“It is critical for Los Angeles to lead on this issue,” said Krekorian. “Requiring gun owners to lock up their firearms and store them safely will prevent needless accidents and tragedies. This sensible step will keep our schools and children safe.”
As a St. Paul talk radio host is fond of saying, B as in B, S as in S. California already has a child access prevention law. Somehow, the LA city council hasn't heard of it. Or, as is more likely, they are deliberately not mentioning it. This law however will affect gun owners who have no children in the home. And to be honest, I'm not seeing how they can enforce it.
The video addresses some of existing California law. They say CA law requires a trigger lock (or equivalent- including providing the model of safe or lockbox you own) to be sold with the gun, but doesn’t require its use. What they didn’t mention about state law is that it is a crime if the child gets unauthorized access to the gun and you didn’t practice “safe-storage”. LA presumably wants to now make it a crime even if a kid does not get a hold of it, even if no kids live in the house or come to the house.
And to be honest, I'm not seeing how they can enforce it.
Funny you should mention that. Way back in 2007, San Francisco looked into implementing its own "safe storage" law, and then-District Attorney (and current California Attorney General and Obama heartthrob) Kamala Harris gave folks a glimpse into how she favored enforcing "lock up your safety" laws:
"Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs," Harris said.
Yep--you read that right. That sack of filth is happy to trample the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.
Say, waddya' know? Speaking of Harris and her searing hatred of Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights, she has just been named in a lawsuit over her attempts to trample the First Amendment.
Is it only a matter of time before she starts trying to force homeowners to quarter California National Guard troops?
So, because one extremist politician made one extreme remark you truly believe that storm troopers will be inspecting private homes? Is that it, Kurt?
And, how does requiring safe storage violate the 2A? Let me guess, as soon as the guns are safely locked away, the gun owner is no longer literally bearing those arms? Is that it?
Are you "keeping and bearing" arms while you sleep, Kurt?
One who has since then gained power, now holding the office of California Attorney General, and the publicly expressed "admiration" of the President of the United States. She is, in other words, not just some crackpot mayor of San Francisco, but a true political power, and whose power might still be on an upward trajectory.
. . . made one extreme remark . . .
How many should public officials be allowed to make, before they are found unfit to hold positions of power within the government? I am pleasantly surprised that you acknowledge the extremism of what she advocated--inspections to verify "safe storage" don't seem all that far from what you've demanded.
. . . you truly believe that storm troopers will be inspecting private homes?
No, and I never said I did. I don't think even California has fallen far enough (yet) for something like that to fly. The fact that a public official can call for it, though, and not only not get kicked out of office for it, but continue to advance within the government, is chilling enough.
And, how does requiring safe storage violate the 2A?
Ask the Supreme Court's commanding majority (by double digit percentage--55.5555% to 44.4444%) in the DC v. Heller decision:
We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. The District argues that we should interpret this element of the statute to contain an exception for self-defense. See Brief for Petitioners 56–57. But we think that is precluded by the unequivocal text, and by the presence of certain other enumerated exceptions: “Except for law enforcement personnel … , each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.” D. C. Code §7–2507.02. The nonexistence of a self-defense exception is also suggested by the D. C. Court of Appeals’ statement that the statute forbids residents to use firearms to stop intruders, see McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A. 2d 744, 755–756 (1978)
Oh--just realized I haven't addressed this question yet:
Are you "keeping and bearing" arms while you sleep, Kurt?
In the sense of having a firearm on me? No. I do, however, have two tritium-sighted handguns (loaded, with a round chambered) right next to the bed, with backup magazines. The AR-15s and the semi-automatic, "high capacity" detachable magazine-fed shotgun would take longer to get into action, but they're still quite close. None of them are encumbered with locks.
I'm at something of a crossroads, though. With night vision devices dropping in price, there's a temptation to get some night vision goggles to keep by the bed (I already keep amplified earmuffs to both protect my hearing from the noise of gunfire indoors, and to amplify any sounds a home invader might be making), remove the white flash lights and green lasers from my bedside guns, and switch to infrared lights and lasers. That would be expensive, though, and would force me to count on both a) the goggles not having a run in with Murphy's Law at the worst moment, and b) that I could get them on in time. Maybe switching one gun to IR, and leaving the other as is, would be best.
Ughh--she'd be even worse than Lynch, but as you can see, Mikeb, "one extremist politician" (of whom the President is clearly a big fan), or not, her unforgivable position on the Fourth Amendment can hardly be considered insignificant.
"Kurt declares free speech a crime. No surprise there, for a criminal."
Anon, I think you may have mixed up your Amendments again. The only place I saw Kurt mentioning free speech was in regards to a lawsuit against AG Harris, for her and the state restricting speech. A better way to think of the first ten Amendments is as a list of limitations on government.
So, Mikeb, now that you've acknowledged that sending the government's hired muscle into gun owner's homes to verify that they meet "safe storage" requirements, should I assume you are willing to acknowledge that the UK's policy of precisely that proves the extremism of British firearm policy?
