Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:
Based on the kid it sounds like they were gakky parents to begin with.

You might be surprised to hear that this time I agree. Sounds like an anti-social kid with gakky parents. I don't really have a big issue with shotguns, especially in Middle-of-nowhere, Tennessee.

There might be something to say about attitudes toward violence and guns. It's strange that we live in a world where nipples are banned, while half of all movies feature protagonists killing other people with guns. And no one ever feels bad about shootings in films. We never get to see the mother of storm trooper #359 crying over his childhood photos. That might be a problem, and might have contributed to this kid and his parents not having more respect for what was in their home, and the devastation it has caused. But I don't think there is an awful lot to say about gun control.

 d-usa wrote:
Short of legally requiring that every weapon in your house is secured at all times unless you are actively using it, which would be impossible to enforce, there really isn't much else you can do IMO.

It's not impossible to enforce, it's just political suicide in the US in 2015. All you'd have to do is require all guns to be registered and make one condition of owning a gun be that you voluntarily agree to police inspections of your gun storage at any time. And if the police knock on your door and your guns aren't locked up all of your guns are confiscated, you are permanently banned from owning a gun again, and you get fines and/or jail time. It might not catch every violation, but the vast majority of legal gun owners would be very careful about how they store their toys.

And as a second-best alternative you just impose serious fines/prison time/loss of gun ownership if your gun is ever used in a crime and it's found that you didn't store it properly. Again, it doesn't catch every violation, but how many people would take that risk just because they're too lazy to lock their gun in a safe when they aren't using it?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Define "use". What if I have a gun that I have for self-defense? and thus need it to be ready to fire at all times. I can't really keep that locked up, even the fastest locks take a few seconds to disengage and then a few seconds to load. Thats seconds I might not have.

"Use" = within your immediate possession and supervision. Carrying a gun on your body counts as "use" because it's under your control and you can prevent anyone from using it without your knowledge and approval. But you can't leave an unlocked gun in every room of your house at all times just in case you need one because those guns wouldn't be under your control.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Short of legally requiring that every weapon in your house is secured at all times unless you are actively using it, which would be impossible to enforce, there really isn't much else you can do IMO.

It's not impossible to enforce, it's just political suicide in the US in 2015. All you'd have to do is require all guns to be registered and make one condition of owning a gun be that you voluntarily agree to police inspections of your gun storage at any time. And if the police knock on your door and your guns aren't locked up all of your guns are confiscated, you are permanently banned from owning a gun again, and you get fines and/or jail time. It might not catch every violation, but the vast majority of legal gun owners would be very careful about how they store their toys.

Giving up the 4th to use the 2nd, or giving up the 2nd to use the 4th, is never going to be an option unless you get some serious changes at the SCOTUS or a constitutional amendment. That's just reality.

And as a second-best alternative you just impose serious fines/prison time/loss of gun ownership if your gun is ever used in a crime and it's found that you didn't store it properly. Again, it doesn't catch every violation, but how many people would take that risk just because they're too lazy to lock their gun in a safe when they aren't using it?

The federal act pretty much gives you civil immunity if your gun was used in a crime and you stored it properly it seems.

Make safe storage mandatory

then you can keep all your guns but just keep them locked and unloaded in your household

 d-usa wrote:
Giving up the 4th to use the 2nd, or giving up the 2nd to use the 4th, is never going to be an option unless you get some serious changes at the SCOTUS or a constitutional amendment. That's just reality.

Not necessarily. Here's an example I'm familiar with: if you're a pilot you consent to FAA inspection of your plane at any time*. Unlike car searches there is no probable cause requirement, an FAA inspector can simply walk up to you in the parking area and demand to see your aircraft registration papers, flight planning, etc. And if they find any violations you will be punished for them. It's not a very popular policy for obvious reasons, but good luck challenging it in court (the FAA almost always wins). So I could see a similar situation working in the case of gun ownership, especially if the scope of the search is explicitly limited to confirming proper gun storage.

*Exact text of the law: Each certificate holder and each person employed by the certificate holder shall allow the Administrator, at any time or place, to make inspections or tests (including en route inspections) to determine the holder's compliance with the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, applicable regulations, and the certificate holder's operating certificate, and operations specifications.
...
Whenever, in performing the duties of conducting an inspection, an FAA inspector presents an Aviation Safety Inspector credential, FAA Form 110A, to the pilot in command of an aircraft operated by the certificate holder, the inspector must be given free and uninterrupted access to the pilot compartment of that aircraft.

