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.

 Ouze wrote:
The gas man or electric man can't decide to arrest you if you leave a bong on your table when they show up to read your meter.

I'm not sure that 'I shouldn't have to prove that I'm responsible enough to own a weapon in a way that might inadvertently reveal that I ignore the law when it suits me' is really a strong argument against the idea...

 insaniak wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So only wealthy homeowners can own firearms in your world.

No, in 'my' world, only people who actually have a valid use for them can own firearms.

That's been working pretty well for the last 20 years.

In your world you have to hide when the herds of wallabies come through town...we know all about your deathworld, Insaniak. You can't hide your Sardauker training grounds from us.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So only wealthy homeowners can own firearms in your world. Good to know.

So that's okay when we're talking about medical insurance, but not okay when we're talking about guns? I feel there is a sad irony at work here.

1. Medical Care is not a reight enshrined in the Bill of Rights so your argument is irrelevant.
2. Having said that, Medicare, Medicade, the VA, and Obamacare reflect the belief that your attempted comparison is not accurate.

Its not ironic, our government is just incompetent.

Just a quick aside but what do people here think is the chance that access to medical care gets written up as a new constitutional amendment?

 insaniak wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You can't use laws to defacto discriminate against particular groups of people when it comes to their rights. .

It's not discrimination to tell someone that they can't buy something that they can't afford to buy.

The argument doesn't hold. You can't use a money test to discriminate against a fundamental right in the US. Thats settled law.

 Frazzled wrote:
1. Medical Care is not a reight enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Well perhaps it should be, and perhaps guns shouldn't be. Guns being a right while medicine isn't sounds like rather mixed up priorities (if not ironic).

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So only wealthy homeowners can own firearms in your world. Good to know.

So that's okay when we're talking about medical insurance, but not okay when we're talking about guns? I feel there is a sad irony at work here.

1. Medical Care is not a reight enshrined in the Bill of Rights so your argument is irrelevant.
2. Having said that, Medicare, Medicade, the VA, and Obamacare reflect the belief that your attempted comparison is not accurate.

Its not ironic, our government is just incompetent.

Just a quick aside but what do people here think is the chance that access to medical care gets written up as a new constitutional amendment?

Separate topic but low. Getting a Constitutional Amendment passed for anything is extremely difficult. If anything had a chance it would though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
1. Medical Care is not a reight enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Well perhaps it should be, and perhaps guns shouldn't be. Guns being a right while medicine isn't sounds like rather mixed up priorities (if not ironic).

And thats up to the People of Americaland to decide.

 Frazzled wrote:
The argument doesn't hold. You can't use a money test to discriminate against a fundamental right in the US. Thats settled law.

Requiring that a dangerous weapon be stored securely isn't a 'money test'. It's a requirement that a dangerous weapon be stored securely.

If you can't meet that requirement, then you have no place buying the weapon.


It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of responsibility.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The gas man or electric man can't decide to arrest you if you leave a bong on your table when they show up to read your meter.

I'm not sure that 'I shouldn't have to prove that I'm responsible enough to own a weapon in a way that might inadvertently reveal that I ignore the law when it suits me' is really a strong argument against the idea...

I'm just illustrating the differences between a contractually agreed to agreement between a service provider, and what is essentially a total surrender of your right to be secure in your home and persons, because presumably anything the officer sees that is a violation is admissible. There is really nearly no good reason to ever let a police officer into your home without a warrant, in my opinion.

 Smacks wrote:
Well perhaps it should be, and perhaps guns shouldn't be. Guns being a right while medicine isn't sounds like rather mixed up priorities (if not ironic).

As always, all roads lead to that the second amendment would need to be amended, and we don't have the political will to do so

 Ouze wrote:

. There is really nearly no good reason to ever let a police officer into your home without a warrant, in my opinion.

Maybe that's a cultural thing... Because I see nearly no good reason not to.

6 months ago, I had a police officer here telling me that my brother in law had been found dead that morning. Frankly, I'm rather glad that conversation happened in my dining room instead of on my front doorstep.

That's the third time I've had a police officer in my house, every time for good reason and not once with a warrant. I remain strangely free from incarceration.

I know that the old 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' thing tends to be unpopular on the internet, but sometimes it's true.

 insaniak wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The argument doesn't hold. You can't use a money test to discriminate against a fundamental right in the US. Thats settled law.

Requiring that a dangerous weapon be stored securely isn't a 'money test'. It's a requirement that a dangerous weapon be stored securely.

If you can't meet that requirement, then you have no place buying the weapon.


It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of responsibility.

your definition of "securely" amounts to a discriminatory test.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

. There is really nearly no good reason to ever let a police officer into your home without a warrant, in my opinion.

