PDA

View Full Version : Securing unattended firearms


Hogstir
01-06-2013, 8:51 AM
One of the things being pushed by the anti's is requiring a locking device on all unattended firearms. I believe the secure storage of firearms is something we can all agree on. Most of us were appalled by the fact that despite having a mentally disturbed son, Nancy Lanza apparently chose to keep her firearms unsecured.
Perhaps we could take a positive approach by having our reps propose a onetime tax credit for anyone purchasing a firearms safe.
What think you gents?

TeddyBallgame
01-06-2013, 9:07 AM
i don't...i want access, and, i want it on my terms to save my life...not someone else's terms...i sleep at night with my handgun right by my side, and, 4 more, fully loaded, and, ready, in my safe

my "unattended firearms" are already in a safe, I see no reason to disable them even further, as such with another locking device, giving a perp some advantage, if it ever came down to needing immediate access...remember, even an "unattended firearm" can become a desperately NEEDED firearm in a heartbeat

Rusty Scabbard
01-06-2013, 9:17 AM
I agree. I support regulations that may help reduce these national tragedies and does not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens or weaken the second amendment. If 'our side' would suggest and support sensible legislation, we would be much more difficult to paint into corners and dismiss as is being done in the current national debate. I think if a citizen can afford $700 or more for an evil black rifle, which they absolutely have rights to own and possess, then they should be obligated to provide a means of secure storage. COSTCO has pretty darn good safes for just about the same amount of money.

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 9:19 AM
A firearms safe would be considered a locking device. I wasn't suggesting you would need a locking device for firearms already locked in a safe. I would rather see the govt encouraging safe storage rather than demand everyone purchase a safe.

LibertyDeath
01-06-2013, 9:27 AM
I don't have an unattended firearm. If it isn't next or on my person it is locked up. If it is next to me it is not unattended. That is because I have small children that are too young to understand what a gun does. My older children know to NEVER touch my guns, but I will be teaching them to shoot sometime soon.

adrenaline
01-06-2013, 9:37 AM
If some people store guns in hidden easy to access (for them not children) areas (for their own protection), should they now move all of them to a safe? What if I have a secured/hidden room in the house....will legislation account for that or does it need to be a safe? If children getting access to firearms is the issue, should we not allow our children access to our safe? What age doe we restrict it at? What if one child at 10 years old is more responsible with firearms than most adults?

How about 12 years old?

VPfz7ENFUB0

Gun control....may prevent the rare occurrence of a bad thing...but more more than likely....will prevent the more common occurrence of a good thing.

My 2 cents.

LoneYote
01-06-2013, 9:45 AM
I think if a citizen can afford $700 or more for an evil black rifle, which they absolutely have rights to own and possess, then they should be obligated to provide a means of secure storage. COSTCO has pretty darn good safes for just about the same amount of money.

Every time I buy a firearm I have to either buy a lock or sign a safe waiver. Since you show So. Cal as your location I would say the same is likely for you. Fail!

This would be more "feel good" legislation that is in fact not reasonable or helpful. We don't propose laws that require all kitchen knives to be in a locked storage facility off site to prevent the wee ones from accessing the dangerous things. You can not FORCE good decision making on people. She made a bad choice, and may or may not have been a bad parent. Imagine the outrage if the President proposed licenses, background checks, mental evaluations, fees and aptitude tests to reproduce....

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 9:50 AM
If some people store guns in hidden easy to access (for them not children) areas (for their own protection), should they now move all of them to a safe? What if I have a secured/hidden room in the house....will legislation account for that or does it need to be a safe? If children getting access to firearms is the issue, should we not allow our children access to our safe? What age doe we restrict it at? What if one child at 10 years old is more responsible with firearms than most adults?

How about 12 years old?

VPfz7ENFUB0

Gun control....may prevent the rare occurrence of a bad thing...but more more than likely....will prevent the more common occurrence of a good thing.

My 2 cents.

