Other State Bill Call For Charges Against Gun Owners If Kids Get Weapons

[Oohrah]

The OH law this thread is about, specifically and clearly says that you are off the hook if a juvie breaks into your house and cracks your secure storage.

Want to bet if it seems to be harmless, sooner or later it will be amended. Maybe even a couple times. It may even be attached to a package to seemingly seem harmless. There are over 23,000 fire arms laws on the books, and not one has prevented a loss of life or stopped any crime. No more new firearms laws are need. Those that have proved ineffective should be removed, like the Gun Control Act of 1968.

 

[Oohrah]

That was SB801 this time around. It got killed in committee due to pressure from MDA and Ceasefire.

As for storage, I still think a carrot is a much better motivator than a stick. Give anyone who stores their firearms in a state approved manner absolute blanket immunity from civil or criminal responsibility. If your guns are stored in a locked 800# safe you've done your duty and you should be immune. That leaves it up to the individual to assess what the risks in his or her particular household are. Me, I have the 800# safe and a quick access pistol safe. I can be firing from a dead sleep in under 5 seconds. I have this arrangement because I have 4 and 8 yo daughters, and a couple of 20-somethings that occasionally sleep here. It's a compromise between safety and accessibility.

The law goes beyond personal choice if it holds an arms owner responsible for anything within his home. It's goes beyond personal responsibility, and infringes on those things that government has no privy to having any information of what goes on inside your home or castle. If a law or suspected breaking of a law, then that property may be entered with a warrant in hand. Otherwise, it isn't anyone's business if you had a rifle over every doorway. Not a wise choice, but your not a criminal for being not so smart. What is not brilliant to some, just may be a real clever to others. I fail to see why that person should be restrained by law to live in the manner he wishes, without a law that may or may not prevent a crime being committed. Next you know, if your dog bites some one breaks into your house you have to face a law suit for the bite, and leave him in a muzzle so a robber isn't bitten.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

The law goes beyond personal choice if it holds an arms owner responsible for anything within his home. It's goes beyond personal responsibility, and infringes on those things that government has no privy to having any information of what goes on inside your home or castle. If a law or suspected breaking of a law, then that property may be entered with a warrant in hand. Otherwise, it isn't anyone's business if you had a rifle over every doorway. Not a wise choice, but your not a criminal for being not so smart. What is not brilliant to some, just may be a real clever to others. I fail to see why that person should be restrained by law to live in the manner he wishes, without a law that may or may not prevent a crime being committed. Next you know, if your dog bites some one breaks into your house you have to face a law suit for the bite, and leave him in a muzzle so a robber isn't bitten.

My carrot proposal would change nothing in the existing law. People can as it stands now be sued or charged criminally for negligent maintenance of a firearm. What I am proposing would not give access to anyone's home to law enforcement or the government. What it would do is ALLOW (not mandate) a firearm owner to show that he or she stored their weapons in a responsible manner and thereby receive absolute immunity from any responsibility.

 

[Oohrah]

I'm not sure how you can do this without giving up the privacy of allowing someone into your home, who is automatically a hostile stranger who is going to make a judgement on if I correctly may or may not am living a life style, that allowed someone to steal a firearm to commit bigger and better crimes than he already has. He will decide if I have contributed or enhanced the thief's life of crime by allowing him to steal my firearms. How I conduct my life style behind closed doors should not be anyone's business. It's bad enough they check my earnings to make sure that I pay my fair share of any income I may own. Maybe sin taxes will be next ? I do understand about your thoughts about disclosure would take any wrong doing away. Any thought about giving a free peek about other things to charge you with? I seem to recall the Waco incident where a warrant served when the leader of the mob was running every day could have avoided the conflict of an armed attack. All because they may have believed weapons were being converted to full automatic. Something never proven, and a background investigation and $200 tax made it legal. Instead death, destruction, and survivors were jailed was the out come. This solved what? Pretty sure suspect or suspicion of, has too many different outcomes when you have an open door policy. Wouldn't mind watching, but not likely I would want to volunteer. It also opens the door of what is a reasonable security without hindering immediate use? Right now there is theft from high security locations like Government bases, police agencies and agents, gun stores, stores with repair businesses, all having higher security than the average dwelling. I can see required special insurance not so much for the values, but for personal coverage. Best thing I can see happen is that every effort is made to stop any further firearms laws PERIOD. Those on the books now (over 23,000) have not stopped a single death, or prevented a single crime. When guns are outlawed, only Outlaws will have guns!

