We have electrical codes that require properly grounded circuit panels. Why not have building codes that require lockable storage for things like drano, oxycontin, firearms, etc.?
This debate reaches farther than just accidental gun deaths.
1 Like
I think non-grounded wiring is inherently more dangerous than grounded wiring. Makes sense to make that mandatory, especially since people arenât typically doing their own wiring, they buy the hosue with the assumption it is properly built.
Guns, drano, pills are inanimate objects who canât hurt anyone just sitting there. They have to be misused (on purpose or accident). Say youâre 60 years old, live alone, with arthritis. Your pain meds might be in a big bottle with out a child cap because you donât need it. But if youâre in a family with little kids everywhere, then it would be good to keep them in child proof containers and out of reach. If you are a family with teenagers you may need to hide, lock up. or keep your pills on your person in case your kids find and abuse them.
FTFY.
Iâm a big proponent of gun rights- But rights come with responsibility, and safe storage is kind of the top of that particular list.
4 Likes
I donât think thatâs happening at all here. As I said, you can, and most likely do, live in the 99.99% of the country where this law does not apply. I prefer to live where it does apply. Why do you want to force your personal preference on my community?
Iâm not forcing anything. Have you not ever had a discussion with someone with a different opinion?
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the Bill of Rights and constitutionally protected rights are not supposed to be up to locals. I think we would all have a problem with Texas deciding that the first amendment doesnât apply to speech advocating tolerance of homosexuality, or New York City deciding that the 4th amendment doesnât apply to minorities walking around Manhattan. The bill of rights is not supposed to be up for experiments in federalism. Love it or hate it, D.C. vs. Heller settled that requiring trigger locks violates the second amendment. Love or hate gun rights, it should bother everyone that the court is not applying the bill of rights the same across all court jurisdictions.
3 Likes
Are you against securing firearms, or are you against a law saying you have to do so?
Iâm trying to understand if youâre against responsible firearm ownership, or if youâre coming at this from a civil rights perspective.
- âSeat belt use in 2010 was 89% in states with primary enforcement laws but only 80% in states with secondary enforcement laws or no seat belt laws.â
- âSeat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half.â
What donât you like about getting 9% more people to increase their chances of survival by 50%?
Consider seatbelt fees a penalty tax paid only by those too incompetent to follow basic safety instruction on their own.
2 Likes
What are you, some kind of Marxist?
2 Likes
perplexed is a form of wonder, and you are full of it.
4 Likes
So this seems to be the Police Code in question:
San Francisco Police Code section 4512 provides that
â[n]o person shall keep a handgun within a residence owned
or controlled by that person unlessâ (1) âthe handgun is stored
in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock that has
been approved by the California Department of Justice,â or
(2) â[t]he handgun is carried on the person of an individual
over the age of 18.â1 S.F., Cal., Police Code art. 45,
§ 4512(a), (c)(1). Violations of section 4512 are punishable
by a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison.
This seems like a good common sense practice, but how can they enforce it as a law? Is there a point to unenforceable laws?
Iâm against a law for it. I think everyone should take proper precautions to store their firearms, flammables, drugs, poisonous chemicals, sex toys etc in a responsible manner.
It is one of those laws enforced when something bad happens. Sort of tacking on the offenses, which they do with the War on Drugs. Several states will tack on more penalties because your drug stash didnât have the proper tax stamp on them.
1 Like
Stupid should hurtâŚ
Short answer: no. Long answer: also no.
1 Like
Doesnât it depend on who it hurts? When seat belt laws were being discussed in the past I heard several people make the statement that if they chose to not wear one, that was their decision and why should it matter to anyone else. I donât know about you but Iâd prefer the pilot of a 1 ton plus vehicle stay in control of it as long as possible when things go sideways.
2 Likes
Well, I grew up shooting and was given my first rifle for my 7th birthday.
So, tell me, what purpose does a 9mm pistol have (for example) beyond killing and injuring humans? Got a lot of wildlife where youâre from that youâd take down with a small pistol? Feral dog packs a problem where you live but you only want to get them when theyâre up close so you donât use a rifle or a shotgun?
1 Like
Iâm not sure how saying âWhen youâre storing your guns in your harm in our city, you must put them in a gun safeâ violates the Bill of Rights. Do tell.
2 Likes
There are a plethora of shooting sports that the 9mm is used in. From Bullseye, to steel plate, to USPSA/IPSC, to informal target shooting. And some people do use them to hunt. Jerry Miculek shoots balloons at 1000 yards with them.
Again, it is a hunk of metal. It has no soul, not predestined fate. Itâs use is what one can find to use it for.
1 Like
While I agree with you on the âitâs just a toolâ statement, as pitchforks, torches, and even a rolled up piece of paper can be misused, does it not make sense for a city to have some regulations on storage of firearms?
1 Like
So the fact that you can use a pistol for sport makes it the primary purpose of said firearm enough that you object when people characterize them as being meant to kill or injure humans? You do realize that the vast majority of pistols that the general populace sees are on the hips of law enforcement and law enforcement doesnât carry them for a little sport shooting after work?
So, no, I donât buy your idea that it is some kind of misstatement to say that the primary purpose of a pistol is to kill or injure humans (and the latter, really, only if youâre incompetent at the former). I grew up shooting from a family of shooters. Letâs not play bullshit.
Guns should be locked up, at home, if there is any chance that children will encounter them. Iâve personally known people who had someone do dumbass things with pistols as children. It isnât some kind of âOMG, theyâre coming fer mah gunz!â infringement to say, âHey, when at rest in your home, you need to store these things safely.â I donât think the black helicopters are going to come next.
Update: In fact, if you reflect on it, humanity didnât even develop pistols for any purpose other than killing other humans. Think of the historic development and use. You can argue for the ânot just for killinâ folksâ virtues of longarms but for pistols, it just ainât so.
4 Likes
