Sunday, August 2, 2015

Nicholas's Law


Nicholas Naumkin


Local news

Nicholas’s Law is named for twelve-year-old Nicholas Naumkin, who in December 2010 was fatally shot while playing with his friend who found his father’s unlocked and loaded handgun.
“I applaud the State Assembly’s vote today passing Nicholas’s Law, which will prevent future tragedies such as the one that devastated our family.” said Oksana Naumkin, Nicholas’s mother. “With today’s vote, we are a step closer to enacting a statewide law that will mean other families will not have to endure our ongoing pain. Now it is the Senate’s responsibility to act. We are not going away. We will continue to fight for Nicholas’s Law until it is the law of the State of New York.”
Safe storage laws exist in Rochester, Buffalo, Westchester County and New York City. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging San Francisco’s 2007 safe storage law. 

44 comments:

  1. These "safe storage" laws, as a means of protecting children, all operate under the ridiculous assumption that gun owners will be more deterred by the law than they are by fears of their children (or children's friends) being shot with their guns. What is to be the penalty for violating "Nicholas's Law," anyway?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fortunately most gun owners are not petulant adolescent-minded knumbskulls who decide which laws are worthy of their obedience. Most are law abiding and follow the rules - especially when the rule makes sense. This is one rule that many who don't already do it know that they should. Making it a law will be the push they need to get with the program. Others, like yourself are hopeless. Go on, keep storing your guns under the pillow or in the night stand when you're not using them. Good for you.

      Delete
    2. Fortunately most gun owners are not petulant adolescent-minded knumbskulls . . .

      True--we aren't.

      Delete
    3. "Go on, keep storing your guns under the pillow or in the night stand when you're not using them. Good for you."

      Mike, if there are no children in the house, that is perfectly acceptable.

      Delete
    4. You have a right to defend and support unnecessary death.

      Delete
    5. No, ss, it is not perfectly acceptable. Thieves break in and pick up the guns laying around - it happens hundreds of thousands of times a year.

      Delete
    6. "Thieves break in and pick up the guns laying around - it happens hundreds of thousands of times a year."

      That is not the intent of the law mentioned in this article Mike.

      Delete
    7. Which this law does nothing to address, Mike. You could put a cable lock on the gun, and then store it under that pillow and be in compliance with the law. It's obviously just as easy to steal, but if there are no kids in the house, why be forced to put a cable lock on under threat of jail time?

      Delete
    8. My idea of safe storage does more than protect the kiddies from you dangerous and irresponsible gun owners. It protects the society at large.

      Delete
    9. So many incidents where a child (visiting) was killed in a home that had no children, which makes SS"s comment dangerous thinking and not true.

      Delete
    10. The thing is that society at large are gun owners now. Or haven't you been keeping up with the news lately.

      Delete
    11. Yeah, and most gun owners are in agreement with sensible gun control laws. Maybe you're the one not keeping up, or else you think everybody is as fanatical as you.

      Delete
    12. Again, more assumptions on your part. You will find, if you bothered to look up the facts, most gun owners disagree with you Mike and have said so with their pocket books. So I guess that would make most gun owners a "fanatic" like me wouldnt it.

      Delete
    13. "So many incidents where a child (visiting) was killed in a home that had no children, which makes SS"s comment dangerous thinking and not true."

      Anon, if you apply real common sense as opposed to the "common sense" the gun control lobby uses, then you would understand that if the gun owner has guests who are children, then its their responsibility to secure the firearms while the children are present. Its a pretty simple concept, for most.

      Delete
    14. Yeah, and most gun owners are in agreement with sensible gun control laws.

      There's no such thing as "sensible gun control laws." That's like saying that most gun owners are in agreement with the Easter Bunny.

      Delete
    15. MikeB: "My idea of safe storage does more than protect the kiddies from you dangerous and irresponsible gun owners. It protects the society at large."