The difference would probably be that there is no constitutional right to pilot an aircraft. So you can be required to voluntarily agree to certain regulations in exchange for a non-constitutional privilege. People also agree to medical evaluations and testing in exchange for a pilot license as well.

San Francisco does have a law that requires that guns be secured inside the home when not in use, and the SCOTUS refused to hear a challenge to the law. But I'm not sure how that law is actually checked or enforced. I doesn't look like it has any specific power to inspect homes and the only way that you can be prosecuted under the law would be if the police are in your home and happen to see an unsecured gun laying around.

On the other hand SCOTUS ruled against trigger locks in DC vs Heller, so it seems like there is also a precedent towards making it unconstitutional to require someone to disable a firearm.

Plenty of jurisdictions have laws regarding the use of your own firearm by someone else in the household, especially children, in the commission of a crime. Looks like California has something to the effect of "access to a firearm in the 1st degree" if your kid shoots someone with your unsecured gun and "access to a firearm in the 3rd degree" if your kid finds your gun and gets his first desk pop.

I think "after the fact" punishments are probably the most likely legal push towards legislating gun safety in regards to our current constitutional landscape.

 mitch_rifle wrote:
Make safe storage mandatory

then you can keep all your guns but just keep them locked and unloaded in your household

That is how it works in the UK. If you want a firearms licence, one condition is that the police inspect and approve your safe storage arrangements, which usually involves installation of a steel locker.

The police can't barge into your home at any time of day or night, though, so if you wanted you could leave loaded guns lying around for the kids to play with. It doesn't tend to happen, perhaps because the restrictions on licences ensure that only people who are quite serious about needing a gun bother to get one, and they have had safety training.

 d-usa wrote:
The difference would probably be that there is no constitutional right to pilot an aircraft. So you can be required to voluntarily agree to certain regulations in exchange for a non-constitutional privilege. People also agree to medical evaluations and testing in exchange for a pilot license as well.

There's no constitutional right to drive a car either, but that hasn't stopped the courts from ruling that it is illegal to search a person's car without permission or probable cause. The key difference seems to be the limited scope of the search (verifying compliance with specific laws related to the activity you're engaged in vs. a general "let's see if there's anything illegal"). And in that case a search with the very narrow scope of verifying that a licensed gun owner is complying with the appropriate storage laws would be on the legal side of that division.

On the other hand SCOTUS ruled against trigger locks in DC vs Heller, so it seems like there is also a precedent towards making it unconstitutional to require someone to disable a firearm.

I don't know, I think it's a fairly narrow ruling. The DC law required trigger locks when the gun is not being used, not just when it is being stored outside of the owner's possession. You'd have to have a trigger lock on your gun inside your home even if you're carrying that gun in your hand at the time. In fact, by the strict letter of the law (which refers to using a gun for recreational purposes) you'd be breaking the DC law if you took the trigger lock off your gun to use it in self defense. So that clearly would infringe on any right to keep a gun for self defense, and if your interpretation of the second amendment guarantees such a right then the DC trigger lock law is unconstitutional.

But that's not the case with a more sensible storage law since a gun that isn't in your possession isn't very relevant to self defense. The argument would then be essentially limited to "but what if I have to run back and retrieve my gun and removing the lock takes too much time", at which point we might as well get into absurd arguments like "what if I need a SAM site to protect my family from a murderer trying to kill me with a B-52 strike".

 Peregrine wrote:
There's no constitutional right to drive a car either, but that hasn't stopped the courts from ruling that it is illegal to search a person's car without permission or probable cause. The key difference seems to be the limited scope of the search (verifying compliance with specific laws related to the activity you're engaged in vs. a general "let's see if there's anything illegal"). And in that case a search with the very narrow scope of verifying that a licensed gun owner is complying with the appropriate storage laws would be on the legal side of that division.

I can't tell if this is something you are actually advocating, or just an exercise in how it could be enforced? I don't think anyone is going to like the idea of police being able to turn up and enter your home without a warrant, and this sounds like a waste of their time.

 d-usa wrote:
Short of legally requiring that every weapon in your house is secured at all times unless you are actively using it, which would be impossible to enforce, there really isn't much else you can do IMO.

