gun security

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by duster066, Jan 8, 2016.

  1. duster066

    duster066 Supporting Member

    First, I'm a strict constitutionalist. Nothing I'm about to suggest is, IMO, constitutional for the federal government to impose. States maybe, but not the feds.

    Second, nothing here will solve any of the gun violence problems this country is dealing with. However I do believe these are common sense rules all legal firearms owners should be required to live with. And they would reduce some gun crime by drying up this source of weapons. I'm starting this thread to share ideas about what we as responsible owners should hear from each other.

    On Jan 1, 2015 it became illegal to make a face to face gun transfer in Washington state. I'm not sure of the Constitutional standing of this law, but I support it. It won't stop criminals from transferring guns to each other, but it will stop an innocent seller from inadvertently transferring a gun to a lying criminal. This is the "gun show loop hole" closed. I don't like the term "gun show loop hole" because like "assault weapon" It's a leftist invented lie. There is no gun show loop hole. What's illegal on the streets is illegal at the gun show. I don't support this law to appease anyone either. Phuckers the left. I support this law because it's good for law abiding gun owners. It gives me peace of mind to conduct my private transfers in a gun store instead of a parking lot. Our law also allows the transfer of guns to immediate family members without a background check.

    I have no problem with a law that requires every gun owner to secure their guns, including criminal liability if they fail to do so and their gun ends up being used to commit a crime. This one is sticky for me though for several reasons. First to be as effective as possible it would require registration, and I do not support that. So it would require LE to prove where the gun came from by some other means before bringing charges. Second, again to be most effective, it would include a requirement to keep any uncarried gun locked up in an approved fashion, safe, locker, what ever. The only way this could be remotely Constitutional would be to provide public funds for those who can't afford security. This one is not about stopping mass shootings either. It's just good common sense that most of us already exercise. It keeps the kids away from our guns. And a family member who temporarily flips out from just grabbing a gun without thought.

    Like I said the second one is sticky as hell and I can't work it all out and maintain my beliefs. But it would have prevented the mass shooting at our high school, one mile away, last year, the school my kids went too. This thread is for reasoned debate on the subject. That's something that is often in short supply at HPFF. So let's hear your opinions.
  2. cicpup

    cicpup Resident PITA Supporting Member

    Excuse me Mr Home Invader. Please wait a minute while I unlock my only protection. Thank you.

  3. OldOutlaw

    OldOutlaw Supporting Member

    Seems most of this gun show loop hole is aimed at handguns. Perhaps not???

    In Iowa we have not been able to sell a handgun face to face for decades now.
    UNLESS, the buyer has in his hands a "Permit to Purchase a Handgun."
    These are issued by County Sheriffs after buyer applies and has a back ground check run. Then buyer goes back in and picks it up. There is a cooling off time involved also of course.

    If the permit holder has the original permit in hand and a copy for the seller in hand, you can do a face to face. And everyone in this state I suspect knows this rule.

    Now, having said that, a dummy once in awhile sells his legal handgun to a nut case who has no permit to buy. .But, when the LE agency tracks it back he goes to jail immediately. If gun is used in a crime, 5 years minimum before any consideration of Parole.
  4. duster066

    duster066 Supporting Member

    Coming from you that's not a surprise. Real bit of critical thinking right there. Since you contributed so much to the debate there's no need to explain it to you.
  5. duster066

    duster066 Supporting Member

    Excellent rule right there. Would love to see ours amended like yours. The FFL fee effectively increases the cost of the gun, or reduces the sellers take if the buyer refuses to cover the transfer fee.
  6. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    I keep my guns empty and locked up, and let me tell you, that's a lot of trigger locks, cable and a few cabinets...I do have two guns that could be fired without loading, one in a bedside fast open safe, and one that's on me, or next to me.

    But I don't think there should be a law requiring it.

    I'm also not really in favor of the FFL requirement to do FTF sales. As you said, it wouldn't stop criminals, and I don't think there are enough inadvertent sales to bad guys to warrant the imposition of gov't control on our lives.