Remember I wasn't advocating for mandatory gun safes, I was suggesting a tax credit to encourage people to purchase one. One of the things the anti's use is that unsecured guns are often stolen by criminals and used for crime. Hidden guns may be secured from children but criminals will often find them.
I keep my guns locked in a safe when we are not home to prevent theft as much as anything else. Trigger locks etc will not prevent theft.

littlejake
01-06-2013, 9:55 AM
It is up to the individual how to secure their firearms. Everyone's situation is different. A single person living alone has a different set of circumstances than a person with children.

It's not the governments place to dictate nor subsidize the method of storage.

adrenaline
01-06-2013, 10:00 AM
Remember I wasn't advocating for mandatory gun safes, I was suggesting a tax credit to encourage people to purchase one. One of the things the anti's use is that unsecured guns are often stolen by criminals and used for crime. Hidden guns may be secured from children but criminals will often find them.
I keep my guns locked in a safe when we are not home to prevent theft as much as anything else. Trigger locks etc will not prevent theft.What if I told you that my firearms are hidden so that even FBI would have a difficult time finding it without some kind of metal detectors. What if I told you that my security is so tight that I have motion sensors throughout?

The point is...the government shouldn't be involved.

You do know theft of firearms in transit is also possible. What if they said you needed to start transporting firearms in armored vehicles as an only means of transport?

speedrrracer
01-06-2013, 10:00 AM
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.


Freedom is a risky thing. A dangerous thing, even.

No one's rights should ever be infringed because of a concern of what "might" happen. Scared? Lock yourself inside a vault.

Unattended firearms never hurt anyone. It's only when they are stolen or used without permission by humans that a problem can result. We already have laws against theft, so make it more illegaler? NO. This is another fallacy. If we accept any measure of responsibility for theft then we are sliding down the slope to elimination of firearms from our society.

Why? Imagine this:

"Adam Lanza 2.0 was able to bypass his mom's Federally-mandated locks because she told him the combo. Senator Douchebag has proposed legislation (to protect us, of course) where only the government would know the combination to your locks, and you'd have to call them on the phone and prove your identity, before being allowed access..."

"Adam Lanza 3.0 was able to acquire his mother's guns by simply cutting into the Federally-required safe with a cutting torch. Senator Douchebag has proposed legislation requiring all guns to be in various secure Federal facilities, and access to them will only be granted directly to the owner..."

"Adam Lanza 4.0 stole dozens of guns from a secure Federal facility. He was working as a janitor for years, planning his theft. Senator Douchebag has proposed legislation to destroy all firearms immediately..."

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 10:02 AM
It is up to the individual how to secure their firearms. Everyone's situation is different. A single person living alone has a different set of circumstances than a person with children.

It's not the governments place to dictate nor subsidize the method of storage.

So you would prefer not to get a tax credit if you decide to purchase a gun safe?

LoneYote
01-06-2013, 10:05 AM
speedrrracer why does the psycho get a specific name and the "big evil" gets just "Douchebag"?

CSACANNONEER
01-06-2013, 10:09 AM
So you would prefer not to get a tax credit if you decide to purchase a gun safe?

I don't want or need the government "helping" me with my firearms in any way! When my minor stepson moved in, I made sure there was a loaded shotgun and handgun in his room and ready to grab if he needed it. I kept his homebuilt AK in the safe only because, he did not need access to it.

Cnynrat
01-06-2013, 10:09 AM
A firearms safe would be considered a locking device. I wasn't suggesting you would need a locking device for firearms already locked in a safe. I would rather see the govt encouraging safe storage rather than demand everyone purchase a safe.

Are you aware that Yee is going to introduce a bill that would require that firearms be kept in a safe, unloaded, with a trigger lock. This is the insanity we face in CA.

Rather than mandating how firearms are stored, I think I'm OK with current provisions for placing responsibility for the consequences of leaving a gun accessible on the gun owner. That leaves each of us free to assess our own situation and develop a strategy tailored to own situation. With just my wife and I living here and no minors present in the home we can have a different storage approach than someone who has a 3 year old running around the house.

speedrrracer
01-06-2013, 10:21 AM
So you would prefer not to get a tax credit if you decide to purchase a gun safe?

