Ideas for Gun Control

[BadBul 0]

Here is my 2 cents.

 

I think owning $10,000 in firearms, $2,500 in ammo, $2,000 in accessories and spending countless amounts of money on target practice and range time and then placing your firearms in a cheap safe that only cost $400 to $700 (or no safe at all) is like owning a late model Mercedes-Benz with a $10,000 stereo system, $10,000 rims with a 40" LED backlit Flat Panel with an XBOX in the trunk and living in the ghetto on Public Assistance with Section 8 paying your rent.

 

If you can afford to shoot, you can afford to buy a real safe, that is well built, and will protect YOU, from having your firearms taken from a thief.

 

If you can't afford to spend $2000 or more on a well built safe, then you can't afford to shoot.

 

The same for, if you can't afford to pay rent, and you need the tax payers to do it for you. Then you can't afford a Mercedes-Benz.

 

I would like to see a federal law pass that would require all legal firearm owners (regardless of how many are owned) to own a federal approved firearms safe.

 

There isn't any reason for a responsible firearms owner to have a few rifles and a few shotguns leaning in a corner of there bedroom and countless handguns in there top draw.

 

I understand a need for home protection, so 1 sidearm on you is all you should need. If you need reinforcement, the sidearm will protect you till you can get to the firearms safe.

 

If you're not home and your home is burglarized, your firearms would be safe and will be kept out of the wrong hands.

 

I know NJ sucks for what they do to firearm owners, but I believe they're doing the right thing. And I hate to say it, but I think the 49 other states are going to follow suit.

[brocglock23 4]

Here is my 2 cents.

 

I think owning $10,000 in firearms, $2,500 in ammo, $2,000 in accessories and spending countless amounts of money on target practice and range time and then placing your firearms in a cheap safe that only cost $400 to $700 (or no safe at all) is like owning a late model Mercedes-Benz with a $10,000 stereo system, $10,000 rims with a 40" LED backlit Flat Panel with an XBOX in the trunk and living in the ghetto on Public Assistance with Section 8 paying your rent.

 

If you can afford to shoot, you can afford to buy a real safe, that is well built, and will protect YOU, from having your firearms taken from a thief.

 

If you can't afford to spend $2000 or more on a well built safe, then you can't afford to shoot.

 

The same for, if you can't afford to pay rent, and you need the tax payers to do it for you. Then you can't afford a Mercedes-Benz.

 

I would like to see a federal law pass that would require all legal firearm owners (regardless of how many are owned) to own a federal approved firearms safe.

 

There isn't any reason for a responsible firearms owner to have a few rifles and a few shotguns leaning in a corner of there bedroom and countless handguns in there top draw.

 

I understand a need for home protection, so 1 sidearm on you is all you should need. If you need reinforcement, the sidearm will protect you till you can get to the firearms safe.

 

If you're not home and your home is burglarized, your firearms would be safe and will be kept out of the wrong hands.

 

I know NJ sucks for what they do to firearm owners, but I believe they're doing the right thing. And I hate to say it, but I think the 49 other states are going to follow suit.

While I can appreciate your rant and even see your p.o.v. but why would someone who only owns $2000 worth of guns and $1000 in ammo want to pay $2000 for a safe. There are other ways to protect your guns without breaking the bank. If I had to buy a $2000 safe I wouldn't be able to shoot for almost a year depending on what's going on in my life. Also if the right person breaks in your house while your work and has a little time they can get in your expensive safe. Just my .02 cents but I think you are a little off base. Lock them up the best you can and don't leave them laying out I can agree with.

[Qel Hoth 33]

Here is my 2 cents.

 

I think owning $10,000 in firearms, $2,500 in ammo, $2,000 in accessories and spending countless amounts of money on target practice and range time and then placing your firearms in a cheap safe that only cost $400 to $700 (or no safe at all) is like owning a late model Mercedes-Benz with a $10,000 stereo system, $10,000 rims with a 40" LED backlit Flat Panel with an XBOX in the trunk and living in the ghetto on Public Assistance with Section 8 paying your rent.

 

If you can afford to shoot, you can afford to buy a real safe, that is well built, and will protect YOU, from having your firearms taken from a thief.

$2,000 safe? I can either shoot this year, or I can buy a safe this year, I can't do both.

 

If you can't afford to spend $2000 or more on a well built safe, then you can't afford to shoot.

See above, I can afford to shoot this year, but I can't shoot and buy a safe.