    Maybe a better idea would be a simple purchase permit, like the FOID card, but free or nearly free, a must issue card, for anyone that can pass a NICS check. Shoot, I'd pay the NICS check fee once a year to have one if it were a good solution, even though my CCW means I don't have to pay at all now. It would be nice to be able to see that your buyer has been legal in the last 12 months.
  7. Rachgier

    Rachgier Administrator Staff Member

    I don't have a problem going to an ffl for a BGC on a private sale as long as the ffl isn't a wallet rapist. I keep all of my guns locked up or on my person. Even my kid's airsoft guns get locked up. There are his and her safes in the bedroom for our carry/HD side arms. I don't think we need a registry either. Every BGC has the name of the purchaser and sn of the firearm on it. FFL's have to keep their records so the sales are traceable because they are all stored somewhere in this digital world we live in.
  8. cicpup

    cicpup Resident PITA Supporting Member

    So I'm not allowed an opinion as far as you're concerned? I feel that a locked unloaded gun is a useless gun. If you purchased specific firearms for the sole purpose of home protection, what good are they locked in the safe?

    It's also a personal preference and not something that needs to be legislated. It's just me and my wife living here right now. If I had little ones or someone I questioned, I would act differently.
  9. tallbump

    tallbump Supporting Member

    Not a fan of either rule.

    Here in PA, face to face transfers for rifles are completely legal without a background check. But you can still get a background check if you want to. And most FFLs here charge$35.

    As far as keeping them secure, I don't believe in the government telling you what you have to do in your own home with your own property. I do keep each of my firearms secured....but I don't think I should be required to
  10. moona11

    moona11 King of you Monkeys Lifetime Supporter

    I don't like any of it. You break into my house and steal my gun that's on a table let's say and I can be charged? That's straight up nuts. Or you steal my rifle that's in my truck. No thanks. If I want to sell a gun face to face that's my right. I don't sell that way but its my right.
  11. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    Here we go:
    I've never understood why you need a background check to buy a used gun at a dealer and why you don't need a background check when you buy the same used gun from a private individual.
    That's pretty schizophrenic of you ask me.

    Under Florida Law you're supposed to be 'responsible' or 'due diligence' ( or whatever the wording is) to determine the buyer is eligible to win a gun.
    Some sellers will ask for copy of Florida ID and CCW permit or they only sell to CCW holders.
    Other....bring questions asked.

    I've only done one private sale and that was to a guy I randomly met at a gun store.
    Owner greeted him by his first name and obviously knew him for years. So I reckon that was safe enough.
    Otherwise I would never consider a private sale to a stranger. Dealers only.

    So I'm fine with private sales needing background checks.
    $5-$10-$15 to the FFL, whatever.
    Buyer and seller can negotiate that in the price.

    Guns are tools, dangerous tools. You wouldn't leave a nail gun laying around would you?
    I don't think it should be regulated how you secure your weapons.
    If a kid got to it an investigation should reveal if charges are warranted.
    If the kid figured out the code to the
    If the kid found the gun on the coffee table....maybe yes.
    Personal responsibility and accountability.
    People have pet snakes that kill babies. Guess what, you're a dumb parent and you go to jail. Shouldn't be any different.

    Theft? Cables and locks are delaying mechanisms. They don't guarantee that your guns will not be taken.

  12. I keep 95% of my firearms locked in a safe. Thats for their proctection from theft and fire. I keep 3 firearms out in various places for my protection. I too dont have time to open my safe and choose a gun in an emergency. I live alone so no one bothers them and if they get stolen, I wouldn't be too upset because my real babies are in the safe.
  13. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    I actually think no one would be against the NICS check, if it were fast, available when I need it and not just 9-5 or whatever the hours are, and most significantly, the record of sale was not kept in the hands of the government.

    As a tool to keep the bad guys out of it, great. As a tool to find the gun owners later...NOT great.

    Well...yeah.:confused: It's not hooked to an air hose, but, like many of my tools, its just hanging in the garage.

    I agree with the sentiment, but we all know how the story goes, over time, it becomes a question of "how well" it was secured. Pretty soon, a trigger lock isn't good enough, then a locked cabinet isn't good enough, then a safe isn't good enough unless its in a secure room with a door rated at ISO blah blah blah...:(

    I know, the absolute tragedy of a kid getting shot, it's just unfathomable, and ANY price would be low if it prevented that.