That's the law in the UK, parts of Europe and probably a few other places... Or do people just put their guns down on the kitchen table when they're not using them instead of sticking them in a cabinet?

 Ouze wrote:
Oh, this thread is going places.

Just not good places.

Lets both just both agree to step out other than to say, prayers for the little girl's family.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Oh, this thread is going places.

Just not good places.

So long as it stays reasonably around 'trigger locks' and 'sealed gun storage' territory it should manage to keep its head above water. I think I'd be right in saying that most people--pro-gun or no-gun--are more or less agreed on the need to safely secure guns, even if they disagree on ownership.

This is definitely a case where a simple secured gun cabinet would've prevented anything from happening. If a kid can access a firearm, then it's not being stored properly.

You don't even need something high end. I simple lockable locker or metal cabinet is very effective. It won't stop a determined burglar, but its not meant to.
I am not a fan of trigger locks. I am a fan of locked cabinets and safes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisRR wrote:
I have one gun that isn't locked up but my kids can NOT get access to it and it isn't loaded but I can load it very quickly if need be everything else is locked up in the safe. Leaving a loaded 12 gauge out is just asking for trouble and having a little F&c& for a kid is just fuel to the fire!

Don't assume they left the shotgun loaded.

 mitch_rifle wrote:
Make safe storage mandatory

then you can keep all your guns but just keep them locked and unloaded in your household

Might as well require the gun to be disassembled or cut in half length-wise then.

That clearly is not the case.

 Frazzled wrote:
You don't even need something high end. I simple lockable locker or metal cabinet is very effective. It won't stop a determined burglar, but its not meant to.
I am not a fan of trigger locks. I am a fan of locked cabinets and safes.

Got a proper gun safe here too, good thing to have. It's bolted to a wall and somewhat hidden in a corner behind sliding mirror doors so a burglar will first have to notice it, and he'd have to be really determined to get the thing open (as in power tools) and getting it out of the wall would likely take even longer. He'll probably go for the 42'' flatscreen TV instead. Easier to carry, worth a few hundred and a lot less questions.

Yes, the gun in the article should have been secured. But kids aren't stupid - maybe the boy knew where the key to the gun safe was.

Especially if they gave it too the kid incase of a "Home Invader" Scenario.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Especially if they gave it too the kid incase of a "Home Invader" Scenario.

Which wouldn't be an issue if the parents were responsible or if the kid wasn't a sociopath.

It's a matter of time before they find his cat skeleton collection.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Especially if they gave it too the kid incase of a "Home Invader" Scenario.

Which wouldn't be an issue if the parents were responsible or if the kid wasn't a sociopath.

It's a matter of time before they find his cat skeleton collection.

We don't know anything about this kid. Even mentally fit adults will kill in the heat of the moment over something trivial, realize what happened and feel horrible about it all too late. Causing grievous harm to, or killing others is not the sole domain of sociopaths nor is it one they even dominate. When people do terrible things it's generally just that, people doing terrible things driven by the same motivations, emotions and mental processes that make up all of us.

There probably isn't any cat skeleton collection, no gallery of crayon drawings with the world ablaze, no easy explanations. Just an angry kid, who got his hands on a gun and at least in a moment came to the conclusion shooting someone was a good idea. That doesn't take anyone special, it doesn't take a monster, it doesn't take some alien mindset. History is clear record that all it takes is person like any of us, under the wrong circumstances and a lapse in judgment. It's terrible, complicated, often avoidable (as it almost certainly seems to have been in this case), but isn't the work of some set of "Others" and holding to that idea isn't useful and just serves to trivializes these kinds of horrible events.

 Chongara wrote:
That doesn't take anyone special, it doesn't take a monster, it doesn't take some alien mindset - history is clear record that all it takes is person like any of us, under the wrong circumstances and a lapse in judgment.

He had to go retrieve the gun. Then find the poor victim to shoot her. This is hardly a "heat of the moment" situation.

You have to rationalize that shooting someone is the correct response to being told no, and have, basically, no empathy about it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The difference would probably be that there is no constitutional right to pilot an aircraft. So you can be required to voluntarily agree to certain regulations in exchange for a non-constitutional privilege. People also agree to medical evaluations and testing in exchange for a pilot license as well.

