Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

What number bill is being considered here?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by twoclones, Jan 31, 2012.

  1. twoclones

    twoclones Tri-Cities, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,129
    Likes Received:
    180
  2. joeroket

    joeroket Everett,Wa. Active Member

    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    25
    I wouldn't call this a gun safety bill. It should be called a gun lock/safe testing bill. It has nothing to do with the firearm itself but rather sets a standard that must be met by an independent lab for certification as an approved gun storage/safety device. The way the article reads, which is that it is geared towards testing of safes issued to officers from their department, I have no problem with it. I don't think a LE agency should be issuing junk to their officers regardless of what it is that they are being issued.
     
  3. twoclones

    twoclones Tri-Cities, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,129
    Likes Received:
    180
    You are correct in that this bill {what ever the number is} is about testing. What I get from the article is that the reason this bill was presented is because the officer lied.

    I wouldn't expect an 11 year old child could break into even the cheapest piece of crap gun safe. So why should the tax payers foot the bill for making this guy feel better about "improperly" storing his gun?

    I think this bill is wasteful and just another rung on the ladder leading to mandatory home safety inspections for gun purchasers.
     
    PaulZ and (deleted member) like this.
  4. joeroket

    joeroket Everett,Wa. Active Member

    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    25
    I see your point. I really doubt that he actually stored it improperly. It sounds to me like the department is playing CYA and came up with the conclusion to try and stave off a lawsuit. As far as mandatory home inspections go it will never happen. SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd applies to the states and that people have a constitutional right to keep a loaded and ready firearm in their homes. A couple of years ago there was a bill introduced in Wa. that purported to give the CLEO the authority to come into your home once a year unannounced to check for proper storage of firearms. It had no support then and it would have even less now, it was submitted before Heller v DC. It would also be ruled unconstitutional as it is a warrantless search.

    I don't see it wasteful but I think departments should be issuing quality equipment. If they are unwilling to do that then they need to be forced to by law. Now if this bill was something that affected the general population I would not be in agreement with it simply because we have no obligation to lock our firearms up at home. LEO do if their department mandates it by policy.