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.

 Frazzled 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.

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.

Dang it Frazz the first rule of Project Jade Helm is don't talk about Jade Helm. Everyone knows that.

Thats not a piecemeal interpretation, thats how its written.

The Bill of Rights contains exposition text mingled with the actual law it defines.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The bolded half is the justification for the second half of the amendment.

If you were taking a general English class, you'd learn the first is what is called a dependent clause which is modifying the second. The actual law is "The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

And even if we accept that it is indeed talking about a militia, you have to use the historical definition of militia. Which was every fit individual who could hold and operate a weapon, from the youngest farm boy to the oldest man. According to that, the US Militia consists of 321.6 million people(IE: everyone)

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled 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.

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.

Dang it Frazz the first rule of Project Jade Helm is don't talk about Jade Helm. Everyone knows that.

Got it. Ixnay on the Helmetay.
The Truth is Out There!

Much like driving while on a cell phone, this would never need to be actively policed. Police do not need to go by each car with a driver in it on a motor cycle and check if the driver is on a cell phone.

There can just be increased fines/negligence charges for someone who causes an accident and it is found out they were on their cell phone after.

Just like you do not need police or any federal/state agency to actively go house to house to check guns. If there is a gun accident involving your gun, and it comes out that the reason the gun was easily accessible to your drunk house guest / 11 year old sociopath- was because you did not keep it away somewhere- then you can be held accountable.

Much like how many people, not all, choose not to use their cell phone while driving now due to the possibility of increased penalties- more people will lock their guns up if they can be held accountable to some extent if their gun is used in a crime. Obviously if their gun is locked up and someone breaks into the gun cabinet they have done their diligence, but if they left it out on a table in the garage, and the shells are in an unlocked drawer under said table.... maybe they should have locked it up.

Much like how many people, not all, choose not to use their cell phone while driving now

Wait what?

Indeed. I still see people on their cell phones all the time in their cars. Of course its not like I was checking before the law went into effect or anything, but I still see quite a few.

If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.

To which my answer is No and Hell No.

I don't have to register and have my mouth, bible, or brain inspected. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.

I think most legal gun owners are more than comfortable with the notion of firearm education and responsible ownership.

I think most Americans are uncomfortable with being placed on lists based on arbitrary and legal possession and then being subject to random violations of their fourth amendment rights.

It's the same principle as stop and frisk, really. Both are pretty appalling.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.

By the same token we all already accept that it is illegal to have illegal narcotics in your possession or illegally possess a handgun but police can't just stop you and frisk you to check without probable cause. Your proposal endorses the concept that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide and thus must consent to intrusive searches that are nothing more than fishing expeditions. Terry stops are already highly controversial and they are a very limited in scope version of what you are suggesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_frisk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.

Please google the Bill of Rights. Please google the 4th Amendment.

"if you're not guilty then you have nothing to fear" is the hallmark phrase of the police state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
To which my answer is No and Hell No.

I don't have to register and have my mouth, bible, or brain inspected. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different?

My Wife volunteers that I need to get my head examined regularly.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.

I think most legal gun owners are more than comfortable with the notion of firearm education and responsible ownership.

I think most Americans are uncomfortable with being placed on lists based on arbitrary and legal possession and then being subject to random violations of their fourth amendment rights.

It's the same principle as stop and frisk, really. Both are pretty appalling.

At least with Terry stops the police have to be able to articulate their reasoning behind their reasonable suspicion that warranted the stop and even then they are only allowed to do a minial pat down search of outer garmets. The gun storage enforcement inspections that are being proposed in this thread are searches that have neither probable cause or reasonable suspicion because they are not based upon any evidence of a crime but merely upon the registered possession of a firearm. If the police have no evidence that I am NOT storing my firearms properly then they have no reason to believe I'm breaking that law and have no justification for searching my house.

The logical that supports these proposed searches supports the idea that police can search everybody and their homes at any time because if they searched everyone and every home they would, as a mathematical certainty, find somebody or something that is violating a law. Yet police can't do that because that would be a 4th amendment violation.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.

By the same token we all already accept that it is illegal to have illegal narcotics in your possession or illegally possess a handgun but police can't just stop you and frisk you to check without probable cause. Your proposal endorses the concept that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide and thus must consent to intrusive searches that are nothing more than fishing expeditions. Terry stops are already highly controversial and they are a very limited in scope version of what you are suggesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_frisk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

No, my concept is the same as registering a car. You accept that if you own a car, the state has the right periodically to check it for road worthiness in terms of emissions and so on. (I know this isn't the case in all states.)

This doesn't involve random checks, it means you take the car to a testing station.

Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.

By the same token we all already accept that it is illegal to have illegal narcotics in your possession or illegally possess a handgun but police can't just stop you and frisk you to check without probable cause. Your proposal endorses the concept that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide and thus must consent to intrusive searches that are nothing more than fishing expeditions. Terry stops are already highly controversial and they are a very limited in scope version of what you are suggesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_frisk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

Yeah, no. Terry stops aren't "highly controversial".

It's the way that the stops were being conducted in NYC that was "highly controversial", and it resulted in a pretty big ruling handed down against them which was even discussed here on Dakka when the ruling was handed down in 2013.

