Guns, Military Shells Seized From Cohasset Home

[Rob Boudrie]

Did you read the SW affidavit?

I was basing my conclusion of the news report that directly and plainly stated that the warrant was issued because of credible reports of unsecured firearms. As with all news reports, the information could be inaccurate and the actual affidavit could have other stuff the media chose not to report. Such is the limitation of relying on news media.

I did read the search warrant affadavit for the individual who had his car searched because a shell casing was visible on the floor of his car while parked on a college campus. The officer directly, and erroenously, stated that a gun in the car would violate 269-10j. The affadavit also mentioned the driver had a valid LTC. My guess is the magistrate does not bother to verify the police claims as to what the law prohibits.

 

[sieveboy]

Reading between the lines and adding a good dose of speculation, it could be that the guy was developing some degree of Alzheimer's or other dementia, and the guy's adult children (who were not licensed and not "gun people") felt the best course of action was to get the PD involved to help deal with the firearms in the home.

If this scenario is true, what a pathetic group of *******s. All they had to do was call a dealer and take whatever he offered, and save their relative from the stress and humiliation of an arrest.

 

[Dadstoys]

Sadly we need laws to keep people from leaving guns where a child that shouldn't be handling them can get their hands on them. Until people stop giving birth to idiots we will need laws for safe storage of firearms just like we need them for not leaving your kid in a car on a hot day. I do believe that if not for the storage law that there would be more people leaving loaded guns out where kids can access them. If you think it's your right to do just that and you have no responsibility to safely store firearms then we disagree.

I have an idea.
Why don't we pass a law with routine inspections of everyone's home , let's say twice a month.
Let's check gun's , perscription bottles, cleaning supplies , knives , car keys, child safe outlet covers. Let's check your computer too and make sure you haven't been looking at anything the government disapproves of.
How about we have them hang around and make sure you and the bride are keeping the door closed when your getting frisky and that your not too loud that the kiddies might hear and be traumatized.
Do you leave the toilet seat up? Kid could drown you know.
It might be easier if the government just put cameras all over your house for 24/7 monitoring .

Or the easiest solution is that all the government knows best types could just take a nap on some train tracks and let the rest of us live in a normal world again.

 

[Dadstoys]

I always said it was the bullets that killed, not the guns.

It's so much easier to just lock up the ammo.

Then all that would be laying around is basically a bunch of metal pipes.

I don't agree with any laws written about storing your firearms.
It's just another way to take away someones constitutional right.
Which in this state is more like a privilege with a whole mess of loosely worded strings attached!

Your house, your rules!
I will say the same about leaving your firearm in your car.
Why do I have to lock it up inside my locked up vehicle?
The thieves are the problem, not my possessions. Lock them up for taking a firearm!

Now I do believe in locking them up for the safety of those in my home.
Last thing I would want is for someone visiting my house to have access to any without my permission!

Has a criminal or prohibited person ever been charged and actually had jail time added due to a storage violation?

This ^^^^
It's my home , my castle , my F8cking domain.
I busted my ass my whole life to own what I own.
The government has no rights to it no matter what they seem to think.

 

[GPP]

Glenn, would that be a public record?

Would be interesting to know if there is new case law being written by yet another anti-Constitutional assachusetts black-robed activist....

You know what? I honestly dont know. Ive written a metric shit ton of the stupid things, youd think I would have an answer for you, and I dont. In all seriousness, my apologies. I will indeed find out though.

 

[GPP]

I was basing my conclusion of the news report that directly and plainly stated that the warrant was issued because of credible reports of unsecured firearms. As with all news reports, the information could be inaccurate and the actual affidavit could have other stuff the media chose not to report. Such is the limitation of relying on news media.

I did read the search warrant affadavit for the individual who had his car searched because a shell casing was visible on the floor of his car while parked on a college campus. The officer directly, and erroenously, stated that a gun in the car would violate 269-10j. The affadavit also mentioned the driver had a valid LTC. My guess is the magistrate does not bother to verify the police claims as to what the law prohibits.

Wait, so you base your conclusion on information that you acknowlege could be inaccurate?
Kind of just taking the ball and running with it even though you dont know if its the truth or not?

This is %100 the reason I invented the term "Spewdrie".

