Guns in the House

[bicker]

I'm pretty sure he was responding to the "random home inspections" aspect of the post. We do have Constitutional protections against unreasonable search, and that sounds pretty unreasonable on its face.

That's your personal perspective. It is important to note, though, that random searches is, itself, a perfectly Constitutional construct. People and bags are randomly searched, on a regular basis in our society in cases where there are special and/or unique circumstances. Random search haven't been applied to homes, yet, but there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says people's bodies are less protected from random searches than people's homes.

Nothing is absolute, because everything is related to everything else. There are myriad "rights" involved here, and the most important right of those is the right to not be shot dead. That's going to hold a lot of sway when balancing various rights against each other, in determining whether something like random searches are warranted or not.

 

[tw1nsmom]

I haven't read all of the replies, but from the few that I have this thread has gone a bit off course.

Speaking to the OP: While I do believe in forms of gun control, that isn't the issue here.

The solution, in my opinion, is severe punishment for not storing your guns and ammunition correctly. Make it a felony offense (mandatory jail time...no future guns) to fail to keep your guns and ammunition locked up separately. Let people with children in the house know that they will likely lose custody if they fail to keep their weapons secured. Let them know that they will be equally responsible for any crime a minor child commits with one of their unsecured weapons. Possibly make people who buy weapons/get permits show proof that they have also purchased a gun safe.

Nothing is absolute. There will always be idiots who don't keep their guns safe. Their will always be idiots who think it's fun to pose like "gangsta's" with their guns and even allow their children to do it. Nothing is absolute, but when it comes to guns we need to start punishing people for their stupidity around children.

 

[GinnyEmma]

The answer is obvious. No guns in homes with small children. Also I think 10+ guns in a home is a bit extreme.. it sounds like a militia.

Lol, you keep what you like in your home, we will do the same. Half of ours are passed down, the others are used for target shooting, and hunting.

The crew hunts for deer meat, that is far healthier than meat purchased in the stores. And tasty too.

I love how people think they could never be friends with people who hunt or have guns. We are also involved in the school system, the fine arts community (my baskets sell for $1000 and up, it still amazes me!) we even read books! Snobbery and prejudice and ignrance are so uncool.

As far as the OP, this is a case of poor choices. Not gun control issues. That is like saying people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because sometimes people are killed. A far more likely cause of death.

 

[lustergirl]

I have only had 1 cup of coffee. Exactly what are you saying?

Giving a disturbed 10 year old a weapon with ammunition says more about a parenting problem than gun ownership problems.

my thoughts exactly. The boy shouldnt of been given the gun in the first place. When my sons were that age they were both given bb guns for xmas. But we kept them locked away and they could only use them with adult supervision, they were not readily available for them to use.

 

[lustergirl]

Lol, you keep what you like in your home, we will do the same. Half of ours are passed down, the others are used for target shooting, and hunting.

The crew hunts for deer meat, that is far healthier than meat purchased in the stores. And tasty too.

I love how people think they could never be friends with people who hunt or have guns. We are also involved in the school system, the fine arts community (my baskets sell for $1000 and up, it still amazes me!) we even read books! Snobbery and prejudice and ignrance are so uncool.

As far as the OP, this is a case of poor choices. Not gun control issues. That is like saying people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because sometimes people are killed. A far more likely cause of death.

great post! Some people would hate to come to my house where I have several guns. My son is a Marine and I carry a weapon because of my job as a death investigator for the county.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

I haven't read all of the replies, but from the few that I have this thread has gone a bit off course.

Speaking to the OP: While I do believe in forms of gun control, that isn't the issue here.

The solution, in my opinion, is severe punishment for not storing your guns and ammunition correctly. Make it a felony offense (mandatory jail time...no future guns) to fail to keep your guns and ammunition locked up separately. Let people with children in the house know that they will likely lose custody if they fail to keep their weapons secured. Let them know that they will be equally responsible for any crime a minor child commits with one of their unsecured weapons. Possibly make people who buy weapons/get permits show proof that they have also purchased a gun safe.

Nothing is absolute. There will always be idiots who don't keep their guns safe. Their will always be idiots who think it's fun to pose like "gangsta's" with their guns and even allow their children to do it. Nothing is absolute, but when it comes to guns we need to start punishing people for their stupidity around children.

I agree with you. However, the problem becomes how do you police this once people have their guns? So again I ask -- is it okay to turn in a person in your immediate family who does not follow these sorts of guidelines? And what will the police do? Remove their weapon? Put them in jail? Recind their right to own weapons? And should the grandfather in the OP's original news story be subject to punishment as well?