Is that a sentence? You're really getting sloppy lately, Kurt.
What I said about this is the following: "So, because one extremist politician made one extreme remark you truly believe that storm troopers will be inspecting private homes?"
Yeah, I messed up that sentence--sorry. I really don't think you are in much of a position to try to make hay of it, though, do you?
And yes--I know what you said. My question (worded much more coherently this time) is this: if it's "extremist" to suggest that the government has the power to send their enforcers into people's homes to check for compliance with "safe storage" laws, is it not at least equally "extremist" for a government to actually exercise such a power?
How many should public officials be allowed to make, before they are found unfit to hold positions of power within the government?"
Funny you gun loons cry free speech all the time in regards to the gun issue, but she can't speak an idea without you saying she can't hold her office. So much for free speech from gun loons, liars, and criminals.
"Anon, I think you may have mixed up your Amendments again."
Please tell me liar (SS) where I mixed up my amendments before? Why do gun loons lie?
In this case you are correct Anon. Kurt did mention the speech of AG Harris. That being said, she does have free speech rights, but I agree with Kurt in that her comments made as the State Attorney General reflect on the administration and are quite usable in any future campaigns. Politicians can say anything they please as long as they accept that they are accountable to the voters. In California, they can even recall politicians like they did in Colorado. Its interesting how you seem to be quite ok with feeling politicians who advocate not obeying federal gun laws should be removed, yet, when an entire body of politicians publically vote to not enforce federal law, we don't hear a word from you. And yes, I'm still talking about California.
Of course SS has to lie again. I guess lies are all gun loons have to comeback with. Tell me SS, when did I say any politician should be removed for any speech? Politicians have the right to vote anyway they want, just as they can say anything they want, let the courts decide. Next lie SS......
Kurt, you really know how to take us out on a tangent and just keep going.
I didn't say it's good for cops to inspect people's homes. I don't think that is a good idea and I certainly don't think it will happen as a new policy of enforcement. And, all that has nothing to do with the efficacy of safe storage laws. The first benefit is that most law-abiding gun owners would comply, resulting in fewer guns being stolen. The next benefit is fewer kids would get their hands on unsecured guns.
“It is critical for Los Angeles to lead on this issue,” said Krekorian. “Requiring gun owners to lock up their firearms and store them safely will prevent needless accidents and tragedies. This sensible step will keep our schools and children safe.”
ReplyDeleteAs a St. Paul talk radio host is fond of saying, B as in B, S as in S. California already has a child access prevention law. Somehow, the LA city council hasn't heard of it. Or, as is more likely, they are deliberately not mentioning it.
This law however will affect gun owners who have no children in the home. And to be honest, I'm not seeing how they can enforce it.
There are all sorts of laws aimed at children's safety that effect those without children. People without children still have to pay school taxes.
DeleteThe video addresses some of existing California law. They say CA law requires a trigger lock (or equivalent- including providing the model of safe or lockbox you own) to be sold with the gun, but doesn’t require its use. What they didn’t mention about state law is that it is a crime if the child gets unauthorized access to the gun and you didn’t practice “safe-storage”. LA presumably wants to now make it a crime even if a kid does not get a hold of it, even if no kids live in the house or come to the house.
DeleteThere are additional benefits to locking up your guns besides preventing kids from getting at them.
DeleteAnd to be honest, I'm not seeing how they can enforce it.
ReplyDeleteFunny you should mention that. Way back in 2007, San Francisco looked into implementing its own "safe storage" law, and then-District Attorney (and current California Attorney General and Obama heartthrob) Kamala Harris gave folks a glimpse into how she favored enforcing "lock up your safety" laws:
"Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs," Harris said.
Yep--you read that right. That sack of filth is happy to trample the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.
Say, waddya' know? Speaking of Harris and her searing hatred of Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights, she has just been named in a lawsuit over her attempts to trample the First Amendment.
DeleteIs it only a matter of time before she starts trying to force homeowners to quarter California National Guard troops?
So, because one extremist politician made one extreme remark you truly believe that storm troopers will be inspecting private homes? Is that it, Kurt?
DeleteAnd, how does requiring safe storage violate the 2A? Let me guess, as soon as the guns are safely locked away, the gun owner is no longer literally bearing those arms? Is that it?
Are you "keeping and bearing" arms while you sleep, Kurt?
So, because one extremist politician . . .
DeleteOne who has since then gained power, now holding the office of California Attorney General, and the publicly expressed "admiration" of the President of the United States. She is, in other words, not just some crackpot mayor of San Francisco, but a true political power, and whose power might still be on an upward trajectory.
. . . made one extreme remark . . .
How many should public officials be allowed to make, before they are found unfit to hold positions of power within the government? I am pleasantly surprised that you acknowledge the extremism of what she advocated--inspections to verify "safe storage" don't seem all that far from what you've demanded.
. . . you truly believe that storm troopers will be inspecting private homes?
No, and I never said I did. I don't think even California has fallen far enough (yet) for something like that to fly. The fact that a public official can call for it, though, and not only not get kicked out of office for it, but continue to advance within the government, is chilling enough.