I get your point. "Heh heh -- let's get the antis to help fund our safes with taxpayer money"

Disagree.

It's our choice to own guns. No aspect of the responsibility resulting from that choice should involve the government in any way.

Also, our govt is broke enough.

Plus, I'm sick and tired of tax credits, fees and other controls used to influence behavior. The inequity of the tax code is already sufficiently ridiculous without us piling more crap in there.

There's also the question of the breakdown of thefts. From where are most guns actually stolen? What if they're mostly stolen from poor neighborhoods -- would a 25% discount really influence some poor family living paycheck-to-paycheck in Gang Central?

speedrrracer
01-06-2013, 10:23 AM
speedrrracer why does the psycho get a specific name and the "big evil" gets just "Douchebag"?

Touche :)

SuperSet
01-06-2013, 10:26 AM
I'm waiting to hear the official investigation report once it becomes public as to how Lanza got into the safe. From current reports, she made a stupid and fatal mistake by training him even though she was trying to get him involuntarily committed.
It is a right but also a responsibility. As a gunowner, you are responsible for the safety of yourself and others around you.

adrenaline
01-06-2013, 10:28 AM
My simple rule on legislation is...are there responsible people out there that this law would affect in a negative way (with respect to liberty)? If there is at least one, I don't think it is a good idea.

Just my 2 cents.

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 10:29 AM
Ok guys, I suggested a possible way for gun owners WHO CHOOSE to purchase a firearms safe a little financial assistance and you start foaming at the mouth. That attitude and rush to judgement is exactly what the anti's are counting on to make us look like "unreasonable gun nuts". What would it look like if the suggestion was actually made by their side ( to give a tax credit not mandatory) and we reacted like that? I CHOOSE to use a gun safe as many of us do. I never suggested that it should be anything other than a choice.
Adam Lanza's mother CHOOSE to not secure her firearms and that choice was her's to make, unfortunately in her case under her circumstances it appears it was the wrong choice but I do agree it was her choice to make.

Lighten up!

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 10:29 AM
Ok guys, I suggested a possible way for gun owners WHO CHOOSE to purchase a firearms safe a little financial assistance and you start foaming at the mouth. That attitude and rush to judgement is exactly what the anti's are counting on to make us look like "unreasonable gun nuts". What would it look like if the suggestion was actually made by their side ( to give a tax credit not mandatory) and we reacted like that? I CHOOSE to use a gun safe as many of us do. I never suggested that it should be anything other than a choice.
Adam Lanza's mother CHOOSE to not secure her firearms and that choice was her's to make, unfortunately in her case under her circumstances it appears it was the wrong choice but I do agree it was her choice to make.

Lighten up!

HowardW56
01-06-2013, 10:56 AM
One of the things being pushed by the anti's is requiring a locking device on all unattended firearms. I believe the secure storage of firearms is something we can all agree on. Most of us were appalled by the fact that despite having a mentally disturbed son, Nancy Lanza apparently chose to keep her firearms unsecured.
Perhaps we could take a positive approach by having our reps propose a onetime tax credit for anyone purchasing a firearms safe.
What think you gents?


From DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. The District argues that we should interpret this element of the statute to contain an exception for self-defense. See Brief for Petitioners 56–57. But we think that is precluded by the unequivocal text, and by the presence of certain other enumerated exceptions: “Except for law enforcement personnel … , each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.” D. C. Code §7–2507.02. The nonexistence of a self-defense exception is also suggested by the D. C. Court of Appeals’ statement that the statute forbids residents to use firearms to stop intruders, see McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A. 2d 744, 755–756 (1978).28 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#28)

Rusty Scabbard
01-06-2013, 11:06 AM
Are you aware that Yee is going to introduce a bill that would require that firearms be kept in a safe, unloaded, with a trigger lock. This is the insanity we face in CA.