 

[PrincessKsMom]

First article I came across when I opened AOL this morning:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/05/a...hooting/?icid=maing|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk5|34876

 

[Muushka]

I read it several times and couldn't figure it out either.

I believe it is by design.

I haven't read all of the replies, but from the few that I have this thread has gone a bit off course.

Speaking to the OP: While I do believe in forms of gun control, that isn't the issue here.

The solution, in my opinion, is severe punishment for not storing your guns and ammunition correctly. Make it a felony offense (mandatory jail time...no future guns) to fail to keep your guns and ammunition locked up separately. Let people with children in the house know that they will likely lose custody if they fail to keep their weapons secured. Let them know that they will be equally responsible for any crime a minor child commits with one of their unsecured weapons. Possibly make people who buy weapons/get permits show proof that they have also purchased a gun safe.

Nothing is absolute. There will always be idiots who don't keep their guns safe. Their will always be idiots who think it's fun to pose like "gangsta's" with their guns and even allow their children to do it. Nothing is absolute, but when it comes to guns we need to start punishing people for their stupidity around children.

Oh great. Your house is being broken into. You yell out "can you hang on a sec? I need to get to the (fill in the blank) where my gun safe is and get my gun. Oh, and then I need to get the magazine, that is in a different safe, it will be about 5 more minutes, K?"

We don't have children, we do have a gun that is accessible. I will leave it at that.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

I believe it is by design.



Oh great. Your house is being broken into. You yell out "can you hang on a sec? I need to get to the (fill in the blank) where my gun safe is and get my gun. Oh, and then I need to get the magazine, that is in a different safe, it will be about 5 more minutes, K?"

We don't have children, we do have a gun that is accessible. I will leave it at that.

This is the argument I was making earlier. If you have it locked away safe and secure, you probably won't have time to get to it if someone breaks into your house. If you do have it readily accessible you are putting your children (which you've stated you don't have) or other people who visit you at risk. If you never have nieces/nephews/friends' children visit, then I guess you're okay. I still worry though that someone could break into your house when you're not home and then take your weapon and use it to commit a crime, simply because you keep it easily accessible. Another gun on the street in the hands of a criminal.

 

[BellvilleDad]

Nothing at all? Really?

You don't enjoy organic, sustainable food sources? I do. Maybe you're not a fan of haute cuisine? I am. You don't enjoy spending time outside? I do. You don't have any concern for the environment and wildlife conservation? I do. You don't enjoy a good book, a warm bath, a glass of wine, good conversation? I do. Maybe you don't have a college education or an advanced degree ... I do. So does my mighty hunter husband.

You don't have children? Maybe you're not concerned about the high cost of higher education ... I am, but thankfully my son already has $6K in shooting-related scholarships.

You don't have clean fingernails ... or a clean house? Enjoy a pedicure? Go shopping? Enjoy antiquing? Play board games, computer games or own a gaming console? Like sports? Enjoy travelling?

Maybe it's that you're close-minded. That's something we don't have in common.

I love this. Well put!

 

[brerrabbit]

That's your personal perspective. It is important to note, though, that random searches is, itself, a perfectly Constitutional construct. People and bags are randomly searched, on a regular basis in our society in cases where there are special and/or unique circumstances. Random search haven't been applied to homes, yet, but there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says people's bodies are less protected from random searches than people's homes.
Nothing is absolute, because everything is related to everything else. There are myriad "rights" involved here, and the most important right of those is the right to not be shot dead. That's going to hold a lot of sway when balancing various rights against each other, in determining whether something like random searches are warranted or not.

My bolding added.

I am by no means a law expert but given my experiece and reading concerning search and seizure interpratations I think at best this is a reach. The current situations where searchs are done routinely like at airports, sports events, concerts, amusement parks etc. are allowed but those searches come under a different part of the law than a home search does. For instance, in the state of Texas if you hold a concealed handgun licnsense and attempt to take it with you to a place where the owner/operator has posted a sign that no guns are allowed and it was discovered that you had the gun, the crime you are guilty of is criminal trespass. In otherwords the owner of the facility has granted you access to the property given a set of rules. You violate the rules and you have committed criminal trespass. Since he is granting you the right to be there he may require a search of all bags on the way in and that is his right, but his right is not a circumvention of the constitution that limits unwarrented searchs.

A search of a home to check for gun saftey by a police or enforcement officer would at least in my understanding of the law be unconstitutional. Keep in mind that when a warrent is issued for a search the law says there has to be just cause to conduct the search and must be specific to what the officers are looking for. A general warrent that said we can search for guns and their unsafe storage would be a pretty far reaching warrent and at its face I could not see any judge signing that warrent. Now if you want to make it public policy that law enforcement can search any home any time to check for gun saftey issues then for all intensive purposes, you have just thrown the constitution out the window. I personally don't see it happening. You cannot compare searches of your person "out in the world" with the search of your home. Those are two completly seperate cases and I for one hope we never go there.