And, how does requiring safe storage violate the 2A?
Ask the Supreme Court's commanding majority (by double digit percentage--55.5555% to 44.4444%) in the DC v. Heller decision:
We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. The District argues that we should interpret this element of the statute to contain an exception for self-defense. See Brief for Petitioners 56–57. But we think that is precluded by the unequivocal text, and by the presence of certain other enumerated exceptions: “Except for law enforcement personnel … , each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.” D. C. Code §7–2507.02. The nonexistence of a self-defense exception is also suggested by the D. C. Court of Appeals’ statement that the statute forbids residents to use firearms to stop intruders, see McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A. 2d 744, 755–756 (1978)
Kurt: "One who has since then gained power, now holding the office of California Attorney General..."
DeleteShe was also on the short list to replace Holder.
Oh--just realized I haven't addressed this question yet:
DeleteAre you "keeping and bearing" arms while you sleep, Kurt?
In the sense of having a firearm on me? No. I do, however, have two tritium-sighted handguns (loaded, with a round chambered) right next to the bed, with backup magazines. The AR-15s and the semi-automatic, "high capacity" detachable magazine-fed shotgun would take longer to get into action, but they're still quite close. None of them are encumbered with locks.
I'm at something of a crossroads, though. With night vision devices dropping in price, there's a temptation to get some night vision goggles to keep by the bed (I already keep amplified earmuffs to both protect my hearing from the noise of gunfire indoors, and to amplify any sounds a home invader might be making), remove the white flash lights and green lasers from my bedside guns, and switch to infrared lights and lasers. That would be expensive, though, and would force me to count on both a) the goggles not having a run in with Murphy's Law at the worst moment, and b) that I could get them on in time. Maybe switching one gun to IR, and leaving the other as is, would be best.
She was also on the short list to replace Holder.
DeleteUghh--she'd be even worse than Lynch, but as you can see, Mikeb, "one extremist politician" (of whom the President is clearly a big fan), or not, her unforgivable position on the Fourth Amendment can hardly be considered insignificant.
Kurt declares free speech a crime. No surprise there, for a criminal.
Delete"Kurt declares free speech a crime. No surprise there, for a criminal."
DeleteAnon, I think you may have mixed up your Amendments again. The only place I saw Kurt mentioning free speech was in regards to a lawsuit against AG Harris, for her and the state restricting speech.
A better way to think of the first ten Amendments is as a list of limitations on government.
So, Mikeb, now that you've acknowledged that sending the government's hired muscle into gun owner's homes to verify that they meet "safe storage" requirements, should I assume you are willing to acknowledge that the UK's policy of precisely that proves the extremism of British firearm policy?
DeleteIs that a sentence? You're really getting sloppy lately, Kurt.
DeleteWhat I said about this is the following: "So, because one extremist politician made one extreme remark you truly believe that storm troopers will be inspecting private homes?"
Yeah, I messed up that sentence--sorry. I really don't think you are in much of a position to try to make hay of it, though, do you?
DeleteAnd yes--I know what you said. My question (worded much more coherently this time) is this: if it's "extremist" to suggest that the government has the power to send their enforcers into people's homes to check for compliance with "safe storage" laws, is it not at least equally "extremist" for a government to actually exercise such a power?
'. made one extreme remark . . .
DeleteHow many should public officials be allowed to make, before they are found unfit to hold positions of power within the government?"
Funny you gun loons cry free speech all the time in regards to the gun issue, but she can't speak an idea without you saying she can't hold her office. So much for free speech from gun loons, liars, and criminals.
"Anon, I think you may have mixed up your Amendments again."
Please tell me liar (SS) where I mixed up my amendments before? Why do gun loons lie?
In this case you are correct Anon. Kurt did mention the speech of AG Harris. That being said, she does have free speech rights, but I agree with Kurt in that her comments made as the State Attorney General reflect on the administration and are quite usable in any future campaigns.
DeletePoliticians can say anything they please as long as they accept that they are accountable to the voters. In California, they can even recall politicians like they did in Colorado.
Its interesting how you seem to be quite ok with feeling politicians who advocate not obeying federal gun laws should be removed, yet, when an entire body of politicians publically vote to not enforce federal law, we don't hear a word from you. And yes, I'm still talking about California.
Of course SS has to lie again. I guess lies are all gun loons have to comeback with.
DeleteTell me SS, when did I say any politician should be removed for any speech? Politicians have the right to vote anyway they want, just as they can say anything they want, let the courts decide.
Next lie SS......
Kurt, you really know how to take us out on a tangent and just keep going.
DeleteI didn't say it's good for cops to inspect people's homes. I don't think that is a good idea and I certainly don't think it will happen as a new policy of enforcement. And, all that has nothing to do with the efficacy of safe storage laws. The first benefit is that most law-abiding gun owners would comply, resulting in fewer guns being stolen. The next benefit is fewer kids would get their hands on unsecured guns.