believer that
confiscation is in the cards ... other than for those who obtain
firearms illegally and without undergoing a background check. That's
the whole point.

===

Confiscation always starts with a single step and it has happened
elsewhere in the recent past. We're not immune unfortunately.

What makes you think that the owners of illegal firearms will
register? They're already criminals and one more law to them is
nothing. If you think the war on drugs is impossible to prosecute,
try starting a war on guns. Even the good guys will fight that, and
the good guys will be the only ones impacted.

On 6/30/2015 10:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:24:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I understand the slippery slope concerns but I am not a believer that
confiscation is in the cards ... other than for those who obtain
firearms illegally and without undergoing a background check. That's
the whole point.

===

Confiscation always starts with a single step and it has happened
elsewhere in the recent past. We're not immune unfortunately.

What makes you think that the owners of illegal firearms will
register? They're already criminals and one more law to them is
nothing. If you think the war on drugs is impossible to prosecute,
try starting a war on guns. Even the good guys will fight that, and
the good guys will be the only ones impacted.




I don't think universal background checks and gun registration will cure
all ills overnight. It's a start though. As years go by guns will
become more difficult to obtain by people who shouldn't or are not
permitted to legally own one.

All the gun owners that I know agree that controlling access
to firearms in their homes is part of being a responsible gun owner.
Comments have been made that a person who leaves a gun out and available
to someone who commits a crime or homicide with it shares in the blame
for the commitment of the crime. Responsible gun owners keep them
locked up in a gun safe when not in use. It seems to me that the
responsibility extends and continues to where that gun ends up when
sold or transferred. It doesn't make sense that a gun owner is
responsible while it is in his or her possession but all bets are off
when they transfer or sell it with no qualification or records kept of
the subsequent owners.

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).

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 04:56:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/30/2015 10:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:24:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I understand the slippery slope concerns but I am not a believer that
confiscation is in the cards ... other than for those who obtain
firearms illegally and without undergoing a background check. That's
the whole point.

===

Confiscation always starts with a single step and it has happened
elsewhere in the recent past. We're not immune unfortunately.

What makes you think that the owners of illegal firearms will
register? They're already criminals and one more law to them is
nothing. If you think the war on drugs is impossible to prosecute,
try starting a war on guns. Even the good guys will fight that, and
the good guys will be the only ones impacted.




I don't think universal background checks and gun registration will cure
all ills overnight. It's a start though. As years go by guns will
become more difficult to obtain by people who shouldn't or are not
permitted to legally own one.

All the gun owners that I know agree that controlling access
to firearms in their homes is part of being a responsible gun owner.
Comments have been made that a person who leaves a gun out and available
to someone who commits a crime or homicide with it shares in the blame
for the commitment of the crime. Responsible gun owners keep them
locked up in a gun safe when not in use. It seems to me that the
responsibility extends and continues to where that gun ends up when
sold or transferred. It doesn't make sense that a gun owner is
responsible while it is in his or her possession but all bets are off
when they transfer or sell it with no qualification or records kept of
the subsequent owners.

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).




===

People who live in the boondocks need to have a firearm readily
available for personal protection. When seconds count, the police
are minutes away (or sometimes a lot more). It is entirely
unreasonable to expect them to keep all guns in a safe.

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?

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.

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.