Rather than mandating how firearms are stored, I think I'm OK with current provisions for placing responsibility for the consequences of leaving a gun accessible on the gun owner. That leaves each of us free to assess our own situation and develop a strategy tailored to own situation. With just my wife and I living here and no minors present in the home we can have a different storage approach than someone who has a 3 year old running around the house.

IMHO, Yee, and certainly members of his staff will use any means possible to impede, inconvenience and eventually disarm the public, since disarmament is the goal. His bill(s) are just another swing at this. But secure storage and personal accountability are reasonable expectations of people as you noted. ..I don't mind legislation with this in mind. And, no, this likely would not have prevented any of the past years high profile mass shootings, but it would reduce the black market in guns stolen in burglaries and probably help reduce inner-city and gang related gun crime somewhat.

Cos
01-06-2013, 11:46 AM
Perhaps we could take a positive approach by having our reps propose a onetime tax credit for anyone purchasing a firearms safe.

Perhaps we could take a reasonable approach and leave people to their own means of dealing with their property. Why there's always someone trying to do "the right thing" and let some brown-nose politician to tell you what to do? Do you guys still think it will provide for any good _at all_?

Cos
01-06-2013, 11:47 AM
Perhaps we could take a positive approach by having our reps propose a onetime tax credit for anyone purchasing a firearms safe.

Perhaps we could take a reasonable approach and leave people to their own means of dealing with their property. Why there's always someone trying to do "the right thing" and let some brown-nose politician to tell you what to do? Do you guys still think it will provide for any good _at all_?

Cos
01-06-2013, 11:52 AM
Ok guys, I suggested a possible way for gun owners WHO CHOOSE to purchase a firearms safe a little financial assistance and you start foaming at the mouth. That attitude and rush to judgement ...

Actually, exactly this attitude to "provide "a little financial assistance" brought to the point where you have to report all of your intimate medical details to the tax collectors. Just think of the next logical step about implementation of such a "help". Just think...

Rickrock1
01-06-2013, 11:56 AM
WE DO NOT ALL AGREE AND ANY LAW ABIDING CITIZEN SHOULD NOT AGREE !! We have What would happen if you heard noise in your house and go over to your safe and find armed intruders in front of it and your naked ??

Armed24-7
01-06-2013, 12:09 PM
People who leave firearms around their house without being locked up in a safe when they are not home, are not too bright. Firearms of all types get stolen during residential burglaries at an alarming rate.

In the areas in and around where I work, thugs (the majority of them crip or blood gang members) go to middle class and upper-middle class neighborhoods and pillage homes like crazy. It is so out of control, local law enforcement is nearly powerless to protect homes. The problem is so rampant and the patterns seem completely random. Many burglaries are during the day time when people are at work.

People who refuse to buy a safe and also employ deterrents and security at their homes are just asking to be a victim.

These thugs usually work in teams of 2-4 and they are very efficient about ransacking homes. They even overturn and/or move around heavy furniture looking for heavy items. They usually enter through a back door or window, but are also known to kick in front or side doors.

1) Get a good quality safe to keep firearms and valuables when you are not at home
2) Get a good alarm system for your home
3) Have two or more locking points on all windows and doors
4) Reinforce door frames and install high quality, solid, hardwood or steel doors. I have a steel reinforced door frame. Good luck kicking in my door.
5) Install security film on the inside of windows to prevent intrusion via glass breakage (3M makes an outstanding product and it is affordable).
6) Install cameras around all sides of your house (more of a deterrent)

An alarm system may not prevent a burglary, but it is a good deterrent and it greatly limits the amount of time a burglar will spend inside your home. Cameras are just a deterrent and will not deter all burglars, but they will make many of them think twice.

I saw how good that 3M window film does at a house where I had a burglary call. The burglar(s) tried to get through 2 different windows and a sliding glass door. They failed at all three. The glass was shattered, but they could not get through that 3M security film.

Rusty Scabbard
01-06-2013, 12:09 PM
WE DO NOT ALL AGREE AND ANY LAW ABIDING CITIZEN SHOULD NOT AGREE !! We have What would happen if you heard noise in your house and go over to your safe and find armed intruders in front of it and your naked ??