Maybe that's a cultural thing... Beca

You bet it is. No person with a brain lets the PoPo in their house without a warrant unless they are reporting a crime.

 Ouze wrote:
The gas man or electric man can't decide to arrest you if you leave a bong on your table when they show up to read your meter.

Quite so, but if they spot anything obviously illegal they can call the cops just like anyone else. Your contract doesn't include covering up crimes. And IIRC electrical companies sometimes tip off the cops when your electrical consumption suddenly increases by 10-15 times. That usually means you've started a drug plantation.

 insaniak wrote:
That's the third time I've had a police officer in my house, every time for good reason and not once with a warrant. I remain strangely free from incarceration.

Well, perhaps your policing is less adversarial than ours is.

Maybe I'm just biased. I grew up with the NYPD, and they were not your friend, generally speaking.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, perhaps your policing is less adversarial than ours is.

Heh, I'd say that's a given.

For what it's worth, when the police in the UK have an appointment to come to examine your gun locker to ensure it meets the required legal standard, they are certainly less well armed than you are.

And that is why the UK has a terrible problem with householders shooting police men.

 Frazzled wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The argument doesn't hold. You can't use a money test to discriminate against a fundamental right in the US. Thats settled law.

Requiring that a dangerous weapon be stored securely isn't a 'money test'. It's a requirement that a dangerous weapon be stored securely.

If you can't meet that requirement, then you have no place buying the weapon.


It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of responsibility.

your definition of "securely" amounts to a discriminatory test.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

. There is really nearly no good reason to ever let a police officer into your home without a warrant, in my opinion.

Maybe that's a cultural thing... Beca

You bet it is. No person with a brain lets the PoPo in their house without a warrant unless they are reporting a crime.

Agreed. It seems kind of goofy, having cops come around to inspect your gun storage. It makes about as much sense as them coming around to make sure your liquor is secured so the kids can't get into it. After all, more than three times as many people in this country die from alcohol related causes as are victims in a gun related homicide.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The gas man or electric man can't decide to arrest you if you leave a bong on your table when they show up to read your meter.

Quite so, but if they spot anything obviously illegal they can call the cops just like anyone else. Your contract doesn't include covering up crimes. And IIRC electrical companies sometimes tip off the cops when your electrical consumption suddenly increases by 10-15 times. That usually means you've started a drug plantation.

they can call the cops, and the cops can stand out side my door while I make faces at them and do the heine dance. They still can't come in without a warrant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For what it's worth, when the police in the UK have an appointment to come to examine your gun locker to ensure it meets the required legal standard, they are certainly less well armed than you are.

And that is why the UK has a terrible problem with householders shooting police men.

Your use of police men is not inclusive and shows your unconscious bias to the patriarchal hierarchy entwined throughout your society.

Frazz, you and I are fathers so we both know the fundamental value of patriarchal hierarchy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazz, you and I are fathers so we both know the fundamental value of patriarchal hierarchy.

And we both know that how humorous the rest of the family thinks that is.

Yeah, well. My wife can't open the car door without using the blipper key.

I can fox her bid for world domination any time I like just by switching keys with her, as my one is broken and only works by the normal metal key.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Just a quick aside but what do people here think is the chance that access to medical care gets written up as a new constitutional amendment?

Zero.

I'm not opposed to a Candadian/Swiss system if they can improve wait times.

There's a reason tons of Candadians come to the US for medical procedures..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
From what I've seen of trigger locks, many guns can still be loaded and cocked with them on, and I've even seen people fire them by pulling backwards on the lock. Some are probably better than others, but a kid could still hold the gun, point the gun, stare down the barrel. I personally wouldn't consider a weapon secure with just a trigger lock on it, and it may actually be

This is a pretty standard trigger lock that has come with all of my handguns.

All of shotguns have come with simple chamber cable locks.

When either is in place, it is literally impossible for the firearm to discharge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
1. Medical Care is not a reight enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Well perhaps it should be, and perhaps guns shouldn't be. Guns being a right while medicine isn't sounds like rather mixed up priorities (if not ironic).

Only if you confuse what the right to own firearms means in the US.

It's guaranteed so that the citizenry can defend itself, against individual assailants and it's government

 insaniak wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The argument doesn't hold. You can't use a money test to discriminate against a fundamental right in the US. Thats settled law.

Requiring that a dangerous weapon be stored securely isn't a 'money test'. It's a requirement that a dangerous weapon be stored securely.

If you can't meet that requirement, then you have no place buying the weapon.


It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of responsibility.

Why should the federal Gov't be able to dictate what meets MY requirement for 'stored securely'? Or for that matter have any say in wether or not I feel the need to 'secure' my firearms?

I honestly don't understand why giving the Federal gov't more power to intrude on individual rights and privacy seems to be the proposed answer to every damned problem.