 

The same for, if you can't afford to pay rent, and you need the tax payers to do it for you. Then you can't afford a Mercedes-Benz.

 

I would like to see a federal law pass that would require all legal firearm owners (regardless of how many are owned) to own a federal approved firearms safe.

To what end? SCOTUS has ruled that the state cannot require firearms be stored in a manner which prevents easy access for self defense.

 

There isn't any reason for a responsible firearms owner to have a few rifles and a few shotguns leaning in a corner of there bedroom and countless handguns in there top draw.

In many parts of the country, especially in rural areas, burglary is exceedingly rare. Why should someone who lives in the middle of nowhere be required to buy a safe to store his firearms when his town has not had a burglary in years?

 

I understand a need for home protection, so 1 sidearm on you is all you should need. If you need reinforcement, the sidearm will protect you till you can get to the firearms safe.

How dare you tell me what I "need" for my personal protection. Perhaps one sidearm is sufficient. Perhaps one shotgun is sufficient. Perhaps one rifle is sufficient. In any case, attempting to gain access to a safe that requires a key or a combination while trying to not get shot in the back is not something I wish to do.

 

If you're not home and your home is burglarized, your firearms would be safe and will be kept out of the wrong hands.

Watch a few youtube videos on people breaking into "safes." How long do you think your $2000 gun safe will last against someone with some basic tools? 10 minutes? 5? Likely much less than you think.

 

I know NJ sucks for what they do to firearm owners, but I believe they're doing the right thing. And I hate to say it, but I think the 49 other states are going to follow suit.

 

I am going to have to disagree with you. The government has no right to legislate how I may or may not secure my firearms on my premises. I do secure my firearms in a $200 cabinet, however it is not because I feel that I have to, or that I am afraid of theft. I do have small children in my house from time to time, and the safe serves to prevent small hands from touching things they should not, especially since every firearm in my safe is loaded at all times.

[BadBul 0]

I'm not here to rant, I'm only giving an answer to a question that was asked "Ideas for Gun Control'.

 

That's my answer. I think a responsible firearm owner would secure a firearm in an expensive safe. An approved safe would be one that is more secure then a cheaper made one.

 

We don't complain about the State making us buy automobile insurance, do we? So why complain if they made you purchase a safe to not only secure your firearms, but protect yourself.?

I look at buying a safe the same way that you buy auto insurance. You don't buy auto insurance at State minimum, you buy as much auto insurance as you could afford.

[Qel Hoth 33]

I'm not here to rant, I'm only giving an answer to a question that was asked "Ideas for Gun Control'.

 

That's my answer. I think a responsible firearm owner would secure a firearm in an expensive safe. An approved safe would be one that is more secure then a cheaper made one.

 

We don't complain about the State making us buy automobile insurance, do we? So why complain if they made you purchase a safe to not only secure your firearms, but protect yourself.?

I look at buying a safe the same way that you buy auto insurance. You don't buy auto insurance at State minimum, you buy as much auto insurance as you could afford.

 

How does forcing me to secure my firearms in a safe protect me? It delays access to my firearms when time is critical.

 

Also, the analogy to auto insurance is flawed. The state only requires that you carry a minimum of liability insurance, and if you have a loan the bank will require you to carry collision and comprehensive. The state mandates that you have liability so that when you cause an accident the other person has a reliable means to have their situation righted. The bank mandating that you have collision and comprehensive is to provide the bank confidence that its collateral (your car) will have significant value relative to the principle of the loan.

 

Forcing firearms owners to secure their firearms in a safe would provide minimal benefit to society at best. Gun "safes" are not secure containers, they are easily defeated by one to two people wielding simple tools and leverage. Most gun "safes" are rated by UL as Residential Security Containers, meaning that they are only rated to withstand simple hand tools for a maximum of 5 minutes. They are not tested against power tools of any kind.

 

Moreover, SCOTUS has already settled this issue. DC v Heller affirmed the right to have access to a firearm for purposes of self defense in the home. DC's requirement that any functioning firearm in the home have a trigger lock or be secured was ruled an unconstitutional restriction on the Second Amendment. If the government cannot require one to secure one's firearms, what is the purpose of it requiring one to purchase a "safe."

[brocglock23 4]

How does forcing me to secure my firearms in a safe protect me? It delays access to my firearms when time is critical.