      Ok, Mike, let’s just delve into your fantasy on “safe storage”. A while back when I asked you what level of storage constitutes “safe storage” in your mind, you said it should be up to a judge to decide. Scary stuff, because you wouldn’t even commit to there being a safe you could buy which guarantees you were storing it “safely” protecting you from criminal prosecution. Essentially, you are saying everyone who has a gun stolen should be arrested and put on trial (at great expense) to have a judge decide their fate (like that is not going to lead to fewer reported thefts). And remember, the very fact that your gun was stolen is putting you in the hole because it obviously wasn’t good enough. Aside from all the problems with that, your contention is that after enough theft victims are made examples out of, gun owners will start investing in top-shelf safes that are difficult for most thieves to break into or carry away (which means big heavy safes even if you only own one handgun). This would in turn lead to a dramatic drop off over time in gun flow to criminals thereby reducing crime (in your mind).

      Exploring that fantasy, what is to stop thieves from simply changing up their tactics? Where they used to case a house and wait for the owners to leave so they could break in and steal valuables (including guns in nightstand drawers and under beds), they now case a house and wait for the owners to be home. This way they can use violence to force the owner to open up the 800lb safe in the corner (which is obvious and cannot be hidden too well). Remember, according to you and other gun control supporters, we are supposed to give them what they want, because a life is more valuable than stuff. And we are certainly not supposed to shoot people who break into our home- especially since we’d go to jail for murder after you’ve had all castle doctrine laws repealed. So Mike, answer me, what is a gun owner to do when they safely store their guns in a $2000 safe bolted to the slab, and a thief breaks in and says, “open the safe or I will kill you!”? We’re supposed to open the safe, give them the guns, and then call the police after they leave, right? Now please explain why in this fantasy of yours fewer guns will flow to the criminal world?

      Delete
    16. TS, you're being a tedious pain in the ass again. Obviously, in my perfect scheme of things a guy who's ordered to open his gun safe at gun point is not going to be charged for failure to safely store his weapons.

      It's a typical tactic of yours to use an extreme example which would never be the norm to refute the logic of what I propose. Most gun owners would obey the law and get a proper safe. Most b&e thieves would not turn to armed robbery. Fewer guns would be stolen and fewer kids would shoot themselves. Is that too simple for you?

      Delete
    17. It's not an extreme example, Mike. There are 350,000 violent robberies per year. My point is, stealing guns is still easy, even with the best safe money can buy. All they have to do is change tactics. Under your ideas, you put more people in danger. Why can't you recognize that humans are resourceful and adapt as necessary? And you still have never addressed the unintended consequence of theft victims not working with police for fear of arrest and prosecution.

      Delete
    18. But they don't SS and reports show that. Like the grandfather who left his AR-15 on the picnic table (there were no children living at his house) where his 3 year old grandson could easily pick it up and kill. But don't let YOUR reality get in the way of factual reality.

      Delete
    19. Re read my comment Anon, I mentioned that the guns must be secured if the owner has guests who are children.

      Delete
    20. Stealing guns is still easy even with the best safe money can buy????

      TS, you usually have a better argument than that, I know I rarely admit it, but you do. This, though, is total nonsense.

      Delete
    21. Mike, you're not following. It doesn't matter how good the safe is when the thief uses forceful robbery to gain entry instead of burglary. You tried to write that off as being rare, but there are 350,000 incidents of forceful robbery a year. If everyone has kick-ass safes, many incidents of burglary will shift to violent robberies, which is worse.

      But hey, gun ownership will be harder, so you have that going for you.

      Delete
    22. That's funny SS, you said nothing about that on the post Mike wrote about it.

      Delete
    23. Remember this conversation, Mike?

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/02/when-mass-criminals-want-gun-they-often.html#comment-form

      Of course you don’t’. Here’s a refresher: Australia (your gun control paradise) already has laws requiring safe storage against theft with criminal sanctions for those who don’t comply, so we can look and see how well it has worked. And the answer is not so well. Gun thefts have been increasing, and it is found that most people were in compliance with the law when their gun was stolen. What did you do when you saw these numbers? You said you don’t believe it. The numbers must be wrong. You are not capable of accepting any evidence that goes against what you already believe. Deny, deny, deny. Even though you will happy accept numbers from the Australian Institute of Criminology that show their murders decreasing of which you’ll call proof that gun control works (never mind that their murders decreased by the same amount as our did… but that was obviously “other factors” at work).