That analogy is an absolute load of nonsense in any regards. The grounds for a "stop and frisk" is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.

And while we're at it, since the much loved analogy here on Dakka is drunk driving to firearms related deaths?
Roadblocks and other non-targeted traffic stops without reasonable suspicion that people are engaged in some kind of criminal activity(such as drinking and driving) provided there is some form of neutral methodology behind the stops(i.e. testing the people in every car for alcohol or every other car), but some states require there to be some kind of additional provisions like a sign clearly stating "BE PREPARED FOR TRAFFIC STOP" or a patrol car parked with its lights flashing along the road.

Hell, Illinois v. Caballes held that it is not even considered a violation for a drug dog to sniff the exterior of a vehicle that has been stopped in the course of a routine traffic stop so long as it does not "unreasonably prolong the length of the stop".

So, as long as there is some kind of equally applied methodology behind it and the actual check itself is not considered overly burdensome or the person performing the test given a broad scope beyond simply checking the storage of firearms?

The litmus test for having someone whose job it is to check to ensure firearms are stored properly might be less of a slam dunk in the favor of "But it's unconstitutional!" than you think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.

Please google the Bill of Rights. Please google the 4th Amendment.

"if you're not guilty then you have nothing to fear" is the hallmark phrase of the police state.

Yeeeeeeeah...the 4th Amendment applies to unreasonable searches and seizures.

You buy a gun, it's your responsibility to store the gun safely.

The case in this thread? This is something where the father should be tried, criminally, for negligence in storing the firearm properly. A friggin' eleven year old should not be able to get their daddy's shotgun to go shoot their flippin' neighbor for not letting him pet her puppy.

The police should have the right to see if I am lawfully storing my gun as soon as they convince a judge that they have reasonable cause to suspect that I am breaking a law regarding lawful storage of a gun.

Kids get in a lot more trouble with their parents narcotics and alcohol than guns, and I also wouldn't support that you be required to have a locked medicine cabinet and that filling your prescription for narcotics automatically requires you to submit to have your home inspected or that the liquor store scans your ID so that the alcohol commission can come and inspect your liquor cabinet.

If you have a state with gun storage laws and you end up with a person that is inside the home for a legal reason (cable guy, repair man, home health nurse, social worker, missionary, whatever) who sees an unsecured weapon, they should be able to report it and the police should be able to act on that. Or if the police is in the home for another reason (domestic, welfare check, dropped off the kid that broke curfew) they should of course be able to cite you for unsecured weapons if that's the law.

But random inspections, even if I would agree with them, just won't fly with our current laws.

Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station,

See this is why the Brits lost their Empire. Unlike you wussy boys with your "culture" and your "morality," and your "manners" here in America land we drive our houses! They are mobile houses of...FREEDOM.

so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.

Methinks you're trolling.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.

By the same token we all already accept that it is illegal to have illegal narcotics in your possession or illegally possess a handgun but police can't just stop you and frisk you to check without probable cause. Your proposal endorses the concept that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide and thus must consent to intrusive searches that are nothing more than fishing expeditions. Terry stops are already highly controversial and they are a very limited in scope version of what you are suggesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_frisk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

No, my concept is the same as registering a car. You accept that if you own a car, the state has the right periodically to check it for road worthiness in terms of emissions and so on. (I know this isn't the case in all states.)

This doesn't involve random checks, it means you take the car to a testing station.

Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.

Cars aren't a constitutional right.

 Frazzled wrote:

Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station,

See this is why the Brits lost their Empire. Unlike you wussy boys with your "culture" and your "morality," and your "manners" here in America land we drive our houses! They are mobile houses of...FREEDOM.

so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.

Methinks you're trolling.

That is how it is done here in the UK.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Cars aren't a constitutional right.

Yeah, and neither was letting black people vote.

Times change. Deal with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The police should have the right to see if I am lawfully storing my gun as soon as they convince a judge that they have reasonable cause to suspect that I am breaking a law regarding lawful storage of a gun.

Kids get in a lot more trouble with their parents narcotics and alcohol than guns, and I also wouldn't support that you be required to have a locked medicine cabinet and that filling your prescription for narcotics automatically requires you to submit to have your home inspected or that the liquor store scans your ID so that the alcohol commission can come and inspect your liquor cabinet.

If you have a state with gun storage laws and you end up with a person that is inside the home for a legal reason (cable guy, repair man, home health nurse, social worker, missionary, whatever) who sees an unsecured weapon, they should be able to report it and the police should be able to act on that. Or if the police is in the home for another reason (domestic, welfare check, dropped off the kid that broke curfew) they should of course be able to cite you for unsecured weapons if that's the law.

But random inspections, even if I would agree with them, just won't fly with our current laws.

Yeah, because our current laws protect the morons who think they have the right to own a frigging arsenal and obscene amounts of ammunition but have no willingness to accept responsibility if their child or family members uses those firearms for the purpose that firearms were designed for.

Killing other humans with as minimal effort as necessary.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.

