You should really research the relationship between the Federalists and Anti-federalists.
Thats just it, how many times has the parent faced no charges when their minor shoots another??? When a firearm is recovered from a criminal that came from a burglary- is the 'legal' owner held accountable???? Current law doesn't hold what would be considered negligence in most other incidents where a fatality occurred. It is time for a new legal standard for negligence where firearms are involved...
One thing I'm beginning to believe is fact- many MAGA/Rabid Right ranters have a number of psychosis all their own...
yeah of course you do-you want to punish people who at best are negligent, rather than going after a major democrat party constituency-violent criminalsMany of us welcome more timely prosecution of criminal FFL holders and gun runners. I'd like to see prosecution of firearm owners who leave weapons unsecured so burglars can harvest 'clean' weapons for street crimes....
Bingo!
No, I want people who know the ATF will have an extremely difficult time to punish them for violating the law and be held accountable. (tRump is trying to use the 'regulations are complicated' farce.) They maybe 'at best' but they most likely are knowingly committing felonies. When the Law can interdict the flow of firearms from lax law states to stricter states they find multiple violations. However the ATF is so hamstrung that it takes decades to prosecute, the penalty is a slap on the wrist, and the store stays in business, the violator stays as an employee....
We saw some rather rabid dialogue during the last confirmation hearing. Why should this be different? Has anyone improved their manners since?One thing I'm beginning to believe is fact- many MAGA/Rabid Right ranters have a number of psychosis all their own...
That's an issue with the DA not pressing charges.
Why isn't being locked in the house considered "secured"? It counts for a B&E charge against the criminal.When a firearm is recovered from a criminal that came from a burglary- is the 'legal' owner held accountable???? Current law doesn't hold what would be considered negligence in most other incidents where a fatality occurred. It is time for a new legal standard for negligence where firearms are involved...
How would you define it? How would your definition stand in the face of Heller?Simple definitions would include night stand, headboard, closet, on top of a book case or wardrobe. Anyplace not locked inside a metal container. I don't think much of the mini-safes that can be picked up and carried out of the house to be opened later....
Actually, the Sheriff as well- LEOs arrest. It's time to toughen up the statutes when unsecured firearms are used by minors to kill minors.
If the DA doesn't prosecute, the Sheriffs are powerless.
Okay. Knives are deadly weapons. Medicines can also prove deadly. Shouldn't those be treated the same way as firearms by your logic?
Lawful gun owners report their stolen weapons to be able to get an insurance claim paid. Criminals get guns stolen, too, and it would be a 5th Amendment violation to force them to report a lost or stolen gun.
Household theft accounts for a tiny fraction of the guns in the hands of criminals, and those include thefts from criminals who won't obey any law.Except to a contrarian securing a deadly weapon from criminals and minors should be a requirement especially when their use by criminals escalates the murder rate. Many a 'patriot' demands gang bangers be disarmed but ignore many are being armed by their neighbors (and perhaps even themselves)...
If does if the citizen can't afford the level of security demanded by a new law. It would disproportionately affect the poor, and thus disproportionately affect minorities. Heller states that a law can't require that a gun be locked up and unready for use in self defense in the home.Trying to bring Heller into this is a stretch. Heller leaves stand many requirements before a firearm can legally be in a home. Can't have a felon living there. Have to be a certain age to legally possess in your home. A requirement for safe secure doesn't limit ownership- well if the citizen is reasonable...
Looks like that FrEeDuMbZ$™ thing must have struck a NOIVE.....LOL. Its OK brah, the world isnt laughing at you or anything I was just joking.
Looks like that FrEeDuMbZ$™ thing must have struck a NOIVE.....LOL. Its OK brah, the world isnt laughing at you or anything I was just joking.
I still haven't seen what "secure their guns" means from a legal. It does seem that you want to discriminate against the poor, who are disproportionately minority, with regards to the right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, such as self defense in the home.
They can secure their gun by keeping it on their person, or close at hand. That should make you happy.
Please present the post# in which @notquiteright made this^ claim. Inability/refusal to do so will only validate you are putting 'your' words in 'his' mouth ( a shoddy debating tactic you use quite often ) , and have therefore conceded the claim is fallacious by default. Thanks
Securing arms is not in the 2nd.
The "right" of every mouth breathing idiot to walk around everywhere with a gun isnt something I place a high value on at all. Nor do I believe thats what some guy in 1700 intended for 2022 America, nor would I agree with it even if it was in fact what was intended.
I, for one, would welcome some comprehensive bans and STRICT Gun Control. Our fabulous Gun Nuts have been allowed to run roughshod over more sane and reasonable citizens for far too long IMO, and a real effort should be made to reign that in IMHO AOC. I support it.