 

[GinnyEmma]

I love this. Well put!

As do I.

 

[Muushka]

This is the argument I was making earlier. If you have it locked away safe and secure, you probably won't have time to get to it if someone breaks into your house. If you do have it readily accessible you are putting your children (which you've stated you don't have) or other people who visit you at risk. If you never have nieces/nephews/friends' children visit, then I guess you're okay. I still worry though that someone could break into your house when you're not home and then take your weapon and use it to commit a crime, simply because you keep it easily accessible. Another gun on the street in the hands of a criminal.

I do have nieces that visit. They will be locked up. And no, I don't store the indoor one on the kitchen counter.
I said the gun was accessible, not easily accessible.
And the ammo is separate from the gun. And not on the kitchen counter.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

I do have nieces that visit. They will be locked up. And no, I don't store the indoor one on the kitchen counter.
I said the gun was accessible, not easily accessible.
And the ammo is separate from the gun. And not on the kitchen counter.

The guns or the nieces?

 

[Muushka]

The guns or the nieces?

Why, the nieces of course! I didn't have children because I don't like them!

 

[PrincessKsMom]

Why, the nieces of course! I didn't have children because I don't like them!

 

[GeorgeG]

If these threads prove anything it's that this issue will never be resolved to everyones' satisfaction. There have been some pretty judgemental statements made and no amount of debate is going to change those opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please accept that your opinion may not be right. Now, let's all hug and make up.

 

[Colleen27]

We're not talking about "first impressions". We're talking about friendship. Are you suggesting that you become true friends with someone based on "first impressions"?

No, I'm saying that by the time an occasional seasonal hobby like hunting comes up, the friendship is likely to be established. I can understand it if we're talking about a strongly held value, ie a vegetarian with a moral objection to the killing of animals for any human purpose, but that doesn't seem to be the context here.

 

[Kathi OD]

I agree with you. However, the problem becomes how do you police this once people have their guns?

You don't "police" people once they have their guns any more than you would "police" someone who has other known dangerous objects in their homes. You might make them take and pass some kind of safety class before taking possession of a new gun, but other than that, I don't think you're going to get inspections.

You just can't protect everyone from themselves. Example:By law we have to have working smoke detectors in our home. No one comes out to make sure that every dwelling has a working smoke detector other than when the property changes hands. Of course, most people make sure all on their own that they have working smoke detectors. But every year, there is at least one story where a house burned to the ground (sometimes w/ people dying) because there were no working smoke detectors in the home. Are those people irresponsible? Sure. What happens to them?

For the most part, people who own guns are responsible owners. Their guns (and ammunition) are not just laying around the house waiting for someone to pick them up.

So again I ask -- is it okay to turn in a person in your immediate family who does not follow these sorts of guidelines?

I guess that depends on your personal sense of what to do. In other words, is it any of your business?

And what will the police do? Remove their weapon? Put them in jail? Recind their right to own weapons?

Who knows? My guess would be a fine for a first offense, unless there is some sort of tragedy involved.

And should the grandfather in the OP's original news story be subject to punishment as well?

It's hard to say. I don't think we have enough information to make that kind of judgement. My first inclination would be to say no, he gave a gift. It was up to the parents to make sure that it was stored safely. If they didn't want the responsibility, they should have told grandpa that the gun needs to stay at his house. But...who knows? Maybe grandpa was just as cavalier about gun safety as the child's mother was and knew the mom wouldn't handle the situation appropriately and gave the kid a gun anyway.

 

[Colleen27]

I agree with you. However, the problem becomes how do you police this once people have their guns? So again I ask -- is it okay to turn in a person in your immediate family who does not follow these sorts of guidelines? And what will the police do? Remove their weapon? Put them in jail? Recind their right to own weapons? And should the grandfather in the OP's original news story be subject to punishment as well?

I'm not sure what you'd be turning them in for. It is not currently illegal to own a gun or store it loaded. I have had my father's gun confiscated on two occasions, because he left it in my possession (basically left it in my car without my permission/knowledge), but all that results in is the loss of that specific weapon. There's no criminal consequence or loss of gun ownership rights.

As far as punishing the grandfather, absolutely not. It isn't the grandfather's responsibility to control the child; that falls to the parents. If someone gives one of my kids a gift I deem inappropriate or unsafe (even conditionally), then I restrict/deny access to that item.