By the same token we all already accept that it is illegal to have illegal narcotics in your possession or illegally possess a handgun but police can't just stop you and frisk you to check without probable cause. Your proposal endorses the concept that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide and thus must consent to intrusive searches that are nothing more than fishing expeditions. Terry stops are already highly controversial and they are a very limited in scope version of what you are suggesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_frisk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

No, my concept is the same as registering a car. You accept that if you own a car, the state has the right periodically to check it for road worthiness in terms of emissions and so on. (I know this isn't the case in all states.)

This doesn't involve random checks, it means you take the car to a testing station.

Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.

Cars aren't a constitutional right.

I don't think it's really a 2nd amendment issue even. It's not a burden to secure your guns if they are not in use, especially since all guns sold now come with a device to secure it. (Although as demonstrated there is lots of discussion about what constitutes "in use").

It's simply a issue with the 4th, and the reason why government can't just inspect your gun storage is the same reason they can't just come into your garage to see if your tag is expired and if the turn signals are working on your car even though car inspections are mandatory.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Yeah, because our current laws protect the morons who think they have the right to own a frigging arsenal and obscene amounts of ammunition but have no willingness to accept responsibility if their child or family members uses those firearms for the purpose that firearms were designed for.

So are you saying there should be a limit to the number of firearms and ammunition one can own?

Why?

And to humor that notion, where would you set these limits?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station,

See this is why the Brits lost their Empire. Unlike you wussy boys with your "culture" and your "morality," and your "manners" here in America land we drive our houses! They are mobile houses of...FREEDOM.

so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.

Methinks you're trolling.

That is how it is done here in the UK.

And thats why my ancestors shot at your ancestors. This of course doesn't explain why my ancestors shot at the Prussians, the Russians, and the Austrians...

It's funny that plenty of people are comfortable with mass surveillance of their activities online and indeed out and about, but ask them to register for something dangerous like a gun and have an inspector call round by appointment to check up on it and suddenly, that, and that alone, constitutes some sort of fascist police state.

I reckon we should stop calling all these dead people victims and start calling them "acceptable losses" as suggested by another poster.

Yeah, and neither was letting black people vote.

Times change. Deal with it.

You change the Second Amendment, then I will "deal with it."

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Cars aren't a constitutional right.

Yeah, and neither was letting black people vote.

Times change. Deal with it.

In my experience, this is where all gun discussion threads eventually come to. Nothing in this country will ever change unless the second amendment is changed, and we don't have the popular will to change the second amendment. So, it's all a bunch of flailing about, ultimately.

As much as I enjoy owning guns, and as much as I enjoy shooting guns, the truth is that I think the second amendment simply no longer works for modern, 2015 America. It's wording and current interpretation by the current SCOTUS simply prevent any real, meaningful reform of gun violence in the US; presuming of course that relatively loose gun availability is a predicate to unusually high levels gun violence which is of course much disputed. (The availability leading to the violence, I mean, not that the US enjoys a level of violence otherwise uncommon in the first world).

That being said, we really do have larger problems in the US - as sad as these events are and as widely covered as they have become, ultimately spree killings, kids shooting siblings with insecure firearms, and sundry others costs of being an American are really sort of insignificant statistically. It would be a shame to overreach in the name of reducing gun violence in the way we have overextended in the name of preventing terrorism post 9/11 (for example).

 Da Boss wrote:
It's funny that plenty of people are comfortable with mass surveillance of their activities online and indeed out and about, but ask them to register for something dangerous like a gun and have an inspector call round by appointment to check up on it and suddenly, that, and that alone, constitutes some sort of fascist police state.

please point me to those people.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's funny that plenty of people are comfortable with mass surveillance of their activities online and indeed out and about, but ask them to register for something dangerous like a gun and have an inspector call round by appointment to check up on it and suddenly, that, and that alone, constitutes some sort of fascist police state.

I reckon we should stop calling all these dead people victims and start calling them "acceptable losses" as suggested by another poster.

And who are these "plenty of people" you speak of?? Everyone that I know (granted, not enough to make broad generalizations like you have here) is completely NOT comfortable with mass surveillance at anytime.


Is anyone comfortable with mass surveillance?


Anyone?

 Chief Tugboat wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
It's funny that plenty of people are comfortable with mass surveillance of their activities online and indeed out and about, but ask them to register for something dangerous like a gun and have an inspector call round by appointment to check up on it and suddenly, that, and that alone, constitutes some sort of fascist police state.

I reckon we should stop calling all these dead people victims and start calling them "acceptable losses" as suggested by another poster.

And who are these "plenty of people" you speak of?? Everyone that I know (granted, not enough to make broad generalizations like you have here) is completely NOT comfortable with mass surveillance at anytime.


Is anyone comfortable with mass surveillance?


Anyone?

Evidently there are those just fine with warrantless searches of homes. Which side are they on? Oh yea...

 Frazzled wrote:
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.

Because demonstrating to the child that problems are resolved with violence would certainly have corrected his apparent belief that violence is an appropriate solution to his problems...

 insaniak wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
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.

Because demonstrating to the child that problems are resolved with violence would certainly have corrected his apparent belief that violence is an appropriate solution to his problems...

Yep.