More kids die from accidental poisoning. Do we need Federal laws on 'securing' household cleaning supplies and medicines?

Because the federal government represents the collective will of the whole society, and you just represent your personal opinion.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Because the federal government represents the collective will of the whole society, and you just represent your personal opinion.

No, the Federal Gov't does not represent the 'collective will of the whole society'. That is not and should not ever be its purpose. And even you and folks with your viewpoint don't think it should in ALL cases, just in the ones that match your viewpoint, which is exactly why it is a gak idea in all cases.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Because the federal government represents the collective will of the whole society, and you just represent your personal opinion.

Not really.

Re-read the 10th amendment. Then show me where/what empowers the Federal Government to do what you're advocating.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
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.

But, as I pointed out earlier, the government can inspect your plane at any time to make sure that your registration is current and all of your mandatory equipment is working. The FAA inspector can literally walk up to you at the airport, say "inspection time", and you have to immediately hand over the keys and let them do the inspection. So this idea that mandatory searches to verify compliance with certain laws are automatically unconstitutional has no support in the real world. The truth is that, while the government requires probable cause to make a general search of your house/car/whatever, they are permitted to require limited-scope searches to verify compliance.

According to the FAA precedent the government could stop you on the road, demand access to your car to check your paperwork, run a quick emissions test, etc. And you'd be laughed out of court if you tried to claim a 4th amendment defense, just like if you tried to do it with the FAA. The reason nobody does that with cars likely has more to do with the efficiency of centralized inspection locations rather than any constitutional issues.

And as for the "too much work" issue, of course it's too much work in the current political environment because nobody cares enough about safe gun storage to spend the money required. But the idea that every gun has to be inspected frequently is kind of a straw man. You just need to have enough inspections that people have a credible belief that they could be inspected, and a harsh enough punishment for failing the inspection that few people are tempted to try their luck by ignoring the storage laws. It's the same principle behind FAA ramp checks: sure, you're unlikely to be checked on any given trip (I've never even seen an FAA inspector AFAIK), but I bet the vast majority of pilots keep their paperwork in order because the slight convenience of not having to update your registration papers isn't enough to justify the risk of failing an inspection.

The reason the govt gets to inspect your plan is because the F in FAA stands for Federal. The Federal govt issues you a pilot's license and one of the conditions of that license is the inspection of your plan. Just like the F in FFL stands for Federal and one of the conditions of obtaining a Federal Firearms License is that the govt can send agents to inspect your store or private logbooks depending on the type of FFL you have. The Federal govt is issuing the license and gets to set the conditions pertaining to the maintaining that license.

Owning a firearm doesn't require any federal licenses. The Federal govt can't pass state or municipal laws and the Federal govt can't issue orders to state, county or municipal police. The only way to establish laws requiring random inspections of gun owner's homes to verify that guns are legally stored in the proper manner would be to pass new laws on the state and local level. Then those laws would have to withstand legal challenges regarding the 4th amendment.

It's not a violation for the ATF to come to my house and check the records I'm required to keep in order to maintain my 03 FFL because thats a condition I agreed to in order to obtain the FFL. Random police searches that are nothing more than a blind fishing expedition hoping to find illegal activity without having any evidence that illegal activities are taking place is not legal and has repeatedly been determined to be illegal by the courts.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

So we're going to make an appointment with a government official for a set date, and time to show that we have firearms secured? How many people do you think are going to fail that test?

What you are proposing is a waste of taxes and a violation of the 4th Amendment.

...

It's the way it works in all other first world liberal democracies.

It's not a waste of taxes any more than any other industrial safety law.

It isn't a violation of the 4th amendment because it is not an unreasonable search.

We will never have police conducting random inspections of gun storage practices in the homes of gun owners. That type of police activity is illegal and we have centuries of case law that establish that fact. Our judicial system does not work that way.

We have copyright laws but the police cannot conduct searches of peoples' computers/laptops/tablets/phones/etc to check and see if people are violating copyright laws without establishing reasonable suspicion or probably cause or obtaining a warrant. Inspecting hard drives just to check to make sure copyright laws weren't broken is illegal..
We have child pornography laws but the police canno conduct searches of peoples' computers/laptops/tablets/phones/etc to check and see if people are violating copyright laws without establishing reasonable suspicion or probably cause or obtaining a warrant. Inspecting hard drives just to check to make sure child pornography laws weren't broken is illegal.
We have laws against people being in possession of illegal drugs, illegal firearms, stolen property etc. but police cannot stop people on the street and search them without reasonable suspicion or probable cause or a warrant. Even Terry stops have strict limitations as to how a search can be conducted and they still require police to provide reasonable suspicion.