Not sure where you read the suggestion that your arms had to be locked in the safe while your in the shower or otherwise wandering around naked in your house. I certainly don't understand why creating straw man arguments to debate issues among ourselves helps anything. Support for laws that actually could help things in our country may make it more difficult for the Feinstein disarmament crowd to steamroll their legislative agenda through congress.

HowardW56
01-06-2013, 12:20 PM
Not sure where you read the suggestion that your arms had to be locked in the safe while your in the shower or otherwise wandering around naked in your house. I certainly don't understand why creating straw man arguments to debate issues among ourselves helps anything. Support for laws that actually could help things in our country may make it more difficult for the Feinstein disarmament crowd to steamroll their legislative agenda through congress.

What makes you think that it is ok for the state to mandate anything within your home.

The last time any agency saw the inside of my home, was final building inspection... Otherwise, get a warrant...

BayAreaScott
01-06-2013, 12:43 PM
I'm with the poster on this. A National high-profile "Lock em up" program sponsored by the NRA and enthusiastic gun owners would go a long ways. Securing in a safe, locking device or other is just plain common sense for 90% of all of us. Yes, there are situations where having immediate access to your gun is a necessity but that isn't what we are talking about. Neither is the fact that a big *** hammer will open many of the safes. What we are talking about is caputuring some positive press with something that already is law in many states (including Connecticut) with a high PR program to lock em up.

Logic, reality nor anything else apply in this current climate. Something like this would be proactive and capture some of the news cycle time.

Just my .02 cents worth

CCWFacts
01-06-2013, 12:47 PM
They have fast-access biometric safes. These are a really good idea for securing unattended firearms. Anyone who lives in a home with children or visitors should have one of these. It's very cheap insurance to prevent a tragedy from happening. Requiring secured storage of unattended arms would certainly pass 2A scrutiny under the Heller ruling.

If they're going to pass gun control laws, safe storage laws for unattended guns is something I would easily accept. It's constitutional and a good idea.

BayAreaScott
01-06-2013, 12:59 PM
[QUOTE=CCWFacts;10127500]They have fast-access biometric safes. QUOTE]

Yup, I own two of them. They work rather well

Rickrock1
01-06-2013, 1:06 PM
I can totally understand locking your arms up when your not at home But that should be your choice not the Goverments. What I was refering to when saying naked is being without you fire arm. We cant just roll over and allow big brother to tell us how to run our lives. unfortunately Californians have already started to roll over and its not good to show weeknes. Remember how terrified we were and what happened with the Brady bill, restrictions and bans in CA. Now you have CA leaders influencing the rest of our country and Mr Obama and Biden.

Rickrock1
01-06-2013, 1:07 PM
I can totally understand locking your arms up when your not at home But that should be your choice not the Goverments. What I was refering to when saying naked is being without you fire arm. We cant just roll over and allow big brother to tell us how to run our lives. unfortunately Californians have already started to roll over and its not good to show weeknes. Remember how terrified we were and what happened with the Brady bill, restrictions and bans in CA. Now you have CA leaders influencing the rest of our country and Obama and Biden.

adrenaline
01-06-2013, 1:41 PM
If the main reason for support of this is theft, what are the minimal requirements for a safe. Bolted down? What then with transport theft....those of us with CCW/LTC permits that leave it in the car? Safe in car? Bolted to car?

scrubb
01-06-2013, 1:51 PM
One of the things being pushed by the anti's is requiring a locking device on all unattended firearms. I believe the secure storage of firearms is something we can all agree on. Most of us were appalled by the fact that despite having a mentally disturbed son, Nancy Lanza apparently chose to keep her firearms unsecured.
Perhaps we could take a positive approach by having our reps propose a onetime tax credit for anyone purchasing a firearms safe.
What think you gents?

No way....my house my rules! I should be able to keep a loaded gun right on the kitchen table if I want to. Yee's bill wants us to trigger lock all of our guns, and put them in a safe. Hang on Mr badguy while I unlock my safe and my trigger lock. No thanks!