There's no constitutional right to drive a car either, but that hasn't stopped the courts from ruling that it is illegal to search a person's car without permission or probable cause. The key difference seems to be the limited scope of the search (verifying compliance with specific laws related to the activity you're engaged in vs. a general "let's see if there's anything illegal"). And in that case a search with the very narrow scope of verifying that a licensed gun owner is complying with the appropriate storage laws would be on the legal side of that division.

On the other hand SCOTUS ruled against trigger locks in DC vs Heller, so it seems like there is also a precedent towards making it unconstitutional to require someone to disable a firearm.

I don't know, I think it's a fairly narrow ruling. The DC law required trigger locks when the gun is not being used, not just when it is being stored outside of the owner's possession. You'd have to have a trigger lock on your gun inside your home even if you're carrying that gun in your hand at the time. In fact, by the strict letter of the law (which refers to using a gun for recreational purposes) you'd be breaking the DC law if you took the trigger lock off your gun to use it in self defense. So that clearly would infringe on any right to keep a gun for self defense, and if your interpretation of the second amendment guarantees such a right then the DC trigger lock law is unconstitutional.

But that's not the case with a more sensible storage law since a gun that isn't in your possession isn't very relevant to self defense. The argument would then be essentially limited to "but what if I have to run back and retrieve my gun and removing the lock takes too much time", at which point we might as well get into absurd arguments like "what if I need a SAM site to protect my family from a murderer trying to kill me with a B-52 strike".

Even if you were to dismiss the infringement of your 4th amendment rights you still would be allocating an immense amount of resources for a very minor benefit. We don't have to have police randomly inspecting the homes of every gun owner in the country to know if their firearms are being properly stored. If somebody gains improper access to their firearms then we know that they weren't stored correctly and appropriate punishments will be dealt out after that fact has been established. That's how the justice system works, we punish people after they do something wrong, not before.

Additionally, even without the 4th amendment issue, you still can't implement a national policy. Your proposed law wouldn't work on the federal level. Since it needs to be enforced by municipal and/or state police it needs to be passed on a state or municipal level and it's highly unlikely that such laws would be uniformly passed across the country. Even if you wanted to make it a federal law there's not jurisdiction for enforcement because it's possession not commerce, there's no federal license involved in owning a firearm. ATF is in charge of enforcement of the regulations regarding FFLs but even that is pretty lax due to limited resources. In all the years I've had an 03 FFL I've had to keep a log book of purchases or sales I've done via my 03 FFL and ATF can inspect that log book at any time, yet they've never once done so because they have better things to do with their time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
That doesn't take anyone special, it doesn't take a monster, it doesn't take some alien mindset - history is clear record that all it takes is person like any of us, under the wrong circumstances and a lapse in judgment.

He had to go retrieve the gun. Then find the poor victim to shoot her. This is hardly a "heat of the moment" situation.

You have to rationalize that shooting someone is the correct response to being told no, and have, basically, no empathy about it.

Agreed. The boy in question made a conscious decision to undertake a whole chain of actions with the explicit intent of harming the girl next door. This isn't so much a case of gun control as it is a case of parenting control. The boy had decided to harm that girl, if he hadn't had access to the shotgun he would have used a different weapon and could have caused the same tragic result with a knife or a bat or any other lethal implement. If you've raised a child that willing to murder another child in a fit of pique that has everything to do with parenting and only tangentially relates to gun control. We put a lot of restrictions on whether or not somebody can own a firearm, we have comparatively few restrictions on having children and raising children.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
That doesn't take anyone special, it doesn't take a monster, it doesn't take some alien mindset - history is clear record that all it takes is person like any of us, under the wrong circumstances and a lapse in judgment.

He had to go retrieve the gun. Then find the poor victim to shoot her. This is hardly a "heat of the moment" situation.

You have to rationalize that shooting someone is the correct response to being told no, and have, basically, no empathy about it.

Empathy is not this constant ruling force in the human mind. It's one emotional tool among many that floats around in our brain every day that we pull out and use, ideally when an appropriate. It competes with other urges, emotions and ways of framing your situation. The things that influence how strong each of these forces is in any given in moment are sometimes entirely under our control, sometimes less so. The sad truth is that even healthy people capable of empathy and that exercise it regularly can still do awful things when some other faculty dominates for a time, or they're dealing with a person that some set of experiences have lead them to put them outside the set of persons they empathize with. Violence is sometimes rationalized, other times it can happen with the attacker coming to true terms with it.

