Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's examine the difference between the laws you referenced and the idiotic bill that the statists in Washington have come up with.
Every single law you referenced involves an action: murder, speeding, stealing. These are actions which will or can result in the violation of other people's rights. Legislating actions which affect other people is a valid use of the power of the state, because the government's job is to ensure the safety of citizens.
On the flip side, we have this initiative hitting the ballot in Washington state which is a vast overreach of governmental powers.
You already killed your argument as soon as you said it was an "overreach." That is your opinion, not a fact.
Quote:
It addresses no action, merely ownership.
This is irrelevant. One could claim that ownership is an "action" as well. Certainly "buying" a gun is an action. The government regulates the purchase of alcohol and many other things. Regulating the purchase of guns would be no different.
Quote:
It will do absolutely nothing to make anyone safer.
You don't know that. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. One could also claim that laws against murder don't make anyone safer due to the fact that people still murder. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
Quote:
It invades the right to privacy, it violates the right of personal and private property, and - most importantly of all - it violates the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Once again, you are confusing your own opinion with facts. We don't know if it would violate the 2nd amendment.
Quote:
The idiotic, pedantic, and immature argument of "If laws don't work we should just get rid of all laws" as applied to firearms ownership is quite possibly the laziest argument ever written because the person making the argument (in this case you) exhibits a complete failure to even bother considering the difference in laws regulating actions that are potentially harmful to other people vs. laws regulating ownership which are nobody's business. To put it bluntly, one could own 10,000 sticks of dynamite and their neighbors would be perfectly safe - as long as no action, such as lighting the fuse, is taken.
It's kinda funny you mentioned dynamite, because the purchase of dynamite and other explosives is already highly regulated, and I don't see many people complaining about that fact. So, by using dynamite as an analogy to your objection to this law, you actually just killed your own case.
Quote:
If you really, truly believe that a law such as 1639 will make people safer, you aren't paying attention. Ownership of any firearm does not make anyone less safe. It takes an action to harm other people, and such actions are already illegal. Regulating ownership is nothing but the government's attempt to achieve even more control of the populace, and the mental midgets that support such legislation are gleefully giving said government exactly what they want.
You're making up your own legalisms - not to mention engaging in a lot of name calling - to try to make a point. Buying a gun is an "action" just as much as firing a gun is. The government regulates the purchase of many things, no reason why they can't do the same with guns.
And once again, as I said I would not vote in favor of this law, but those here saying it would be this disaster for using a gun are engaging in a lot of fear-mongering and hyperbole.
You're using flawed logic. For example, knives are used to murder people. If we follow your logic then we should also have knife control. Are you going to set up laws now that will restrict people's access to knives? Speeding requires you have access to a car. Cars injure and kill far more people than guns. If we follow your reasoning then we also have to restrict access to cars. If you want to restrict access to guns then you have to restrict access to cars and knives too yet you never see gun control advocates rail against the ownership or access to cars or knives. You have to apply this reasoning to everything, not just guns, especially when guns cause a relative handful of deaths and injuries compared to other things.
1. Knives are not typically used for murder, mostly they're used as kitchen utensils.
2. Thank you for mentioning cars. In order to legally drive and purchase a car, you must have a driver's license. Sometimes the government even rescinds peoples' drivers licenses (DUI's, etc). So yes, the government *does* restrict access to cars, and I don't see many people complaining about that fact. In fact, as I said in another thread on this topic a few weeks ago, I think it would be great if the government set up some sort of gun licensing system to try to filter out bad gun owners from the good ones.
1. Knives are not typically used for murder, mostly they're used as kitchen utensils.
2. Thank you for mentioning cars. In order to legally drive and purchase a car, you must have a driver's license. Sometimes the government even rescinds peoples' drivers licenses (DUI's, etc). So yes, the government *does* restrict access to cars, and I don't see many people complaining about that fact. In fact, as I said in another thread on this topic a few weeks ago, I think it would be great if the government set up some sort of gun licensing system to try to filter out bad gun owners from the good ones.
From Scalia in the 2008 Supreme Court District of Columbia vs Heller ruling:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Please actually read the text before you get all riled up. Specifically the part about unlawful entry. If you have taken steps to secure it you are good.
A gun cabinet with a glass door is both common and secure to young children. It's the most common gun storage in America. It's a civil infraction which also means it's total BS to begin with. Someone steals a gun, kills people and the poor soul it was stolen from becomes part of the case? Again, no one gets a "civil infraction" for leaving their keys by the door, someone steals them and kills someone in a hit and run.
It makes as much "common sense" as suing the weapons designer.
A gun cabinet with a glass door is both common and secure to young children. It's the most common gun storage in America. It's a civil infraction which also means it's total BS to begin with. Someone steals a gun, kills people and the poor soul it was stolen from becomes part of the case? Again, no one gets a "civil infraction" for leaving their keys by the door, someone steals them and kills someone in a hit and run.
It makes as much "common sense" as suing the weapons designer.
Good God man, read.
Quote:
NEW SECTION.