 

[Oohrah]

What would be a responsible manner, if you already have been violated by your house being broken into? What next? If you car is stolen and used for a get away, and people are killed, are you charged for that death? Much too broad by laying the responsibility on a firearms owner. There is no reason to go there, and penalties should go onto the one who commits the crime and broke in! There are enough powers and laws on the books that are not being enforced when the criminal goes to trial. No to this law and any new firearms laws. Those that are ineffective need to be repealed. The Gun Control Act of 1968 that Clinton put on us was done so, as it did nothing to subdue crime of prevent it.

 

[billdeserthills]

Not to be a Zumbo, but it is just wrong that someone can throw a rock through a person's window & steal some guns--that's just too damn easy

 

[Oohrah]

What would you do, land mines with a moat full of alligators? Every location has a different set of rules for security. There isn't any that these yahoo can't overcome. One reason why a single rule or any type of opinion of fault to determine if someone should be charged sucks. What may be easy to you may or may not...your choice. Have seen security doors and bared windows in getto areas to keep thieves out, wipe out a family when blocked from escape when their structure caught fire. Firearms taken from Government bases secured and patrolled. In fact an alphabet government employee had his handgun stolen in San Francisco where an illegal who was deported five times, fired it and killed a young lady. Token sentence given. What ever laws are passed, it's always against the gun owner. Until it is directed at the criminal, there isn't a solution. Solution is not with the storage method of the firearm, and countries like below you Mexico with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime by guns then any one. Laws and treatment of restrictions are not in any way going is to have an effect on crime and criminals. Still attempting how things went amuck with OBumber's Eric Holder's Fast and Furious plan? Far as I know, his free guns are still killing without charges brought on him. This plan on security, better time can be spent on sometime workable, like concentrate on those law breakers and broken laws that are not being enforced before jumping into the unknown for sure falls on law abiding owners.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

What would be a responsible manner, if you already have been violated by your house being broken into? What next? If you car is stolen and used for a get away, and people are killed, are you charged for that death? Much too broad by laying the responsibility on a firearms owner. There is no reason to go there, and penalties should go onto the one who commits the crime and broke in! There are enough powers and laws on the books that are not being enforced when the criminal goes to trial. No to this law and any new firearms laws. Those that are ineffective need to be repealed. The Gun Control Act of 1968 that Clinton put on us was done so, as it did nothing to subdue crime of prevent it.

You are arguing against changing the way the law now functions. As of right now if you store your firearms in some nebulously defined negligent way (to be decided by a judge or jury) you may be prosecuted for civil or criminal negligence when someone gains access to them and does something bad. That liability ALREADY EXISTS. I'm arguing for a defined minimum standard above which the law would guarantee that you are blameless, no matter what. I'm not adding anything into the liabilities that now exist. I'm subtracting from them. Please read what I'm saying and stop inserting your own words and meaning as you read,

 

[Oohrah]