All this is not said the erase seriousness of violence, killing or this case. What I'm saying is that taking simplistic view of it is incorrect, and possibly harmful.

"Kid was sociopath, wouldn't have happened if he wasn't" that's a super simple, super easy, super clean, super not-realistic view of things.

Which wouldn't be an issue if the parents were responsible or if the kid wasn't a sociopath.

It's a matter of time before they find his cat skeleton collection.

Agreed. An 11 year old boy bullying an 8 year old girl? in ancient times when I was young and drag raced mastadons at the local speed strip, the other boys, neighbors, his parents and the local preacher would have beat hell out of him for that.

Empathy is not this constant ruling force in the human mind.

One does not need empathy to not execute an 8 year old. Total lacking of empathy and feelings are indeed a sign of a sociopath.

 Chongara wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
That doesn't take anyone special, it doesn't take a monster, it doesn't take some alien mindset - history is clear record that all it takes is person like any of us, under the wrong circumstances and a lapse in judgment.

He had to go retrieve the gun. Then find the poor victim to shoot her. This is hardly a "heat of the moment" situation.

You have to rationalize that shooting someone is the correct response to being told no, and have, basically, no empathy about it.

Empathy is not this constant ruling force in the human mind. It's one emotional tool among many that floats around in our brain every day that we pull out and use, ideally when an appropriate. It competes with other urges, emotions and ways of framing your situation. The things that influence how strong each of these forces is in any given in moment are sometimes entirely under our control, sometimes less so. The sad truth is that even healthy people capable of empathy and that exercise it regularly can still do awful things when some other faculty dominates for a time, or they're dealing with a person that some set of experiences have lead them to put them outside the set of persons they empathize with. Violence is sometimes rationalized, other times it can happen with the attacker coming to true terms with it.

All this is not said the erase seriousness of violence, killing or this case. What I'm saying is that taking simplistic view of it is incorrect, and possibly harmful.

"Kid was sociopath, wouldn't have happened if he wasn't" that's a super simple, super easy, super clean, super not-realistic view of things.

There's a chasm of difference between being violence responses and murder. You can have empathy and have violent outbursts but deliberately and knowlingly murdering somebody is a different matter entirely. I'm a parent of young kids, I've been a volunteer coach of teams of young kids for years too and you can have normal well adjusted empathetic kids that act up or become violent. It's pretty normal, lots of times kids goof around and somebody does something that the other kid doesn't like and that kid smacks the offending kid. I've seen it with siblings, good friends and total strangers, it's no big deal. An 11 year old that knows how to operate a shotgun, understands that it's a firearm and a lethal weapon that takes the time to go get it and come back and murder a young girl because she won't let him play with her dog is a different story. That's evidence of more problems than just a typical kid that got mad in the moment. The boy in question didn't just get mad and hit the girl right then and there, he decided to murder her, went to get a weapon, came back and killed her.

Even with adults that behavior signifies a whole different level of crime. You can't, as an adult, get mad at somebody or even feel threatened by somebody, leave the scene, get a gun, come back and shoot the other person and then claim it was done in the heat of the moment or in self defense. The decision to leave and come back and the time that elapsed makes it more premeditated. This isn't the case of typical kid misbehaving in the moment, this is a kid that chose to murder another kid over a trivial offense.

The boy in question may not fit the textbook definition of a sociopath or a psychopath and who knows what an evaluation done by a professional might determine. You're right that it's an oversimplification to just chalk this up as the kid being a one in a million evil monster. The kid doesn't have to be deranged or evil, but he's definitely not normal. The vast majority of kids can deal with other kids not sharing their toys upon request without resorting to murder. There is a serious disconnect in regards to proper behavior and values with this kid and that is a reflection on his parents. Children murdering other children is rare, the boy in this case may not have mental health issues but if there isn't something wrong with him due to nature than it's a problem caused by nurture or the lack there of. In either case he's not just a typical normal kid that misbehaved in a moment of anger. Tens of millions of kids are out there in the US right now and they all have angry moments of violence and misbehavior sometimes but only a very rare few choose to murder others and those few atypical murderers are going to have a reason behind their possession of murderous intent.