I will add that I am not against safes, and they can be a good idea, but I am against anymore government intervention into my daily life.

scrubb
01-06-2013, 2:04 PM
The point is...the government shouldn't be involved.

Yes, exactly.


You do know theft of firearms in transit is also possible. What if they said you needed to start transporting firearms in armored vehicles as an only means of transport?

For those that think this statement is ridiculous.....go look at some of the outrageous bills coming out recently (confiscation, ban on all semi autos, yearly registration, banning all but muskets, etc...). If the craziest libs had their way in CA you would not be able to own anything more dangerous than a wrist rocket....and even that you would have to register. All I am saying is becareful what you wish for (or suggest) as the most extreme case might not be far off.

SuperSet
01-06-2013, 2:13 PM
Theft and child access to guns is serious and prevalent. I can tell from Armed24-7's post that he's had some experience with it so I'd urge anyone to re-read his post.
Before there's talk about yet another government regulation, we shouldn't underestimate the impact of a national PSA about securing your guns, straw purchases and keeping them out of the hands of the criminals and the mentally insane. I've seen more talk of the dangers of second hand smoke and turbulence than anything gun related, which further adds to the sense of alienation for the gunowner.

RugerFan777
01-06-2013, 2:25 PM
One of the things being pushed by the anti's is requiring a locking device on all unattended firearms. I believe the secure storage of firearms is something we can all agree on. Most of us were appalled by the fact that despite having a mentally disturbed son, Nancy Lanza apparently chose to keep her firearms unsecured.
Perhaps we could take a positive approach by having our reps propose a onetime tax credit for anyone purchasing a firearms safe.
What think you gents?

"Hmm mister criminal can you wait a few minutes to get my gun out the gun safe and then another few minutes to take my trigger lock off"

see how stupid that is

2glock3
01-06-2013, 2:28 PM
So if an intruder breaks in I have to say time out. This would give me time to get my weapon out of the safe, unlock it, and load it. Then I say time in and go to town. No thanks.

HowardW56
01-06-2013, 2:32 PM
From DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

"Hmm mister criminal can you wait a few minutes to get my gun out the gun safe and then another few minutes to take my trigger lock off"

see how stupid that is


From DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. The District argues that we should interpret this element of the statute to contain an exception for self-defense. See Brief for Petitioners 56–57. But we think that is precluded by the unequivocal text, and by the presence of certain other enumerated exceptions: “Except for law enforcement personnel … , each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.” D. C. Code §7–2507.02. The nonexistence of a self-defense exception is also suggested by the D. C. Court of Appeals’ statement that the statute forbids residents to use firearms to stop intruders, see McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A. 2d 744, 755–756 (1978).28 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#28)

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 2:39 PM
What makes you think that it is ok for the state to mandate anything within your home.

The last time any agency saw the inside of my home, was final building inspection... Otherwise, get a warrant...

How many times do I have to reiterate the same point. A safe would used to lock up firearms WHEN YOU ARE NOT AT HOME!
I also made it very clear that this was to be a person's personal choice not a govt mandate.
I am well aware of the Heller decision.
Nobody suggested in anyway shape or form that you MUST keep firearms in a safe or otherwise secured when you are there or even if you're not. The govt gives tax credits for lots of things ie solar panels. Would you refuse the credit if you were going to get solar panels?

Rickrock1
01-06-2013, 2:43 PM
If we continue to allow these goons to continue to regualte what we do, what we drink etc before you know it we will all be rideing on bikes and drinking diet water less that 10 ozs per day. Our Goverment does not know which way is up right now and they want to regualate us more.They need to get their house in order first and regualte it ! People We can't just keep rolling over and over.

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 2:55 PM
If we continue to allow these goons to continue to regualte what we do, what we drink etc before you know it we will all be rideing on bikes and drinking diet water less that 10 ozs per day. Our Goverment does not know which way is up right now and they want to regualate us more.They need to get their house in order first and regualte it ! People We can't just keep rolling over and over.

