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.

On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote:
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.



There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having
a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in
control of it and who has access to it.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:35:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote:
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.



There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having
a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in
control of it and who has access to it.


Again, go fix the behavior of those committing all the homicides. Once that's done,
come back and institute a bureaucracy to track paperwork.

--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

On 7/1/2015 10:05 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:35:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote:
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.



There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having
a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in
control of it and who has access to it.


Again, go fix the behavior of those committing all the homicides. Once that's done,
come back and institute a bureaucracy to track paperwork.



I don't know how to cure criminal behavior. I'd just like to make it
more difficult for them to have guns.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:09:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 7/1/2015 10:05 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:35:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote:
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.



There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having
a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in
control of it and who has access to it.


Again, go fix the behavior of those committing all the homicides. Once that's done,
come back and institute a bureaucracy to track paperwork.



I don't know how to cure criminal behavior. I'd just like to make it
more difficult for them to have guns.


Let's suppose I'm not one who gives a **** about the law or who owns guns. I decide
to sell my guns to some gangsta from downtown. The law says I have to complete
paperwork and have a background check run on the guy. But, I'm playing honey badger -
not giving a **** about the law, so I sell four or five guns I've legally obtained
and make a killing moneywise.

Knowing those guns could be used to commit crime, and that they could be traced back
to me, I call the cops. I tell the cops my house was broken into and my guns were
stolen. They ask if they were secured. I say, "Hell yes, the crooks took the whole
safe."

Now what???

Your paperwork bureaucracy has been foiled again.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 9:35:54 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote:
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.


There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having
a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in
control of it and who has access to it.

So I can have one stashed out of sight, loaded and ready, and I don't have to retrieve it and place it in the safe when I go to the store for a gallon of milk? And if my home is burglarized while I'm gone I won't be held liable if it's stolen? That's great!

Oh, but that's not what you mean. From my understanding, in your state you would be held responsible for a criminal's actions if you did what I described above. That is unreasonable in my opinion. I believe that when my weapon is in my locked home, on my property, it is under my control whether I am physically present or not. My home is my "safe", and no one has access to it's contents without breaking the law. Your state's laws concerning that issue and firearms are onerous, IMO.

On 7/1/2015 11:44 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 9:35:54 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote:
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.


There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having
a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in
control of it and who has access to it.

So I can have one stashed out of sight, loaded and ready, and I don't have to retrieve it and place it in the safe when I go to the store for a gallon of milk? And if my home is burglarized while I'm gone I won't be held liable if it's stolen? That's great!

Oh, but that's not what you mean. From my understanding, in your state you would be held responsible for a criminal's actions if you did what I described above. That is unreasonable in my opinion. I believe that when my weapon is in my locked home, on my property, it is under my control whether I am physically present or not. My home is my "safe", and no one has access to it's contents without breaking the law. Your state's laws concerning that issue and firearms are onerous, IMO.



If onerous, 27 other states have similar law so MA is not alone in it's
onerousness. 28 states have safe storage laws ... primarily to protect
children. South Carolina is not one of them .... yet.