Sec. 5.
SECURE GUN STORAGE. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
(1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm: (a) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and causes personal injury or death with the firearm; or (b) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the second degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and: (i) Causes the firearm to discharge; (ii) Carries, exhibits, or displays the firearm in a public place in a manner that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons; or (iii) Uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.
(2)(a) Community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree is a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW. (b) Community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if: (a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm; (b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person’s age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person’s parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042; (c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or (d) The prohibited person’s access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.
(4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an alleged violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, the prosecuting attorney may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no public purpose or would defeat the purpose of the law in question.
(5) For the purposes of this section, “prohibited person†means a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.
(6) Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must be stored.
If you don't have any prohibited persons living with you, you could just have it stored on your couch. In your house is secured, and unlawful entry relieves you of liability.
If you don't have any prohibited persons living with you, you could just have it stored on your couch. In your house is secured, and unlawful entry relieves you of liability.
Read it yourself. 5 days? We had an 8 house break in and half the people didn't even know they were burglarized. Gun owners don't take inventory of their firearms on a daily basis. I've got multiple "storage areas". The guy that burglarized us even moved a handgun (in a locked case) to steal my fire safe. Had I not noticed my back screen slightly open I wouldn't have even noticed it.
The "Prohibited person" is the problem, not a legal, tax payer.
We went door to door in the hood to check on people. That's how we found out because we had them check. These are stupid laws. "Should have known". These are my tools, not my kids. Total and completely illogical.
Prohibited persons should be locked up, otherwise their debt is paid and they should be allowed firearms. A prohibited person is just a predator waiting to pounce on victims.
You already killed your argument as soon as you said it was an "overreach." That is your opinion, not a fact.
This is irrelevant. One could claim that ownership is an "action" as well. Certainly "buying" a gun is an action. The government regulates the purchase of alcohol and many other things. Regulating the purchase of guns would be no different.
You don't know that. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. One could also claim that laws against murder don't make anyone safer due to the fact that people still murder. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
Once again, you are confusing your own opinion with facts. We don't know if it would violate the 2nd amendment.
It's kinda funny you mentioned dynamite, because the purchase of dynamite and other explosives is already highly regulated, and I don't see many people complaining about that fact. So, by using dynamite as an analogy to your objection to this law, you actually just killed your own case.
You're making up your own legalisms - not to mention engaging in a lot of name calling - to try to make a point. Buying a gun is an "action" just as much as firing a gun is. The government regulates the purchase of many things, no reason why they can't do the same with guns.
And once again, as I said I would not vote in favor of this law, but those here saying it would be this disaster for using a gun are engaging in a lot of fear-mongering and hyperbole.
The facts that the bill is both an overreach and violates the 2nd are clearly recognizable and both arguments can be tied to DC vs. Heller. The decision of the SCOTUS in that case was that firearms "in common use at the time" could not be restricted. 1639 restricts ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Semiautomatic firearms are the most commonly owned firearms in existence. Therefore, the bill both violates the 2nd and is an egregious overreach by the writers of the bill.
As for the rest, yes, it is my opinion - based on years of firearms ownership, knowledge of firearms, extensive research into firearms laws, and observation of those who pretend that laws restricting firearms are about anything other than consolidating power into the hands of the government.
Btw, I only used name-calling once, and I won't repent for calling anyone who believes that laws restricting the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms are in any way effective, ethical, moral, or constitutional a mental midget. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, it wasn't about you.
Read it yourself. 5 days? We had an 8 house break in and half the people didn't even know they were burglarized. Gun owners don't take inventory of their firearms on a daily basis. I've got multiple "storage areas". The guy that burglarized us even moved a handgun (in a locked case) to steal my fire safe. Had I not noticed my back screen slightly open I wouldn't have even noticed it.
The "Prohibited person" is the problem, not a legal, tax payer.
We went door to door in the hood to check on people. That's how we found out because we had them check. These are stupid laws. "Should have known". These are my tools, not my kids. Total and completely illogical.
Prohibited persons should be locked up, otherwise their debt is paid and they should be allowed firearms. A prohibited person is just a predator waiting to pounce on victims.
“Within 5 days knew or reasonably should have known”. If there were no signs of a break in it’s perfectly reasonable not to know within 5 days.
Read it yourself. 5 days? We had an 8 house break in and half the people didn't even know they were burglarized. Gun owners don't take inventory of their firearms on a daily basis. I've got multiple "storage areas". The guy that burglarized us even moved a handgun (in a locked case) to steal my fire safe. Had I not noticed my back screen slightly open I wouldn't have even noticed it.
The "Prohibited person" is the problem, not a legal, tax payer.
We went door to door in the hood to check on people. That's how we found out because we had them check. These are stupid laws. "Should have known". These are my tools, not my kids. Total and completely illogical.
Prohibited persons should be locked up, otherwise their debt is paid and they should be allowed firearms. A prohibited person is just a predator waiting to pounce on victims.
Dylan Roof was a legal tax paying gun owner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
