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.

jamesk1973 wrote:
No safe. No lock. Loaded.

I am the safety.

So it's on your person 24/7/365?

Nope.

Right there in my bedside stand.

So you're not the safety all the time and it is not in a safe location 24/7.

I do consider a gun that is holstered on your person to be safely stored.

Depending on his particular situation that statement could be entirely false.

A man living with children or fools has to take a lot more precaution than one who does not, for example. Someone living in an apartment will not see any real benefit of a "safe" versus a functional door knob with a lock on it versus thieves who know what tools are.

Looks great on insurance/police paperwork though.

 d-usa wrote:
Requiring ownership of [some kind of safe] and requiring that you store your gun in one doesn't infringe your rights

Sure it does. We have the right to own and bear arms not the right to own and bear arms as long as we also buy and use some variety of gun safe.

 d-usa wrote:
It depends on if you consider something to be an infringement though.

Gun storage laws: I don't think they would be an infringement at all. The main problem with them would be enforcement. Unless you would mandate inspection of a residence before a gun purchase to make sure they have safe storage as well as surprise inspections afte the purchase to make sure they do store it safely there is no way to enforce the law. In the end it would just be another charge added on whenever a gun has a negligent discharge or a gun is reported stolen when it wasn't locked up. I don't know if and how you could make a law like that work, but it doesn't infringe your right to own a gun.

I keep a small gun-case bolted to my nightstand. It's easy and quick to unlock by pressing the right buttons in case I need to get to it. Requiring ownership of one and requiring that you store your gun in one doesn't infringe your rights, not does it render you defenseless if somebody breaks into your home.

The problem with a law like that would be enforcing it without violating a bunch of other rights in the process.

Mine is at 3.00 oclock on the waist and the Wife's in her purse. How does that fit in?

That particular firearm has never been locked or safed in the 18 years I have owned it.

 d-usa wrote:
I keep a small gun-case bolted to my nightstand. It's easy and quick to unlock by pressing the right buttons in case I need to get to it. Requiring ownership of one and requiring that you store your gun in one doesn't infringe your rights, not does it render you defenseless if somebody breaks into your home.

Unfortunately I don't trust myself enough to press the right buttons in a stressful situation (Ladies ). I keep my pistol in the case it came in sitting on a shelf I have next to my bedroom door (inside the room). I don't have children, if there are some visiting it's out of reach, and if I have any guests they're never in my room without me. However I do also leave the case unfastened and closed and unlocked. In case of emergency all I need to do is flip the lid open which then lands on some foam I set down behind it to avoid noise. I still feel like my weapon is as secure as it really needs to be, and since I don't know how I'll be able to perform in potential break-in it's good to know that I won't have arming myself becoming an obstacle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also just noticed jamesk is a Texan! Now we can throw Frazz out!

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I keep a small gun-case bolted to my nightstand. It's easy and quick to unlock by pressing the right buttons in case I need to get to it. Requiring ownership of one and requiring that you store your gun in one doesn't infringe your rights, not does it render you defenseless if somebody breaks into your home.

Unfortunately I don't trust myself enough to press the right buttons in a stressful situation (Ladies ). I keep my pistol in the case it came in sitting on a shelf I have next to my bedroom door (inside the room). I don't have children, if there are some visiting it's out of reach, and if I have any guests they're never in my room without me. However I do also leave the case unfastened and closed and unlocked. In case of emergency all I need to do is flip the lid open which then lands on some foam I set down behind it to avoid noise. I still feel like my weapon is as secure as it really needs to be, and since I don't know how I'll be able to perform in potential break-in it's good to know that I won't have arming myself becoming an obstacle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also just noticed jamesk is a Texan! Now we can throw Frazz out!

See, I and my wife store our firearms the same way that Mr. Jellyfish does. The difference is that we do have kids. However, being that we are both extensively trained with firearms, they are and will remain out of reach of the kids and anyone. They are stored in a place that is easy for us to get to, but impossible for them to get to without severely letting us know whats going on. They are not stored loaded, but in a state where it will take VERY LITTLE time to be ready to roll. Obviously, as my kids become older, we will be taking more steps to ensure that they don't do anything with those firearms that we would not want them doing.

Responsible gun ownership does not imply that a firearm bought for self/home defense is locked in a safe or trigger locks, etc. As when seconds count, the seconds you take to get to that firearm may mean harm to you/your loved ones.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It depends on if you consider something to be an infringement though.