 

Also, the analogy to auto insurance is flawed. The state only requires that you carry a minimum of liability insurance, and if you have a loan the bank will require you to carry collision and comprehensive. The state mandates that you have liability so that when you cause an accident the other person has a reliable means to have their situation righted. The bank mandating that you have collision and comprehensive is to provide the bank confidence that its collateral (your car) will have significant value relative to the principle of the loan.

 

Forcing firearms owners to secure their firearms in a safe would provide minimal benefit to society at best. Gun "safes" are not secure containers, they are easily defeated by one to two people wielding simple tools and leverage. Most gun "safes" are rated by UL as Residential Security Containers, meaning that they are only rated to withstand simple hand tools for a maximum of 5 minutes. They are not tested against power tools of any kind.

 

Moreover, SCOTUS has already settled this issue. DC v Heller affirmed the right to have access to a firearm for purposes of self defense in the home. DC's requirement that any functioning firearm in the home have a trigger lock or be secured was ruled an unconstitutional restriction on the Second Amendment. If the government cannot require one to secure one's firearms, what is the purpose of it requiring one to purchase a "safe."

+1 This. My guns and ammo are locked between a gun safe and a stack-on 10 gun cabpinet. Keeps the little one from getting her hands on them.... Like my previous post pointed out along with Qel Hoth said. The right bad guy will get your stuff if its anything short of Fort Knox. BTW, rant was a poor choice of words. Nothing was meant by it. Merry Christmas

[Josh S 0]

How do you guys know what my Mercedes looks like?

[EchoMirage 137]

Here is my 2 cents.

 

I would like to see a federal law pass that would require all legal firearm owners (regardless of how many are owned) to own a federal approved firearms safe.

 

 

 

and i will say, yet again, the glaring obvious point: how do you know lanza'a mother DIDNT have all her guns locked in a safe?? people are ranting and raving saying she didnt have them locked up, its all her fault, if they were locked, it wouldnt have happened.....so where is the proof that they WERENT locked up, and adam simply stole the keys/combo, and STOLE the guns?

 

'requiring' a safe will do absolutely nothing. you keep giving, and giving, and giving, and before you know it, its federal law to keep every single gun locked in a safe, with the ammo in another safe, a felony to have a loaded gun in the house, and then a felony to have a fully ASSEMBLED gun in the house.

 

not one inch. youll never get it back.

[Hooligan 0]

I keep reading/hearing stuff like "give in this much, it's better than a ban"

 

Someone's always going to be threatening gun bans, but some day we may not have any freedoms left to carve off to appease them.

 

My $0.02 is similar to some above ideas: to streamline the NICS into an automated PASS/FAIL system that charges the user a few bucks. I don't think bring required by law to pay a private business (FFL) for the privilege of selling your own property is fair or reasonable. I suppose we'll be paying tax on every gun sale, also, since it'll be through the dealer and in-state?

[vladtepes 1,060]

I keep reading/hearing stuff like "give in this much, it's better than a ban"

 

Someone's always going to be threatening gun bans, but some day we may not have any freedoms left to carve off to appease them.

 

My $0.02 is similar to some above ideas: to streamline the NICS into an automated PASS/FAIL system that charges the user a few bucks. I don't think bring required by law to pay a private business (FFL) for the privilege of selling your own property is fair or reasonable. I suppose we'll be paying tax on every gun sale, also, since it'll be through the dealer and in-state?

 

I'm all for a simple pass fail automated system... The idea is not to inconvenience gun enthusiasts... The idea is to make it so you to not inadvertently sell a gun to a criminal...

[deadeye74 5]

Here is my 2 cents.

 

I think owning $10,000 in firearms, $2,500 in ammo, $2,000 in accessories and spending countless amounts of money on target practice and range time and then placing your firearms in a cheap safe that only cost $400 to $700 (or no safe at all) is like owning a late model Mercedes-Benz with a $10,000 stereo system, $10,000 rims with a 40" LED backlit Flat Panel with an XBOX in the trunk and living in the ghetto on Public Assistance with Section 8 paying your rent.

 

If you can afford to shoot, you can afford to buy a real safe, that is well built, and will protect YOU, from having your firearms taken from a thief.

 

If you can't afford to spend $2000 or more on a well built safe, then you can't afford to shoot.

 

The same for, if you can't afford to pay rent, and you need the tax payers to do it for you. Then you can't afford a Mercedes-Benz.

 

I would like to see a federal law pass that would require all legal firearm owners (regardless of how many are owned) to own a federal approved firearms safe.