      Delete
    24. You're the one in denial, TS. You believe that requiring gun owners to properly store their guns in safes will INCREASE crime because there'll be more forced entries. Would there be enough of an increase to offset the benefit of fewer guns stolen by the vast majority of b&e guys who just pick them up and carry them away? No, there wouldn't. And you can do what you're good at and scour the internet for "evidence" that supports you're bizarre illogical positions - it doesn't convince me. About that you're right.

      Delete
    25. "you said nothing about that on the post Mike wrote about it."

      I suspected that the common sense thing would be beyond, but miracles happen at times....


      "then you would understand that if the gun owner has guests who are children, then its their responsibility to secure the firearms while the children are present. Its a pretty simple concept, for most."

      Delete
    26. But if the same AIC presented data that said gun thefts were down- I bet that would convince you.

      Delete
    27. Why say it now SS, if you wouldn't say it then? Just another example of your dishonesty.

      Delete
  2. You are very confusing Mike. First you say on numerous posts that most (if not all) gun owners must be disarmed because of a myriad of reasons. Now you say most gun owners are responsible and would follow any law imposed upon them.

    Very confusing indeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You must be the confused one but I don't think it's my fault. I never said "most (if not all) gun owners must be disarmed," let alone on "numerous posts."

      Did you just make that up?

      Delete
    2. You say half should be disarmed. If it ends up being 50.1% that would be "most".

      Delete
    3. It won't end up being that, TS. Don't you have anything more substantial to add?

      Are you so biased that you won't address Newcastle's blatant lies about what I've said "on numerous posts?"

      Delete
    4. Uh, there have been "numerous" times where you said half of gun owners should be disarmed. Now you are saying there is no way it could be 50.1%? Really? Your 50% estimate is that precise?

      Delete
    5. nya nya nya - slow day, TS?

      Delete
  3. For this law to be truly effective, it should also contain felony prison time for the owner of any firearm used by a child to kill/wound himself/herself or another child.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, indeed.

      Now that's strange. A bit earlier in this very discussion, you told me that it doesn't matter that no penalty imposed by the law can approach the horror of losing a child, and that, "Making it a law will be the push they need to get with the program," despite the penalty being comparatively trivial. Now, it won't work unless disobedient gun owners are put in cages?

      So you don't support this legislation, Mikeb?

      Delete
    2. Kurt, you're twisting and turning again, man. Jadegold said the felony prison time whould apply when "any firearm [is] used by a child to kill/wound himself/herself or another child." You're twisting that to anyone who fails to lock up his gun. Nice try.

      Delete
    3. You're twisting that to anyone who fails to lock up his gun.

      And how am I doing this "twisting"? Nothing I said even mentions how wide a net such a law would cast. If you're saying jail time for when a child's access leads to injury or death, but not otherwise, fine--now I know your position on that. I didn't before.

      And you still haven't answered my question--am I correct in concluding that you do not support this legislation?

      Delete
    4. Do you mean Jadegold's idea? Yes, of course I'd support that. Didn't I already indicate that?

      Delete
    5. Do you mean Jadegold's idea?

      No--I'm not referring your co-blogger's idle fantasy of a law. I'm referring to "Nicholas's Law," as written. Do you not find that unworthy of support?

      Delete
    6. I'm sure he finds it so weak that it "might as well not even exist". Just like Louisiana's training requirements for CCW.

      Delete
    7. Kurt, Nicholas's Law doesn't go far enough, but since it's moving in the right dirction, I would support it.

      Delete
    8. Kurt, Nicholas's Law doesn't go far enough, but since it's moving in the right [direction], I would support it.

      You would support a law you believe is ineffective? What a convenient way to avoid having to prove that "gun control" saves lives--just don't bother caring whether it does or not, and support it anyway.

      Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

      Delete