L.A.Times editorial board wants federal firearm storage law

DispositionMatrix

NES Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,336
Likes
1,885
Location
SoNH
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Gun storage laws save lives, so why don't we have more of them?
The argument against safe-storage laws by gun advocates is that when the bad man breaks into the house, a trigger lock or a gun in a locked cabinet makes the weapon useless for self-defense. But that’s not the case. Vendors have designed trigger locks and gun safes that users can quickly access. Besides, unsecured guns are much more likely to be fired accidentally or used in a suicide than they are in self-defense. Also, unsecured firearms in the home are more likely to get stolen in a burglary. In fact, gun thefts from cars, homes and gun dealers are a main source of black-market gun sales. So failing to secure firearms increases chances of accidental deaths and suicides, including among children, and increases the chances a lawfully purchased firearm will find its way to violent criminals. The weight of evidence in favor of requiring owners to properly secure their firearms is overwhelming.

Of course, enforcement is an issue, and often law enforcement won’t know that a storage law has been violated until someone dies. But in adopting such laws society sends a message about what behavior we expect. As long as Americans insist on owning firearms, it is reasonable for the rest of us to insist that they do so safely.
 
I would say "explain to me how you intend to use the Commerce Clause to make this a law", but the Commerce Clause is basically a door mat.
 
The huge problem with a national safe storage law is the requirements they are likely to demand, like you must have a GSA Level 5 safe with Sargent and Greenleaf electronic combination dial, with the combo stored at the local PD (just as a backup naturally). This would be expensive! I think in CA you must show that the safe you own has room for any new acquisitions, just to add more fun to the mix.
 
Common sense isn't.

*I* keep my doors locked. There may or may not be "unsecured" guns, accessible to me and others who need to know where they are. *Most* of my guns (i.e. long guns & pistols that are not part of my home defense plan) are indeed locked up. If they're not part of my H-D plan or EDC, I a) don't want them stolen, b) don't want anyone to access them and use them negligently, and c) "don't touch my stuff!"

Everyone should have their own plan about how they handle "safe storage." If you have kids in the home, either full-time or day visitors, you should take precautions to ensure they're not accessible. Same if you have visitors in your home (everyone has a shitbum brother-in-law) who shouldn't be around guns. Secure them when the shitbums of your world arrive at your doorstep. If/when you're not home, you ought to take reasonable precautions to ensure nobody's going to just walk in and take your stuff. At the very least, don't make it easy for them.

I sort of do have a problem with .gov telling people ANYTHING AT ALL, about their guns, what they can have, or how it should be stored, under penalty of _______. Period, full stop.

But I have no problem with them "educating" people on "best practices" to avoid theft or accidental/negligent discharge, so that people can make an educated decision, balancing their needs vs some perceived risk.

Stupid people will always be stupid. You can't regulate stupidity.
 
Same can be said for alcohol and pills. Make sure those little f***ers are locked up because they may get someone drunk or high.
 
I would guess that their building has armed security.
Are their guns kept in a locker ?
I used to work with their security folk, long before the buyout by biotech billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong. Most of the focus was on parcel threats (anthrax letters and mail bombs), but they did have some actual hardcore "executive protection" staff.

IIRC, they fired the security staff and outsourced their armed security to the lowest bidder when they were hurting for money. I'm sure the contract specifies that the minimum-wage guards store their firearms in a locker at end-of-shift.
 
I used to work with their security folk, long before the buyout by biotech billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong. Most of the focus was on parcel threats (anthrax letters and mail bombs), but they did have some actual hardcore "executive protection" staff.

IIRC, they fired the security staff and outsourced their armed security to the lowest bidder when they were hurting for money. I'm sure the contract specifies that the minimum-wage guards store their firearms in a locker at end-of-shift.

But not while they are on duty I would guess.
There should be plenty of time to run to a safe and unlock them should something happen according to the times logic so no need to have them on the job.
Of course the reality is that you can bet your ass they have them at the ready to protect the times staff, because they are a different and better class of people than the population at large .
Kind of like when you see Faker or Healy talking about how YOU don't need to have a gun while everywhere they go there are a couple of armed Staties not more than two steps away at all times.
 
How many children must die before we let parents with common sense make informed decisions without government interference?

The Merced Pitchfork Murders - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

That's when Jessica thought of her father's gun. Mr. Carpenter had taught Jessica and the other children to shoot. Jessica had passed her hunter safety course and received her certificate at age 12. She knew that her Dad always kept a .357 Magnum in his bedroom.

In deference to California's safe storage laws, however, Mr. Carpenter kept the pistol high up on a closet shelf, unloaded and out of reach of the children. Even if she could somehow get to the other end of the house to retrieve it, Jessica knew she would have to climb up on something to reach the gun, scramble around for the bullets and then load them. The man would be on her before she had a chance.
 
Back
Top Bottom