As far as the magistrates go in regards to issuing SWs, I would be inclined to agree with you to an extent.
Clerk magistrates are not all lawyers, some are, some are not. Personally, I think thats bullshit, I think if youre able to yay or nay me from kicking a door in with your signature, you should have a solid background in criminal and Constitutional law, not just a political connection or a father who was a Suffolk County DA back in the 80s.

Clerk magistrates definitely occupy both ends of the spectrum. I deal with one who is a former defense attorney and is an absolute prick in regards to how youve formed your PC. This is a good thing for me, bad for the suspect. I also deal with one who is the son of a former DA, great guy, smart, but not an attorney. Hes sharp as **** though, and though you cant "sneak" anything by him, he lacks the procedural offal that the other guy harps on. This is both good and bad for me, but better for the suspect.

Unfortunately, many clerk magistrates will sign off on SWs on a marginal affidavit, allowing the police to roll the dice on ultimately having to deal with a savvy defense attorney or a shitty one.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

My solution is simple - if I end up dead, wife is to tell Scrivener to invite all my friends over for a party where the friends will take all the gun stuff, Scriv will see to the paperwork, and they are to be told to leave the reloading room spotless. I do hope they patch the workbench holes where the presses are mounted.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait, so you base your conclusion on information that you acknowlege could be inaccurate?
Kind of just taking the ball and running with it even though you dont know if its the truth or not?

This is %100 the reason I invented the term "Spewdrie".

I have racked my brain to come up with a clever term for Glen, or GPP, but keep coming up dry. For that, I apologize to the NESiverse.

It is common to comment on news reports, and most people doing so do not go into the field or file FOIAs for original source documents before doing so.

When it is obvious one is commenting on a news report, I don't think it is necessary to add the disclaimer "This is of course, based on the assumption that the information as presented in the news report is accurate". In fact, I saw many people comment on Trumps recent actions while relying on media reports and not adding such a disclaimer and nobody is responding with "Were you there? Did you see the gas attack personally? Did you see the cave before the MOAB did its thing?"

he lacks the procedural offal that the other guy harps on. This is both good and bad for me, but better for the suspect.

It depends. I agree with your conclusion for major cases, but disagree for smaller CWOFable misdafelonies with which the courts are known to play fast and loose on procedure.

In the case I am familiar with (read all documents, including the SW). The subject took a CWOF on a storage charge; walked on the 269-10j. If the magistrate had denied the warrant on strict PC grounds, he would never had his car searched; never had legal fees; never been kicked out of the school; never become a PP for a CWOF period. And no, one does not generally pass up a CWOF in favor of a trial under such circumstances, especially when the judge starts with "counsel, I don't want to hear any talk about the warrant".

 

[gamma19]

Sadly we need laws to keep people from leaving guns where a child that shouldn't be handling them can get their hands on them. Until people stop giving birth to idiots we will need laws for safe storage of firearms just like we need them for not leaving your kid in a car on a hot day. I do believe that if not for the storage law that there would be more people leaving loaded guns out where kids can access them. If you think it's your right to do just that and you have no responsibility to safely store firearms then we disagree.

I don't have children, but thanks to those storage laws you whole-heartedly support I have to keep my home defense firearm locked up in a safe while I sleep, costing me valuable time trying to dial in the code to retrieve it if I were to fall victim to a home invasion.

Also, please cite the MGL that specifically prohibits leaving a child alone in a hot car. (Not just child endangerment, a specific statute).

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Also, please cite the MGL that specifically prohibits leaving a child alone in a hot car. (Not just child endangerment, a specific statute).

The gun storage statute is like a law stating your car must be stored in a locked garage in order to prevent someone from stealing it and leaving a child alone in the car on a hot day.

 

[Mike S]

I have an idea.
Why don't we pass a law with routine inspections of everyone's home , let's say twice a month.
Let's check gun's , perscription bottles, cleaning supplies , knives , car keys, child safe outlet covers. Let's check your computer too and make sure you haven't been looking at anything the government disapproves of.
How about we have them hang around and make sure you and the bride are keeping the door closed when your getting frisky and that your not too loud that the kiddies might hear and be traumatized.
Do you leave the toilet seat up? Kid could drown you know.
It might be easier if the government just put cameras all over your house for 24/7 monitoring .

Or the easiest solution is that all the government knows best types could just take a nap on some train tracks and let the rest of us live in a normal world again.