How is simply encouraging people to keep their firearms in a safe WHEN THEY ARE NOT HOME by allowing a tax credit for the purchase of one "regulating" anything? There are a lot of firearm owners who cannot afford a safe but would like one.
I keep a firearm handy at all times when I am home, but lock them up when I go to work or out of town. I do the same with my professional camera equip. I do not want them stolen.
I do not believe nor have I ever suggested that locking them up should be mandatory.

adrenaline
01-06-2013, 3:07 PM
You've heard the stories of safes that aren't bolted down getting lifted. So what is the requirements then? What about some who can't afford a large safe bolted down. Is now securing a prerequisite to the right to bear arms? What about arms in vehicles left unattended? Locked....yes that is reasonable. However, do we need safes in cars now? Cars can get jacked. Bolted safe to the frame of the car? Where do you stop with these unattended requirements? Biometric locks on the gun?

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 3:16 PM
You've heard the stories of safes that aren't bolted down getting lifted. So what is the requirements then? What about some who can't afford a large safe bolted down. Is now securing a prerequisite to the right to bear arms? What about arms in vehicles left unattended? Locked....yes that is reasonable. However, do we need safes in cars now? Cars can get jacked. Bolted safe to the frame of the car? Where do you stop with these unattended requirements? Biometric locks on the gun?

Where did I suggest it should be a requirement? It's a personal choice.

"Choice" consists of the mental process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one or more of them.

GET IT? A personal choice not a "requirement".

Moonshine
01-06-2013, 4:15 PM
This is just another fine example of mainstream Americas pronatal policies. Yes 99% of people have children, I don't so why should I have to conform and live life as if I did? I store my guns in a safe bolted into the floor while I'm off my property isn't that good enough? When I'm home I will store them where I want.

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 4:25 PM
This is just another fine example of mainstream Americas pronatal policies. Yes 99% of people have children, I don't so why should I have to conform and live life as if I did? I store my guns in a safe bolted into the floor while I'm off my property isn't that good enough? When I'm home I will store them where I want.

I agree. Remember the suggested tax credit doesn't mean you are accepting govt money. Rather you will be giving that much less of your money to them and getting something you want instead. If a safe is not something you want it's your choice.

scrubb
01-06-2013, 5:56 PM
What if someone lives on the second/third floor without an elevator? What if there is no where to bolt it to?

What about this guy (see below) that had his large safe robbed? A criminal could saw thru in mins with power tools. Would it be required to lock those up too? What if a requirement of having a gun was to submit to yearly safe inspections by DOJ personnel? When and where would it stop?

gun safe robbed (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=621436&highlight=Safe)

Does the OP really think that a state rep would push for only a tax credit and no requirement? That is living in a fantasy world. They want to restrict, restrict, restrict, force you to do this and that in your own house, and ultimately confiscate. You give and inch and they take a mile.

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 6:10 PM
What if someone lives on the second/third floor without an elevator? What if there is no where to bolt it to?

What about this guy (see below) that had his large safe robbed? A criminal could saw thru in mins with power tools. Would it be required to lock those up too? What if a requirement of having a gun was to submit to yearly safe inspections by DOJ personnel? When and where would it stop?

gun safe robbed (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=621436&highlight=Safe)

Does the OP really think that a state rep would push for only a tax credit and no requirement? That is living in a fantasy world. They want to restrict, restrict, restrict, force you to do this and that in your own house, and ultimately confiscate. You give and inch and they take a mile.

Obviously a safe isn't a viable option for everyone. A safe just makes your firearms safer ( from theft ) nothing is foolproof.
If a requirement of safe inspections was part of the deal or course I would say no way. Don't get ridiculous.
If a pro 2a rep proposed this do you really think he/she would include that?
Hey if you guys think it would be better to have your guns stolen and used in a murder by all means don't lock them up when you're gone. Of course if Adam Lanza's mom had kept hers secured we wouldn't be going thru this ****storm.

scrubb
01-06-2013, 6:21 PM
Obviously a safe isn't a viable option for everyone. A safe just makes your firearms safer ( from theft ) nothing is foolproof.
If a requirement of safe inspections was part of the deal or course I would say no way. Don't get ridiculous.
If a pro 2a rep proposed this do you really think he/she would include that?
Hey if you guys think it would be better to have your guns stolen and used in a murder by all means don't lock them up when you're gone. Of course if Adam Lanza's mom had kept hers secured we wouldn't be going thru this ****storm.