Gun storage laws: I don't think they would be an infringement at all. The main problem with them would be enforcement. Unless you would mandate inspection of a residence before a gun purchase to make sure they have safe storage as well as surprise inspections afte the purchase to make sure they do store it safely there is no way to enforce the law. In the end it would just be another charge added on whenever a gun has a negligent discharge or a gun is reported stolen when it wasn't locked up. I don't know if and how you could make a law like that work, but it doesn't infringe your right to own a gun.

I keep a small gun-case bolted to my nightstand. It's easy and quick to unlock by pressing the right buttons in case I need to get to it. Requiring ownership of one and requiring that you store your gun in one doesn't infringe your rights, not does it render you defenseless if somebody breaks into your home.

The problem with a law like that would be enforcing it without violating a bunch of other rights in the process.

Mine is at 3.00 oclock on the waist and the Wife's in her purse. How does that fit in?

See my post above:

 d-usa wrote:

I do consider a gun that is holstered on your person to be safely stored.

Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Requiring ownership of [some kind of safe] and requiring that you store your gun in one doesn't infringe your rights

Sure it does. We have the right to own and bear arms not the right to own and bear arms as long as we also buy and use some variety of gun safe.

By that logic you also don't have the right to own and bear arms as long as it's not a fully automatic weapon unless I have the appropriate paperwork and you would have to throw out every single gun law on the books. It's stupid.

You have the right to own them and to bear them. If you are not bearing them then keep them safely stowed while you are still owning them. A loaded weapon on your kitchen table while you are taking a dump in the bathroom is not "bearing arms".

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I keep a small gun-case bolted to my nightstand. It's easy and quick to unlock by pressing the right buttons in case I need to get to it. Requiring ownership of one and requiring that you store your gun in one doesn't infringe your rights, not does it render you defenseless if somebody breaks into your home.

Unfortunately I don't trust myself enough to press the right buttons in a stressful situation (Ladies )

If you don't trust yourself to press the right buttons in a stressful situation then I don't trust you with a firearm in a stressful situation period.

Do you practice with your gun? Do you have to really think about how to draw it if you need to draw it or do you practice it enough to have the muscle memory to draw it like a reflex? Do you feel like you are going to have to really focus on how to pull the trigger if you are shooting a bad guy or do you practice with it enough that you have the muscle memory to pull it smooth? How many phone numbers do you know how to dial without even thinking about the actual number? I know I have quite a few numbers at work that I have to actually dial before I can tell you what they are. I don't have to think about the numbers, I just think "pharmacy" and my fingers dial the number for me. Practice with your gun safe and the combination and it should be just as much of a learned skill as every other aspect of shooting your gun.

"I might be to stressed out to punch the 4 digits required to get my gun but I will not be too stressed out to shoot it safely" is just stupid.

Edit:

But like I said. I don't think laws requiring safe storage are infringing on your rights. The enforcement of it just wouldn't work because it would require either:

A) Letting cops in your house for random inspections to make sure you are following them.

B) Just be another punishment after a negligent discharge, which would defeat the purpose of the law (preventing the negligent discharge to begin with).

 d-usa wrote:
"I might be to stressed out to punch the 4 digits required to get my gun but I will not be too stressed out to shoot it safely" is just stupid.

Well I guess I can be stupid then, because I'm currently under the belief that firing a gun at the range my home allows for will be easier than punching in a code. The problem is, is that without the code I only have one stressful situation to deal with at a time. No point in adding the obstacle of a code when it gives me no benefit at all except to appease the gun grabbers.

 d-usa wrote:

Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Requiring ownership of [some kind of safe] and requiring that you store your gun in one doesn't infringe your rights

Sure it does. We have the right to own and bear arms not the right to own and bear arms as long as we also buy and use some variety of gun safe.

By that logic you also don't have the right to own and bear arms as long as it's not a fully automatic weapon unless I have the appropriate paperwork and you would have to throw out every single gun law on the books. It's stupid.

I thought you wanted to argue about something not being an infringement? Now you are arguing about what whether there can be infringements. Clearly, there can be as we've already discussed.

But our default position is (or should be) we don't infringe consitituional rights absent some compelling interest, establishing the interest can only be met by the infringement, and showing that the infringement is the least restrictive means to meet the interest.

So far, the Court has not found safe storage of privately owned firearms to constitute a compelling government interest. But, as I said, even if it were, whatever specific infringing policy to hand would also have to meet the other two prongs.