 

There isn't any reason for a responsible firearms owner to have a few rifles and a few shotguns leaning in a corner of there bedroom and countless handguns in there top draw.

 

I understand a need for home protection, so 1 sidearm on you is all you should need. If you need reinforcement, the sidearm will protect you till you can get to the firearms safe.

 

If you're not home and your home is burglarized, your firearms would be safe and will be kept out of the wrong hands.

 

I know NJ sucks for what they do to firearm owners, but I believe they're doing the right thing. And I hate to say it, but I think the 49 other states are going to follow suit.

 

What your saying us very similar to what I posted way back in the beginning of the thread. I do disagree with having to own a "government approved safe". This is like having to buy only "TSA approved" locks for your luggage. They are made to a poor specification, and the agents are supposed to have keys to override your combo lock. What would keep a manufacture from having a master key of sorts to open any safe they make?

 

The wording "stored in a secured manner" is much more appealing to me. It does not force someone to have to buy a specific safe, but rather holds a person accountable for not attempting to secure their firearms. Safe or no safe, a criminal that knows firearms are in a house and wants them will do whatever they can to steal said guns. Yes, it's just another feel good law, but if it helps prevent some form of government imposed weapons ban, it's ok by me.

 

Things have been quieting down with all the fiscal talks going on. Lets hope the majority of congress wakes up and realizes its not the guns to go after but rather address the mental health issues in this country.

[this_is_nascar 162]

Oh great, now some want the government to tell us how to secure our firearms. Just wonderful.

[BCeagle 12]

My idea:

 

Not an inch.

[BCeagle 12]

The $2000 safe is overkill and you are basically saying that a poor person has no 2A rights. I have a decent job and cant see spending more than $500-$700 at most. (I only have about 6 guns)

[bulpup 98]

To me, if the resulting legislation has nothing to do with the things behind crazy people shooting up schools then we have all been hood-winked.

 

The lead pony needs to be whatever helps a family see and find help for mentally ill family members and looking into the anti-psychotic drugs provided to young people.

 

And an honest discussion about what does a family do with their guns if they realize a child is turning to drugs, going insane or any other problem. Frankly, if a child is so mentally ill that one would consider putting them in a hospital, as Lanza's mother reportedly did, there should be a plan for a person to voluntarily and temporarily remove and secure firearms that does not involve the police. Something that would allow someone to clear the house of firearms while a situation is dealt with and ensure prompt return of the firearms when it is over that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg. Gun stores could do this now if we were allowed to come up with ideas on our own instead of waiting for politicians to get their take. This should be discussed by the gun groups long before what laws we want to concede.

 

Additionally, everyone that owns a gun should be be taking a hard look at who they are allowing access to their guns. To say to themselves honestly that SECURE means SECURE. Not "I have it locked up but if someone really wanted to they can gain access to them in my sleep." If the above is true and there is an unstable person in the house and you can't afford the giant safe then the previous idea would help everyone- get your guns out of your house, then deal with that unstable person.

 

 

I would much prefer this kind of self reflection on what a responsible gun owner does or should do to this ridiculous sideshow of "providing volunteer armed guards." or making laws that would have stopped nothing.

 

Me personally, the only thing I want to be pushing on my elected officials is what the President already said, getting mental health care should be as easy, if not easier, than getting a gun. That is all there is to it. Securing your guns should be a self-policing act.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JSF01 13]

I would support opening up the NICS system to everyone. Now I am not sure but I thought I read something that when NICS was put into place the NRA was fine with it being open to everyone but it was the Bradly Campaign that did not want it to be. Anyone know if that is true?

I dependently do not support making it mandatory that all firearm transfers need to go through an FFL. It Is nothing more than a greater burden on law abiding citizens. The fact that you can make face to face sales is not really a problem. While many criminals may do a FTF deal to get their firearms, they are buying them from black market dealers. Making firearm transfers through an FFL is not going to change that, they will just keep on doing so illegally. More Importantly because the right to keep and bear arms if fundamentally tied to the security of a free state you do not want all firearms to be easily traced to who currently has them. FTF means if a tyrannical government were to arise or a hostile fore were to invade, They cannot just go to the ATF/Dealers and have a list of all the firearms some one may have.

[gunguy1960 2]

" nj sucks for what they do to firearm owners, but I believe theyre doing the right thing", wow, how bizarre! If we dont stop this thinking we wont need safes because we wont have anything to put in them.