Kids and mental health issues....lock them up or do not have them around I agree. I thinking locking up is a good thing, but left up to our own discretion.

I would not put ANYTHING past a politcian in the post sandyhook era. Illinois was already trying to submit a confiscation bill. New York governor is not against it, and Yee wants us to have ALL guns trigger locked and locked in a safe at all times....AND yearly registration of ALL of your guns. Still think it is too extreme?

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 6:36 PM
Kids and mental health issues....lock them up or do not have them around I agree. I thinking locking up is a good thing, but left up to our own discretion.

I would not put ANYTHING past a politcian in the post sandyhook era. Illinois was already trying to submit a confiscation bill. New York governor is not against it, and Yee wants us to have ALL guns trigger locked and locked in a safe at all times....AND yearly registration of ALL of your guns. Still think it is too extreme?

Yee is an idiot. Heller already struck down the concept that you have to disable your firearms. What would yearly registration accomplish? Either they are registered or they are not. If you are lucky enough to have some that are not, I would not comply.

scrubb
01-06-2013, 6:44 PM
Yee is an idiot. Heller already struck down the concept that you have to disable your firearms. What would yearly registration accomplish? Either they are registered or they are not. If you are lucky enough to have some that are not, I would not comply.

It would let the gov know what guns that the honest people have. Cops would be able to pull up exactly what you have if they are ever called to your house and could come in to "verify" if they are properly stored....if they are not, fines and/or jailtime.

Hogstir
01-06-2013, 6:50 PM
Personally I'm against any registration. It's no business of the govt what legally purchased firearms I have.

scrubb
01-06-2013, 7:06 PM
Personally I'm against any registration. It's no business of the govt what legally purchased firearms I have.

AMEN! Me too!

adrenaline
01-06-2013, 7:07 PM
I agree. Remember the suggested tax credit doesn't mean you are accepting govt money. Rather you will be giving that much less of your money to them and getting something you want instead. If a safe is not something you want it's your choice.Oh I'm all for paying less taxes to the government. However, with this administration do you really think (even if they supported this tax credit) that it will be the end of it. They will seek revenue else where. What if they realize that the tax credit thing isn't a way they want to loose out on revenue? What if....and it isn't crazy with this administration....they say...great idea pro-gun folks. However, let's make it a fine to not have a particular safe. Oh wait...it'll go to the Supreme Court and they'll quickly change the wording...no it isn't a fine. It is a tax. Let's call it the safe storage tax for firearms.

Let's assume most of you agree with this. Then they realize we are bending over for them...we are compromising. Let's start taxing ammunition so we can control guns usage more. How about Chris Rock's $15k rounds?

We already have a spending problem, a debt issue, and violations of liberty with unfair taxation. Yes...even if I don't make more than $450k a year....I still don't think only a certain class of citizen should pay more than the others. Flat tax...across the board. Cut spending.....

Then we'll MAYBE start talking about credits to somehow control PERSONAL CHOICE. Actually screw it....even if the government was in the "black", I don't want them involved. PERIOD. Be a contributor to CGN instead, educate responsibility through gun forums like this.

Moonshine
01-06-2013, 7:09 PM
Ok I'm getting on my soap box and going to say Nancy Lanza is equally at fault. She knew her son was deeply mentally ill... So ill that he was home schooled because he couldn't participate in mainstream society.

WHY ON EARTH would you let such an individual have access to much less practice shooting with a firearm of any kind? That kid shouldn't have even been around a BB gun!

GunnerB
01-06-2013, 7:27 PM
If I recall correctly the police have said she secured them, though details are sketchy as they have sealed the investigation.