The history of this nation demonstrates that no government oversight is needed for safe and responsible ownership of firearms by citizens who are otherwise not disqualified to own them. Just because some people are not actually responsible, or because some people make mistakes, doesn't mean the government suddenly has to step in.

If you think about it for just a moment, you'll see this is the same argument that I make against voter ID laws.

Take an exalt manchu.

Has there been a court case regarding safe storage laws?

Could it be argued that magazine limits are "to promote safe ownership"?

It not exactly honest to say that courts have found that government has not found an interest to promote safe ownership by those otherwise qualified to own if "safe storage" laws have never been before a court.

And the history of our county has been filled with government actions to promote responsible ownership by those not otherwise disqualified, concealed carry laws are just one of them. Some communities even mandate the type of holster required, another government action to regulate and enforce safe ownership.

Safe storage laws do not infringe, the enforcement of them would infringe a host of other rights though which makes them non-viable.

 cincydooley wrote:
This is fething ludicrous. Storing your firearms properly is fething simple. If your kid shoots himself with your unsecured gun, it's you own fething fault and you should be held responsible.

I agree 100%.

Some media site - I want to say it's Slate - has pushed to no longer describe shootings by children as "accidental". It stems from some Deputy refusing to describe the shooting as accidental in some report, instead calling it negligent.

If you leave a loaded gun where a child could get it, and that child then shoots someone or itself with it, I think you should be charged with criminally negligent ______ depending on the extent of the injury.


However, I mildly disagree with your second point - that there should not be laws mandating firearm storage. You indicate they are totally unenforceable and that's why we shouldn't have them; but nearly every municipality in the country already has a code section that dictates how gasoline can be stored. It's not like this is some crazy idea totally without precedent. I agree there are substantial hurdles to successfully enforcing this and there is a second amendment consideration.


I greatly prefer the former rather than the latter. I know that it's hard to treat someone who just lost a child as a criminal because you feel like they already suffered tragedy enough, but ultimately it's a totally avoidable tragedy not any different than you getting your kid killed because you were drunk driving.

@Ouze: I do think that "accidental discharges or accidental shootings" are incredibly rare and that they should only by called that if there was a complete mechanical failure that was the cause of it. I prefer the term negligent discharge since almost all the time a human was the cause of them.

 Ouze wrote:


However, I mildly disagree with your second point - that there should not be laws mandating firearm storage. You indicate they are totally unenforceable and that's why we shouldn't have them; but nearly every municipality in the country already has a code section that dictates how gasoline can be stored. It's not like this is some crazy idea totally without precedent. I agree there are substantial hurdles to successfully enforcing this and there is a second amendment consideration.

The problem that I personally have with this sort of thing is, why does a government agency get to decide what constitutes storage for us? I mean, if a single guy owns a safe/cabinet and puts his weapons in there, locked 24/7 by choice, why should a person who has children necessarily do the same? As I said earlier, currently, mine are not locked, but neither are they loaded, nor in a position where the kids could get them without me knowing about it, regardless of my location within my house.

Along similar lines, the Government does not get to tell me how to "store" my vehicles on my property. Certainly, they can make that distinction when I'm parked at the library, the capitol building, or any federal area, but not where I live. And that's how it should be with guns as well.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Unfortunately I don't trust myself enough to press the right buttons in a stressful situation

You may not be aware of this - I'm saying this without sarcasm or snark and saying so because tone is sometimes hard to convey in a posting - but you can buy a gun safe that is fingerprint activated.

In your situation - no children and no unauthorized access to the location it's stored - it's probably not worth it; but it's worth knowing if you do have children later or for someone else with a similar concern re: buttons.

I myself keep my 1911 in a small safe with some hollowpoint-loaded mags, and keep my AK locked in a file cabinet with the rest of my ammunition.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
[The problem that I personally have with this sort of thing is, why does a government agency get to decide what constitutes storage for us?

I agree it's problematic, totally. I'm not going to really defend the idea because I'm super ambivalent. If I didn't have kids in my home I myself probably would not own a safe. I'm just mentioning it's not totally without precedent, either. No right is un-infringed to some degree. Is the compelling interest there? Well, that depends on the right case, I suppose.

 d-usa wrote:
It not exactly honest to say that courts have found ...