Don't laugh, this was proposed in Marblehead shortly after Newtown, would've been mandatory for all licensed gun owners.

As to the story in the OP, I'm betting it was a cable guy or medical visit that saw the empty artillery shells and reported those. Back before people were conditioned to be scared of guns etc, the person reporting wouldn't have done what they did and this would be a non-issue.

 

[Mikel131]

This ^^^^
It's my home , my castle , my F8cking domain.
I busted my ass my whole life to own what I own.
The government has no rights to it no matter what they seem to think.

Sure try not paying you rent, oh I ment property taxes and let us know who owns what you think is your house.

 

[JayMcB]

If this is true without a mental health component....what's chilling about this for me is that I have old/extra barrels, incomplete uppers, pellet guns, BB guns, and just unused or retired stocks, magazines, bandoliers, etc all floating around my house in various places with little concern, because all of the 'real' firearms are secured per MGL.

What this tells me is anyone who sees anything and can't tell the difference can drop a dime on what they THINK they see, and it could make you the subject of a SW.

Once the warrant is served, it doesn't even matter if you're in 99% compliance. An empty shell in the range bag, or the full mag you keep in a laptop bag, or the boxes of 9MM you just bought but haven't brought up to the safe yet...they're going to find SOMETHING to jam you up on...and it's over.

again, IF true....WTF.

now I need to buy a safe for freaking parts, or trigger locks for a crossman BB gun.....fvcking massprudence to a new level. nevah bin dun befo

 

[GPP]

My solution is simple - if I end up dead, wife is to tell Scrivener to invite all my friends over for a party where the friends will take all the gun stuff, Scriv will see to the paperwork, and they are to be told to leave the reloading room spotless. I do hope they patch the workbench holes where the presses are mounted.

- - - Updated - - -


I have racked my brain to come up with a clever term for Glen, or GPP, but keep coming up dry. For that, I apologize to the NESiverse.

It is common to comment on news reports, and most people doing so do not go into the field or file FOIAs for original source documents before doing so.

When it is obvious one is commenting on a news report, I don't think it is necessary to add the disclaimer "This is of course, based on the assumption that the information as presented in the news report is accurate". In fact, I saw many people comment on Trumps recent actions while relying on media reports and not adding such a disclaimer and nobody is responding with "Were you there? Did you see the gas attack personally? Did you see the cave before the MOAB did its thing?"


It depends. I agree with your conclusion for major cases, but disagree for smaller CWOFable misdafelonies with which the courts are known to play fast and loose on procedure.

In the case I am familiar with (read all documents, including the SW). The subject took a CWOF on a storage charge; walked on the 269-10j. If the magistrate had denied the warrant on strict PC grounds, he would never had his car searched; never had legal fees; never been kicked out of the school; never become a PP for a CWOF period. And no, one does not generally pass up a CWOF in favor of a trial under such circumstances, especially when the judge starts with "counsel, I don't want to hear any talk about the warrant".

Cmon Rob dont give in that easy! Theres gotta be a way to use my name (GPP Glen Piro) to invent some sort of word that encompasses all that is GPP lol! Perhaps some of the more quick witted NES members can chime in here!

In the case I believe youre referencing, I absolutely agree. The clerk magistrate erred on the side of Newtown. Totally and completely unfair, that clerk was covering his or her butt. Similar to a judge granting an emergency RO , its pretty much a given no matter the circumstances, I call that erring on the side of Remy.

That kid getting kicked out of the school? Moot point, and you know that. That has zilch to do with the charges.

That kid had a gun in his backpack (assuming we are talking about the same case, if not, my apologies), so getting a CWOF wasnt a bad deal.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

That kid getting kicked out of the school? Moot point, and you know that. That has zilch to do with the charges

Suppose the police applied for a warrant based on spotting an empty shell casine, the warrant was denied, and the student removed the car from campus. Would the sighting of a legal empty case be enough to expel him from school? I don't know, however, if the answer is "no", then it had a lot to do with the charges.

That kid had a gun in his backpack (assuming we are talking about the same case, if not, my apologies), so getting a CWOF wasnt a bad deal.

You assume incorrectly. It was not that case.