There is no special federal license or registration required for a US citizen to buy a firearm. All you need to do is fill out form 4473b and pass a NICS check (and there are plenty of people that are exempt from NICS checks under state laws). Since there is no special licensure or registration agreement in place there is no grounds for Federal authorities to place conditions, such as storage requirement inspections, on gun owners.

The Federal govt does require that all manufacturers include trigger locks with the firearms they sell. Under the interstate commerce clause the federal govt has the right to do this and gun manufacturers comply with this law and include trigger locks/chamber locks with all firearms sold.

State and municipal laws require proper storage. These laws are enforced the same way all other state and municipal laws are enforced; if you get caught breaking them you are prosecuted by state and/or municipal authorities.

The police, in the USA, have NEVER had the right to pre-emptively search people or homes just to see if any laws are being broken. They have always been required to comply with the 4th Amendment for the entirety of our country's existence.

You guys are creating a tempest in a teapot. There is no way that the proposed inspections of gun storage facilities can happen in the USA without massive overhauls of case law, federal and state legislation, the judicial system and the US and state constitutions. That will never happen and it is certainly not going to happen due to rare tragedies that have greater than 1:100,000,000 odds of happening and already result in prosecutions for violations of state and municipal gun storage laws when they do happen.

I agree. I will admit though, the fact that folks actually advocate for Federal power to increase and be that intrusive, and see it as a good/desirable thing bothers me.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Because the federal government represents the collective will of the whole society, and you just represent your personal opinion.

Jurisdiction is still a pretty important concept. The federal govt doesn't have the right or the ability to pass laws that are beyond it's limited jurisdiction. The states and municipal authorites govern safety laws for the people and residences in their jurisdiction not the federal govt. It is literally impossible for the Federal govt to legally send state troopers or local PD into my house to inspect my gun storage methods. It's a matter for state and municipal authorities to legislate and most of them already have and it's a matter for state and local authorities to prosecute, which they do, after people get caught breaking the laws because that's how law enforcement works in the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
I agree. I will admit though, the fact that folks actually advocate for Federal power to increase and be that intrusive, and see it as a good/desirable thing bothers me.

Agreed. People need to understand that the Federal govt is the worst level of govt to use to legislate laws for individuals. The Federal leviathan only sees people in the aggregate, there is no nuance or understanding of specific circumstances and situations just giant boondoggles fraught with unintended consequences that are one size fits all laws that can never be as precise as they are supposed to be. People who feel the need for more laws need to understand that the only level of govt that actually understands what's going on is the local and state level. The Federal govt doesn't understand what's happening on the local level and that is deliberate and by design, there is no mechanism in place to make the Federal govt aware. The smallest piece of the country represented in the Federal govt is the congressional district and that can encompass multiple municipalities and thousands upon thousands of people and politicians representing those districts are just one of hundreds in Congress. There is no way for such a govt body to exert any kind of meaningful control over how one individual stores his shotgun in his house in a small town. That's a local problem that requires a local solution. Your county sherrif is going to have a greater impact on firearm safety in your town than your Congressman or Senator in DC.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Because the federal government represents the collective will of the whole society, and you just represent your personal opinion.

Jurisdiction is still a pretty important concept. The federal govt doesn't have the right or the ability to pass laws that are beyond it's limited jurisdiction. ... ...

If US society wants the federal government to do something it will get done.

See votes for women, abortion, medicare and gay marriage, for examples.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Because the federal government represents the collective will of the whole society, and you just represent your personal opinion.

Jurisdiction is still a pretty important concept. The federal govt doesn't have the right or the ability to pass laws that are beyond it's limited jurisdiction. ... ...

If US society wants the federal government to do something it will get done.

See votes for women, abortion, medicare and gay marriage, for examples.

However, support for gun rights/2nd amendment has risen considerably over the years.

Now the anti-2nd'er can truly say:
Thanks Obama!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Because the federal government represents the collective will of the whole society, and you just represent your personal opinion.

Jurisdiction is still a pretty important concept. The federal govt doesn't have the right or the ability to pass laws that are beyond it's limited jurisdiction. ... ...

If US society wants the federal government to do something it will get done.

See votes for women, abortion, medicare and gay marriage, for examples.

You seem to have a very flawed understanding of the US govt. Women's suffrage was granted after decades of protests and activism by a constitutional amendment not a Federal Law. Abortion was determined by the Roe v Wade SCOTUS case, again not Federal legislation. Gay marriage is another example of a SCOTUS decision not Federal legislation. Please show me one Federal law that was passed that makes gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Congress still hasn't repealed DOMA.

The idea that Congress isn't actually hampered by jurisdictional limitations and the constitution/rule of law is absurd. Congress can't just pass whatever laws they want on whatever subject they want. Federal laws only apply to what is under Federal purview. The "will of the people" doesn't change that. Never has, never will.