That's not what I said. I said, "the Court has not found ..." because you seem to be assuming, without really arguing, that the state has a compelling interest in what you're calling "safe storage laws.":

 d-usa wrote:
Safe storage laws do not infringe

Yes they do, for the same reason having to show even a free state-provided ID card infringes on your right to vote -- at least IMO. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an undue burden on the right to vote. Historically, the "undue burden" test has been an end run around strict scrutiny, which is a test as to whether the burden is actually due rather than undue.

Think of it this way -- is there any good reason to create any obstacle of whatever level of burden between a citizen and her right to vote? Is for example in-person voter fraud such a reason? Well, we know that in-person voter fraud is basically non-existent. So a non-existent problem simply cannot justify any burden, whether light or onerous, on a constitutional right. I believe the exact same logic applies to this talk about government oversight over storage of privately owned firearms. There really isn't a problem demanding government oversight here. So why throw away our rights?

 Alexzandvar wrote:

Manchu wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
And the nanny state arguement is silly in this regard, since improperly storing your firearms can get you, your family, or some just plain innocent bystander harmed.

Many, many things in your house can maim or even kill you and your family if you happen to be a pack of irresponsible fools.

Its much harder to kill your son/dog/cat/pet rock with say a toaster or a butter knife than it is with a device meant to killing/maim something. This isn't like we are talking about restricting your right to OWN them, we are talking about ensuring people treat those firearms correctly.

There are several times more people killed by drunk drivers or other alcohol related causes than have been killed by criminals with guns. Does that mean we should control alcohol more than we control guns?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ouze wrote:


However, I mildly disagree with your second point - that there should not be laws mandating firearm storage. You indicate they are totally unenforceable and that's why we shouldn't have them; but nearly every municipality in the country already has a code section that dictates how gasoline can be stored. It's not like this is some crazy idea totally without precedent. I agree there are substantial hurdles to successfully enforcing this and there is a second amendment consideration.

The problem that I personally have with this sort of thing is, why does a government agency get to decide what constitutes storage for us? I mean, if a single guy owns a safe/cabinet and puts his weapons in there, locked 24/7 by choice, why should a person who has children necessarily do the same? As I said earlier, currently, mine are not locked, but neither are they loaded, nor in a position where the kids could get them without me knowing about it, regardless of my location within my house.

The argument usually made is that it might help reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals if they can't steal them when they break into your house.

But you would have to buy those super expensive giant safes for them, and it wouldn't deter them from walking away with gun-cases.

I'm also not sure about the exact number, but I suspect that "stolen guns" are a minor source of illegally owned guns in the US.

Along similar lines, the Government does not get to tell me how to "store" my vehicles on my property. Certainly, they can make that distinction when I'm parked at the library, the capitol building, or any federal area, but not where I live. And that's how it should be with guns as well.

I'm fairly certain that the Government actually does tell you how to "store" your vehicles on your property if you are living in an area with even modest zoning laws. It might be your vehicle on your property, but try parking on your front yard and see what the code enforcement division has to say about it.

Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It not exactly honest to say that courts have found ...

That's not what I said. I said, "the Court has not found ..." because you seem to be assuming, without really arguing, that the state has a compelling interest in what you're calling "safe storage laws.":

 d-usa wrote:
Safe storage laws do not infringe

Yes they do, for the same reason having to show even a free state-provided ID card infringes on your right to vote -- at least IMO. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an undue burden on the right to vote. Historically, the "undue burden" test has been an end run around strict scrutiny, which is a test as to whether the burden is actually due rather than undue.

Think of it this way -- is there any good reason to create any obstacle of whatever level of burden between a citizen and her right to vote? Is for example in-person voter fraud such a reason? Well, we know that in-person voter fraud is basically non-existent. So a non-existent problem simply cannot justify any burden, whether light or onerous, on a constitutional right. I believe the exact same logic applies to this talk about government oversight over storage of privately owned firearms. There really isn't a problem demanding government oversight here. So why throw away our rights?

I think this could be a case where # of incidents per # of people engaging in activity could be taken into consideration. So you would need to compare "cases of in-person voter fraud compared to number of people voting" with "accidental injuries that could be prevented with mandated storage compared to number of gun owners".

I'm sure that there are more documented cases of injures than there are of in-person voter fraud (although with our crappy voter turnout the "fraud per voter" number might be falsely elevated ).

The same "free ID" logic pushed by the pro-ID conservatives (who are also often the pro-gun crowd) could be used for an "everybody gets a free trigger lock" argument. No burden to gun owners, since the trigger lock is free and now you can be required to store it safely, just like you can be required to show ID if it's free.