It was a much lower profile case that did not involve anything remotely resembling "carrying on one's person" (and yes, I would consider the backpack case "carry on ones person"). I would not cite the backpack case as evidence of clear issuance of a warrant based on evidence of legal behavior because there were more factors in that case (and I did not review the court documents in that case).

A CWOF on any case in which the consequence is lifetime federal PP status is a "good deal", even if it's because you had an uloaded gun stored in you car in a location other than a locked trunk.

 

[GPP]

Suppose the police applied for a warrant based on spotting an empty shell casine, the warrant was denied, and the student removed the car from campus. Would the sighting of a legal empty case be enough to expel him from school? I don't know, however, if the answer is "no", then it had a lot to do with the charges.

You assume incorrectly.

It was a much lower profile case that did not involve anything remotely resembling "carrying on one's person" (and yes, I would consider the backpack case "carry on ones person"). I would not cite the backpack case as evidence of clear issuance of a warrant based on evidence of legal behavior because there were more factors in that case (and I did not review the court documents in that case).

A CWOF on any case in which the consequence is lifetime federal PP status is a "good deal", even if it's because you had an uloaded gun stored in you car in a location other than a locked trunk.

I do not know the case you are referencing so its tough to make an educated guess/statement in regards to it.
The cops could have applied for a warrant for any sort of reason they deemed adequate, still irrelevant. I did not go to college, but I know some people that have. If Im not mistaken part of your acceptance into college is signing some sort of "Yes I will surely abide by this colleges rules and regs even if they are friggin stupid" coupled with some sort of "Yes, I understand I can be punted from college for pretty much any reason deemed worthy by the administration" clause.

Usually, a CWOF comes from some sort of involvement in whatever the charges were, not necessarily to the extent reported, but somewhere in the middle.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed in MA!

This is what happens when 400,000 firearm owners don't stand up for their rights!

400,000 march in Boston and say we have had enough of our RIGHTS taken away!

If you need a permit for something it is not a RIGHT!
If you can not carry your firearm in public. You don't have a RIGHT!
When the police have control of your RIGHTS to own firearms. It is a privilege not a RIGHT!

These RIGHTS are guaranteed in the most important document written by our founding fathers.
They specifically included the words "Shall not be infringed".

They understood that local and federal govt. would try to limit or prohibit such ownership of arms. Because they had foreseen the British doing the same exact thing to them.

It's about time we take a stand or fall due to death by a thousand cuts!

Sure move away! Like that is possible for everyone..

How about standing up and doing what is right for the future generations sake!

We live in the birthplace of freedom! The proudest state in the union that so many lives were given to have such freedoms!

Have we forgotten the cost of such?

Our forefather would be ashamed of the citizens here for what we have allowed this great state and nation to become!!

Make Massachusetts great again!

in

 

[DPR]

- - - Updated - - -

Responsible people secure their firearms (and other potentially dangerous items like bleach) from persons that are not competent to handle them. The laws that you believe are "needed" are more likely used to jam up people that are doing nothing wrong. How many people were injured by the guy in the OP's stuff? None. How is that a hazard?

I'd say, "Who made you arbiter of what's safe and/or responsible," but from your post, I can tell. You're someone that believes that "reasonable restrictions" are a good thing. And you are the one that knows what's reasonable. Thanks for looking out for all the adults, who can't be trusted to do what's right in their own situations. Remember....it's probably unlawful for an LTC holder that lives alone to leave a firearm on their bedside table while they sleep. Thanks for your concern for others' welfare.

I'm not referring to the responsible people out there. There are idiots out there that lack the knowledge of safe firearm storage and if it were not for the law would not know how to do it.

 

[whacko]

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not referring to the responsible people out there. There are idiots out there that lack the knowledge of safe firearm storage and if it were not for the law would not know how to do it.

You were already told......Go pay your dues to moms damand action. You fit right in. You are a statist freedom hating twatwaffle. I do not have children.......**** you....And your opinion.....I have a front door. It's locked. Why does that law you love so much apply to everyone (it should not apply to anyone) how is my front door not enough to keep my guns safe. The laws you propose and support are rediculous. **** off and die.

 

[Spicolii]

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not referring to the responsible people out there. There are idiots out there that lack the knowledge of safe firearm storage and if it were not for the law would not know how to do it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not referring to the responsible people out there. There are idiots out there that lack the knowledge of safe firearm storage and if it were not for the law would not know how to do it.