The bullying certainly doesn't look good, as it shows a pattern of behavior, though it's quite a leap from bullying to murder. As Chongara says, we don't know much about what happened. It could have even been an accident for all we know. Maybe he didn't mean to hit her, or he didn't mean for the gun to go off, or was playing with it and didn't realize it was loaded. There are lots of possibilities besides sociopath.

The boy in question may not fit the textbook definition of a sociopath or a psychopath

No that sounds pretty textbook.

It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.

 Psienesis wrote:
It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.

Yet we already have federal and state laws mandating the inclusions of and use of trigger locks and proper storage of firearms without needing random inspections. And again, the 2nd amendment isn't the be all end all of gun laws. The restrictions and inspections you are advocating require state laws and enforcement. It's not even a federal issue. We already prosecute people who fail to follow gun laws when they're caught breaking them. Random searches would be intrusive, superfluous, impractical, cost prohibitive and unlikely to be passed or enforced on the local and state levels.

 Psienesis wrote:
It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.

In the context of when the Constitution was written, "Well-regulated" did not mean legislation and oversight. It was more along the lines of disciplined and trained. Elite military units would be called "regulated".

Besides, that part of the amendment doesn't apply to the second part. Its the justification for everyone owning guns, we need a pool of armed and trained people to defend ourselves and thus everyone must have the right to own weapons, and that right cannot be infringed.

I can just imagine our ~3 county cops going around to practically every house in the 5-6 towns in the county to check we're keeping our guns locked up

You would have to be insane to think such a law would be remotely enforcable, even if it were to somehow be put into effect.

Which it wouldn't, because the resistance would be massive, both on tax (to hire the manpower required) and Constitutional grounds.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.

In the context of when the Constitution was written, "Well-regulated" did not mean legislation and oversight. It was more along the lines of disciplined and trained. Elite military units would be called "regulated".

Besides, that part of the amendment doesn't apply to the second part. Its the justification for everyone owning guns, we need a pool of armed and trained people to defend ourselves and thus everyone must have the right to own weapons, and that right cannot be infringed.

Exactly. Many people these days fail to realise this.

 Psienesis wrote:
It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.

Your interpretation of the 4th Amendment is a unique and exciting one! Let me call the ACLU and tell them, they'll be overjoyed to hear it.

Gun control is like a Rohrschach test on who secretly, even unconsciously, wants to live under Dear Leader. Moderates-nope. But then we get into some of the more exciting and thrilling interpretations of what the government can and should do and BAM! flushed out.

Then of course you have the other extreme with the "If I can't carry an RPG into a stranger's baby shower you're cuttin off mai raights!: pseudo anarchists. Thats of course a two pronged test. This is part A. Part B involves asking them about Jade Helm.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alex C wrote:
I can just imagine our ~3 county cops going around to practically every house in the 5-6 towns in the county to check we're keeping our guns locked up

You would have to be insane to think such a law would be remotely enforcable, even if it were to somehow be put into effect.

Which it wouldn't, because the resistance would be massive, both on tax (to hire the manpower required) and Constitutional grounds.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.

In the context of when the Constitution was written, "Well-regulated" did not mean legislation and oversight. It was more along the lines of disciplined and trained. Elite military units would be called "regulated".

Besides, that part of the amendment doesn't apply to the second part. Its the justification for everyone owning guns, we need a pool of armed and trained people to defend ourselves and thus everyone must have the right to own weapons, and that right cannot be infringed.

Exactly. Many people these days fail to realise this.

Actually when they writers said "well regulated" they had something more along the lines of prune juice in mind.

Wow did I just say that, I'm sorry.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.

In the context of when the Constitution was written, "Well-regulated" did not mean legislation and oversight. It was more along the lines of disciplined and trained. Elite military units would be called "regulated".

Besides, that part of the amendment doesn't apply to the second part. Its the justification for everyone owning guns, we need a pool of armed and trained people to defend ourselves and thus everyone must have the right to own weapons, and that right cannot be infringed.

And in the context you suggest, the majority of modern-day gun owners are neither. However, I would need to see some sort of legal justification to claim that "that part doesn't apply to the next part". Laws are not written, or interpreted, piecemeal.