But again, like I said before. It's mostly an academic discussion for me since I don't think that there is a way to enforce the law without infringing on a host of other civil liberties in the process. The only way to enforce it would be to punish people for unsafe storage after the fact, and we already have punishments for cases like that due to other laws.

I am a gun owner and I store mine safely. I have an infant now, but even before that I would have friends with children visiting and family with children so they were always stored safely. I think safe storage should be part of responsible gun ownership and people should be smart enough to do it without a law. I don't think a law would infringe on your right to own a gun, but I think it wouldn't be enforceable without violating other rights.

 d-usa wrote:
[ I think safe storage should be part of responsible gun ownership and people should be smart enough to do it without a law.

I think we could eliminate a great many statutes if people weren't so damned stupid

 Ouze wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Unfortunately I don't trust myself enough to press the right buttons in a stressful situation

You may not be aware of this - I'm saying this without sarcasm or snark and saying so because tone is sometimes hard to convey in a posting - but you can buy a gun safe that is fingerprint activated.

In your situation - no children and no unauthorized access to the location it's stored - it's probably not worth it; but it's worth knowing if you do have children later or for someone else with a similar concern re: buttons.

I'll add that to my wishlist!

 d-usa wrote:
I think [a] safe storage should be part of responsible gun ownership and [b] people should be smart enough to do it without a law.

I totally agree with [a] and I think [b] is the actual case in the vast majority of instances.

Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think [a] safe storage should be part of responsible gun ownership and [b] people should be smart enough to do it without a law.

I totally agree with [a] and I think [b] is the actual case in the vast majority of instances.

Hear, hear.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
[ I think safe storage should be part of responsible gun ownership and people should be smart enough to do it without a law.

I think we could eliminate a great many statutes if people weren't so damned stupid

I think people should be allowed to be stupid. There should be freedom of choice but not freedom from consequences. I don't believe the gov't should be able to tell me how many grams of sugar or high fructose corn syrup I can have in my 44 ounce big gulp drink. I also think that if I show high risk behaviors my insurance company should be allowed to raise my rates or deny coverage. I don't think I should have to wear a helmet when I ride, but I think my insurance company should be allowed to issue a policy that states if I ride without proper gear they can deny a claim. I don't think the gov't should be able to tell me how to store a weapon nor how many rounds a magazine can hold. I do think if one of my weapons is used in a criminal act by myself I should be hammered for that, and if used improperly by another due to my negligence I should be hammered for that.

Let people be stupid. Then hammer the snot out of them with criminal and or civil penalties if their stupidity causes injury or loss of property or life.

 Ouze wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Unfortunately I don't trust myself enough to press the right buttons in a stressful situation

You may not be aware of this - I'm saying this without sarcasm or snark and saying so because tone is sometimes hard to convey in a posting - but you can buy a gun safe that is fingerprint activated.

Oooh, it's prime eligible

Third year running that Amazon Prime has made me not hate Christmas shopping; since I can do it all in about an hour while at work

 d-usa wrote:

Along similar lines, the Government does not get to tell me how to "store" my vehicles on my property. Certainly, they can make that distinction when I'm parked at the library, the capitol building, or any federal area, but not where I live. And that's how it should be with guns as well.

I'm fairly certain that the Government actually does tell you how to "store" your vehicles on your property if you are living in an area with even modest zoning laws. It might be your vehicle on your property, but try parking on your front yard and see what the code enforcement division has to say about it.

I live in Tennessee, where if some government official wants to complain about my working vehicle sitting in my front yard (i don't actually park there) then they must have already hit the hundreds of properties that have vehicles on blocks in the weeds


The house I'm moving to in the coming months has an HOA, and while they certainly will have rules against that sort of thing, it's not really something that AFAIK is very legally enforceable. As I will be the one paying the mortgage on that house, they cant very well evict me

I think it all really boils down to this.

The anti-gunners have their opinions and I have my guns.

They can't have them. They cannot argue them away from me. they must attempt to pass laws to take them from me.

What pisses them off is that the Constitution specifically says you cannot have them. Period.

Pro-gunners are not twisting words or looking for alternate definitions or looking for what the specific legal mindset was over 200+ years ago. The Anti-gunners are.

Who is expending the most effort in this situation?

The anti-gunners...because they are fighting a figurative uphill battle against a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

Further, if a law is passed taking my guns from me...I will not obey. I will not lie down meekly.

Because words and good intentions do not protect my freedom. I do.