1.) Legislation that infringes on my personal liberty on how I choose to defend myself is not only wrong and immoral it also conflicts with just about EVERYTHING the constitution stands for.

2.) Legislation created to deal with the stupid or incompetent only succeeds in dragging everyone else down to their level by creating criminals for someone else's ignorance.

3.) Using the government as a way to impose good judgment and morals on people will result in the loss of all personal freedom and its naive to think that it can work. Its funny how people always sit on their high horse and talk about how other people are incompetent and too stupid and we need to make laws to prevent them from doing something. My response is "so what? How is that going to effect your life? Are you morally superior to all these supposed people out there? Why don't you worry more about you and less about them."

4.) If someone is too stupid to lock up a firearm (or keep it in a place that THEY not YOU deem safe) with a little kid in the house they are probably too stupid to understand the laws that are on the books anyways. In the words of Ron White "you can't fix stupid".

5.)Laws can't and won't educate people.

6.) Keep posting your opinions. The back and forth banter is good fun. Especially when I'm right.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If Im not mistaken part of your acceptance into college is signing some sort of "Yes I will surely abide by this colleges rules and regs even if they are friggin stupid" coupled with some sort of "Yes, I understand I can be punted from college for pretty much any reason deemed worthy by the administration" clause.

True.

If warrant rules are strictly followed an a warrant denied, there is an excellent chance a student with evil-killy stuff in his/her car will not be expelled due to a total lack of evidence.

If a bogus warrant is issued and extra killy stuff found, even a ruling that the warrant was invalid will not invalidate use of the info for screwing over the student.

An interesting question is "To what extent may a sworn campus police officer use his/her police power to enforce school rules that are not a violation of law"? For example, there is credible evidence a student has 2oz of MJ in his dorm, is that "violation of school policy" (assuming the school has a substance free dorm policy) something the campus police can take action on? What about a student who wears a necklace of buds as a protest action on a campus that bans MJ. Do campus police have the legal authority to use force to seize the MJ from that student? Does campus police have the authority to use their police powers to seize evidence of non-crimes and turn it over to a non-governmental party so it can take private action?".

 

[GPP]

True.

If warrant rules are strictly followed an a warrant denied, there is an excellent chance a student with evil-killy stuff in his/her car will not be expelled due to a total lack of evidence.

If a bogus warrant is issued and extra killy stuff found, even a ruling that the warrant was invalid will not invalidate use of the info for screwing over the student.

An interesting question is "To what extent may a sworn campus police officer use his/her police power to enforce school rules that are not a violation of law"? For example, there is credible evidence a student has 2oz of MJ in his dorm, is that "violation of school policy" (assuming the school has a substance free dorm policy) something the campus police can take action on? What about a student who wears a necklace of buds as a protest action on a campus that bans MJ. Do campus police have the legal authority to use force to seize the MJ from that student? Does campus police have the authority to use their police powers to seize evidence of non-crimes and turn it over to a non-governmental party so it can take private action?".

That falls in the " no shirt, no shoes, no service " catergory. Dont like it? Dont go to that school.

 

[MisterHappy]

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not referring to the responsible people out there. There are idiots out there that lack the knowledge of safe firearm storage and if it were not for the law would not know how to do it.

The laws that you endorse affect the responsible people. The irresponsible are the ones that don't do what they should do, regardless of laws. You think that a law will keep a drug dealer from stashing a piece in the sofa cushions? I don't. FFS, the latest kid shooting himself was a cop's kid!

http://www.masslive.com/news/worcester/index.ssf/2017/02/11-year-old_dudley_middle_scho.html

I'd think that the officer should have known the law.....or is he an idiot? If he is an idiot, then the law should have made this impossible! BTW, AFAIK, there were no safe-storage charges in this case...... Oh, well.....

I guess that part of the LTC process should be a written test, to make sure that all LTC holders are conversant with the laws? That's what you're advocating - making laws to make sure that stoopid peepulz don't do dum stuffs.

The guy in the OP was not endangering anyone. Read that again. But, since someone, somewhere might endanger someone, it's OK, by your reasoning and statements that he be in a world of hurt.

What other reasonable restrictions are you for? All cars having a breathalyzer, because a drunk thief might steal it? How about all pools have tamper-proof covers, so if a kid climbs a locked gate, he can't drown? Or brakes on skis, so you can't go too fast and hit a tree?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

That falls in the " no shirt, no shoes, no service " catergory. Dont like it? Dont go to that school.