    But how does punishing the idiot that DIDN'T secure his gun properly going to save anyone? As you said, we already DO it with pets, and yet, kids still get hurt by pets.

    The unintended consequences of a law like this are huge, eventually, only the rich and the select "golden people" get to have guns, because no one else can afford to secure them or insure them.

    Frankly, that's true of every possible security effort. You can build a concrete vault with reinforced steel and super duper lasers and whatever...and someone will eventually figure out how to take your stuff if they want it.
  14. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    Ummm...he DIDN'T say you couldn't keep a loaded gun on you.;)

    In fact, he SPECIFICALLY said, " a requirement to keep any uncarried gun locked up in an approved fashion..."

    Thus his point about you having nothing to contribute. He wasn't arguing your opinion, he was saying that you were arguing something that was already moot.;)
  15. ArmyScout

    ArmyScout Supporting Member

    Our prior Governor Quinn rammed a bill through the IL Legislature just before the end of his time as Governor last year. Anyway private gun sales (except family members, gifting, estate sales. Not sure exactly who is exempt) must now go through the State Police and does slow down the transaction by sometimes a week.
  16. rmuniz9336

    rmuniz9336 Member

    Never had an issue with requiring a background check before selling a handgun. Indeed, if I'm selling it to another (even if I know them very well), I know which sporting good stores will run the check for you and at what price. Of course I tell them they'll be paying for the check. Usually, if the guy trying to buy it knows he'll never pass, they don't pursue it any further.

    And keeping a weapon locked up! Only common sense, I've little grandchildren who have yet to figure out the difference between the real thing and a toy. As a Police Officer, I'd investigated three different incidents with a handgun where a child had gotten hold of one. The fact someone would leave a "Loaded" handgun lying about floored me, and the reasoning was that "If someone breaks into the house, I won't have time to load or chamber a round". Fortunately, in none of the three incidents, no one was killed, though there's a couple of folks out there that will never play football as a result.

    The "grab in an emergency weapons" are also kept locked up in easy to open safes. And my wife and I both practice on getting them out in a hurry if we had to. We can have it open, and weapon ready in less than two seconds. Yes they might be critical seconds, but worth it considering it will probably be my grandson I need to keep from getting it.
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2016
  17. moona11

    moona11 King of you Monkeys Lifetime Supporter

    My kids keep there guns in their rooms. They know how to use all our guns. They also don't play with them. Our weird work hours leave them home a lot. So they are trained how and when to shoot.
    Might be a ND thing but most everyone I know that has kids they keep their own guns in their rooms. They are responsible for the guns.
  18. We have so many laws on the books now - let's strengthen enforcement of those laws and prosecution of violent crime, and those committed with firearms. As for securing guns, my preference is, with children in the home, I keep the gun unloaded, safety on, with a clip or magazine next to the gun. Otherwise I keep the gun loaded, safety on, with no round in chamber.
  19. Outlaw

    Outlaw Supporting Member

    :ranton:I personally think all those anti 2nd laws suck. They are all unconstitutional. Look up the word "infringed". Says it all. As for keeping guns locked away, common sense prevails here. If a law is made to force someone to lock up a gun, it's unenforceable unless a cop is in everyone's house. It's simply a prosecution tool for the lawman or fed. I also agree some folks don't have or use common sense. The words "common sense" have been abused beyond belief when it comes to gun laws. It's simply about government control, NWO or call it whatever you want. It's like having a cake and the government comes and wants half. Then they come back and want half again. The cartoon depicting this strategy was posted recently on one of the threads. The ultimate goal is confiscation. Believe it or not, it's the truth. If you can't see that, then your plan stupid. So go ahead and thank the government for making all these little common sense gun laws. When the day comes, and it will, that they start confiscating them, who you gonna blame? Well, look backward and inward, you'll surely find the culprit. It will be us and the ahole politicians we voted for that gave em away. :rantoff:

    OOPS! Meant to put infringed, not impeded. Duhh! That's what happens when you post while working :eek:
  20. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    Don't you mean "Infringe"?