I'll leave it alone because I don't understand you. No one may enter your home, or obtain a warrant right now, without a just cause. The way the new law they wish to pass is if you are the owner, and are broken into, and they decide you didn't use a secure enough method inside of your home, you will be held responsible. Not my making up. There isn't any liabilities at this point nor is there any penalty for non reporting of a stolen firearm. There could be if some one is shot or injured on your property as it stands now. A crime committed you are a part of a criminal investigation at that point. I have no idea how the liability would be handled if the firearms owner was held responsible for his stolen firearm, and would be used by a thief. As it stands now, most that feel inadequate on the liability end of being sued, carry a rider with an increased amount. A common figure is a million dollars. However, if the company has numerous claims, it will become unaffordable or not obtainable. The only liability that I would be concerned with is that of if I had to use a fire arm for self protection. Guaranteed there will be a legal need to be had. There is really no such thing as being legally blameless, even if you use less than lethal means when faced with any conflict. There isn't any way you are going to subtract to where you will be held blame less. It isn't to allow you a greater freedom, that law is to make it impossible to escape blame. Otherwise, the penalty would be placed on the criminal who broke the law. Nothing to hide, but it infringes on me for someone to be able to walk into my house to determine if it is a safe environment to have firearms, to where if they were stolen, because of my lack of what they think I should have, it hasn't prevented those criminals from taking firearms. Those laws they are attempting to pass are not to benefit me, but like most firearms laws they are either to restrict or control only, and have not a thing to do with safety. My thought is there are countries who boast of freedom by being gun owners. Left out is they are miles away from their firearms, and go through bunches of qualifiers for their use to be restricted at their club range only. Never may they ever be used as we can, in self defense. So, no, I won't give an inch or trade with any group that have an over all plan to disarm or abolish our second amendment. There is no such thing as laws that can not be challenged, nor minimum standards. This attempt is being made so you will be blamed as an owner. I'm not seeing any penalty when the felon decides you are ripe for theft and finds maybe not so much cash or jewelry, but a firearm worth much more than that, your father's prize retirement, engraved handgun? Damn you should have had it in a bank vault!

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I'll leave it alone because I don't understand you. No one may enter your home, or obtain a warrant right now, without a just cause. The way the new law they wish to pass is if you are the owner, and are broken into, and they decide you didn't use a secure enough method inside of your home, you will be held responsible. Not my making up. There isn't any liabilities at this point nor is there any penalty for non reporting of a stolen firearm. There could be if some one is shot or injured on your property as it stands now. A crime committed you are a part of a criminal investigation at that point. I have no idea how the liability would be handled if the firearms owner was held responsible for his stolen firearm, and would be used by a thief. As it stands now, most that feel inadequate on the liability end of being sued, carry a rider with an increased amount. A common figure is a million dollars. However, if the company has numerous claims, it will become unaffordable or not obtainable. The only liability that I would be concerned with is that of if I had to use a fire arm for self protection. Guaranteed there will be a legal need to be had. There is really no such thing as being legally blameless, even if you use less than lethal means when faced with any conflict. There isn't any way you are going to subtract to where you will be held blame less. It isn't to allow you a greater freedom, that law is to make it impossible to escape blame. Otherwise, the penalty would be placed on the criminal who broke the law. Nothing to hide, but it infringes on me for someone to be able to walk into my house to determine if it is a safe environment to have firearms, to where if they were stolen, because of my lack of what they think I should have, it hasn't prevented those criminals from taking firearms. Those laws they are attempting to pass are not to benefit me, but like most firearms laws they are either to restrict or control only, and have not a thing to do with safety. My thought is there are countries who boast of freedom by being gun owners. Left out is they are miles away from their firearms, and go through bunches of qualifiers for their use to be restricted at their club range only. Never may they ever be used as we can, in self defense. So, no, I won't give an inch or trade with any group that have an over all plan to disarm or abolish our second amendment. There is no such thing as laws that can not be challenged, nor minimum standards. This attempt is being made so you will be blamed as an owner. I'm not seeing any penalty when the felon decides you are ripe for theft and finds maybe not so much cash or jewelry, but a firearm worth much more than that, your father's prize retirement, engraved handgun? Damn you should have had it in a bank vault!

You are still arguing against something I didn't say.