No privately paid, but "sworn status", police should have the legal right to enforce anything not a violation of law. (or, at least not use police powers to do so). But,I do not know what the actual case law on this is, which is why I was asking.

I guess that part of the LTC process should be a written test, to make sure that all LTC holders are conversant with the laws?

A better start would be having the persons who enforce the law take such a test...written by Len S.

 

[MGnoob]

Poor guy, i mean really ..........just one 6' pickup bed full

 

[Dennis in MA]

did they need to pull his license?
They could have easily said Mr 65 year old your going to have to put all this stuff in one closet and put a lock on the door. Do you have someone that could pick up a Hasp and a a pad lock for you? then allow him to jam everything into a closet and install the hasp.... this is of course if there is no stolen gun issues or other details being left out.
Im guessing a pissed off wife or some shit which brought the PD down.

Sorta like how the judge on Caught in Providence works. "Let's just not go letter-of-the-law, but help people and try and get folks to adhere to the laws."

But this is MA. If this were FL or TX or OK or whatever, you'd get help like that. Here? Gunz'r'bad,umkay? Simple knee-jerk. I get that this COULD be a problem and if you didn't address it as the PD, and something happened, you'd be out of a job. But dang. There was a better solution than this.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

But this is MA. If this were FL or TX or OK or whatever, you'd get help like that.

One of the guys I used to serve on the USPSA board with was a good-ol-boy (right down to the gut) retired KY state trooper. He was pro gun (he was really upset when the Brady Group upgraded KY from F- to F). One of the most interesting things he told me was that he thought hard before laying a felony charge on anyone, and would only do it if he was convinced he was dealing with a legit bad guy.

 

[Len-2A Training]

An interesting question is "To what extent may a sworn campus police officer use his/her police power to enforce school rules that are not a violation of law"? For example, there is credible evidence a student has 2oz of MJ in his dorm, is that "violation of school policy" (assuming the school has a substance free dorm policy) something the campus police can take action on? What about a student who wears a necklace of buds as a protest action on a campus that bans MJ. Do campus police have the legal authority to use force to seize the MJ from that student? Does campus police have the authority to use their police powers to seize evidence of non-crimes and turn it over to a non-governmental party so it can take private action?".

When I worked for BCPD I asked my Lt. about the parking tickets that BCPD issued on campus. What I was told that any visitor could just ignore them, but a student MUST pay them or else BC withholds their grades. Same with fines for setting off smoke detectors in the dorm, pulling a fire alarm in the dorm or mis-use of the fire extinguishers in the dorms. They weren't enforced as MGL but enforced as BC policy. So BCPD gives out the tickets, but BC Admin sets the fines and administers "justice".

No privately paid, but "sworn status", police should have the legal right to enforce anything not a violation of law. (or, at least not use police powers to do so). But,I do not know what the actual case law on this is, which is why I was asking.


A better start would be having the persons who enforce the law take such a test...written by Len S.

See above response. Not case law TTBOMK, just campus policy.

You do realize that if I gave the test to all LEOs in MA, there wouldn't be enough that passed the test to police a small town, right?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

You do realize that if I gave the test to all LEOs in MA, there wouldn't be enough that passed the test to police a small town, right?

The idea would be that officers would have to pass to be qualified to make Ch 140 or 269 arrests

 

[Rob Boudrie]

parking tickets that BCPD issued on campus. What I was told that any visitor could just ignore them

Some guy formed a company named "city parking enforcement", had a spiffy uniform made up (which looked official but did not say "police" on it) then contracted with private property owners to be allowed to issue his citations, complete with the bright orange payment envelope. Many people thought they were real and sent checks to "city parking enforcement".

 

[xtry51]

Sadly we need laws to keep people from leaving guns where a child that shouldn't be handling them can get their hands on them. Until people stop giving birth to idiots we will need laws for safe storage of firearms just like we need them for not leaving your kid in a car on a hot day. I do believe that if not for the storage law that there would be more people leaving loaded guns out where kids can access them. If you think it's your right to do just that and you have no responsibility to safely store firearms then we disagree.

Sweet Jesus this post is so bootlicking it's hard to know where to begin.