Law requires guns be locked up at home

[TomAiello 25]

You are correct--I did not read the links.

I (apparently erroneously) assumed that "locked up at home" was used the way that I'd understand it. Forcing someone to lock up their self defense weapon rather than carrying it on their person at home (should they choose) is silly beyond belief. If you don't trust them to carry it around in their own home, then they ought to be barred from buying it in the first place, and that ought to be because of a history of violent felonies, or something similar.


Funny enough, I just went and read the links, and it appears that the ity of SF would have allowed me to carry my (pre-ban) MAK-90 around loaded in my home, but would want me to disable and/or lock up my handguns. Now that's silly.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It's also very easy to move a minivault to another room if you (for example) are sleeping in a different bed for a night or something like that.

The mini-vaults usually have a steel cable, or bolts, with which you can attach it to a wall, or a nightstand. The purpose of which is to not just keep the gun from the kids, but also to keep the mini-vault with gun inside from being stolen by burglars. So with this setup, no, you could not easily move it from room to room. (Unless you had a mini-vault in each room, and that's just getting even more ridiculous.) And if the mini-vault is not attached to some structure, then the anti-gun folks are going to scream about the possibility of theft.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If you don't trust them to carry it around in their own home, then they ought to be barred from buying it in the first place, and that ought to be because of a history of violent felonies, or something similar.

Yes, another reason why this is a stupid law.

Quote

I just went and read the links, and it appears that the ity of SF would have allowed me to carry my (pre-ban) MAK-90 around loaded in my home, but would want me to disable and/or lock up my handguns. Now that's silly.

Yep, there's another. The distinction for handgun laws is usually because they are small and concealable, and therefore often a tool of choice for robbers. But since this law is about our own private homes, it's just plain stupid. What crime or accident do they think we'll commit in our own homes, that we can't commit with a long gun?

The fruits and nuts in San Fran that write these laws have no brains.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

It's also very easy to move a minivault to another room if you (for example) are sleeping in a different bed for a night or something like that.

The mini-vaults usually have a steel cable, or bolts, with which you can attach it to a wall, or a nightstand. The purpose of which is to not just keep the gun from the kids, but also to keep the mini-vault with gun inside from being stolen by burglars. So with this setup, no, you could not easily move it from room to room. (Unless you had a mini-vault in each room, and that's just getting even more ridiculous.) And if the mini-vault is not attached to some structure, then the anti-gun folks are going to scream about the possibility of theft.

My quickvault is not attached. For me, the purpose of the quickvault is child safety, not theft prevention.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[beqa 0]

Technically, I don't think I have to worry about an intruder. I pray to God I will never have to.

About running to the neighbor's, that could be a mile or more for me to find someone that is even home. I live in the middle of no where, almost literally. We have dogs that would alert us to anything that is going on.

I generally worry more about shooting a coyote or rapid dog or random animal that wonders into my yard, or threatens my 4 year old, than actual people. I would know they were here, before they could get to us.

Some people aren't that luck though. Yes, it is very presumptuous to assume that you can just shot someone and get away with it, because it doesn't work that way. There are laws about warning, and baracading before you can actually fire at someone. It is best to know what laws are there to protect you in your state.

Where I live though, police would never make it before someone could get hurt. Mainly my family. So, I would rather be prepared for something that will prolly never happen, than have it happen and someone I care about get hurt.

My first resort would be to detain the intruder. Hopefully, that would work.

The laws for the peoples that live in cities where the gun laws are very restictive, are the areas where you have to worry about getting attack, and worry about people possibly being so hopped up on drugs or something not to care about someone being home or not. Those people need to be able to protect themselves.

Note: I value human life very high, it would take something super serious before I would even consider pointing a loaded gun at a human being. But, I have the knowledge to handle guns safely. The punk that breaks into someones house, has probably never even fired a gun. That makes him way more dangerous.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

There are laws about warning, and baracading before you can actually fire at someone. It is best to know what laws are there to protect you in your state.

Really? Can you give me an example of some of those laws? You mean if someone is attacking my wife with a knife, I have to first warn him to stop, then go barricade myself in another room, before I can defend her?

Quote

My first resort would be to detain the intruder. Hopefully, that would work.

Are you going to try this with, or without, a gun?

Quote

The laws for the peoples that live in cities where the gun laws are very restictive, are the areas where you have to worry about getting attack, and worry about people possibly being so hopped up on drugs or something not to care about someone being home or not. Those people need to be able to protect themselves.

So what you are saying is that restrictive gun laws don't stop criminals. I agree.

However, everyone has the right to self defense, whether you live in a high crime area, or a low crime area. No government should control who can own a gun based upon where they live.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

There are laws about warning, and baracading before you can actually fire at someone. It is best to know what laws are there to protect you in your state.

Really? Can you give me an example of some of those laws? You mean if someone is attacking my wife with a knife, I have to first warn him to stop, then go barricade myself in another room, before I can defend her?

Actually, John, there are states where your insane hypothetical is actually correct.

You live in Texas, so you don't need to go barricade yourself in. Texas also allows you (as a private citizen) to use deadly force to protect another private citizen, so you can defend your wife.

Unfortunately, some states are not so enlightened.

Some states have follow a legal doctrine called "no duty to retreat" or "stand your ground." This means that you can meet threats of violence with deadly force anywhere that you can lawfully be.

Some states have, instead, have a "Castle Doctrine" which basically means that you have a duty to retreat unless you are in your residence.

And some other states, worse yet, have "duty to retreat" statutes, that basically say that you need to run from an attacker until you are literally unable to escape (cornered in a room with no exits, for example) before you are legally excused in the use of deadly force.

Justification for the use of deadly force is also the subject of some variance in state law.

Some states allow the use of deadly force in defense of property. In other words, if you see someone stealing your car, you can shoot them to stop the theft.

Most states allow the use of deadly force in defense of yourself or another person, when you reasonably believe them to be in danger of physical harm.

Then there are the states that only allow the use of deadly force by private citizens in defense of your own life (deadly force to protect another is restricted to police officers). Defending someone else is no excuse. Unless your own life is in danger, you will not be excused in your use of deadly force.

While most states land in the middle on both counts (so you'd be ok using deadly force to protect your wife, and wouldn't have to barricade yourself in another room), there are always outliers. Florida, for example, has both "stand your ground" and "defense of property" statutes, leading to results like this one--sorry for the oddball link, I remember reading it on CNN, but I can't find that coverage right now. California, on the other hand, lands on the opposite extreme, so that in a case with relatively similar facts, the shooter is in big legal trouble.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rhaig 0]

in texas, section 9 outlines when you are allowed to use force and deadly force.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.01.00

my favorite subsection title is 9.22 "NECESSITY" (he needed killin')

if you own or carry a gun in TX, sec 9 should be known to you. It's worth reading. Sec 46 tells you where you can and can't carry, but if you have a CHL, you already know that. (if your instructor is worth a dime that is)

--
Rob

[chriswelker 0]

My situation is vastly different from yours, so I've made the decision to carry with nothing in the chamber. I have two small children who are with me most days (and one who likes to put things in and out of my pockets), and I'm sure that my familiarity/comfort with firearms in general is years behind yours. I figure that carrying with the hammer down on an empty chamber requires only one more step should I actually have to use the weapon, and I'm willing to rely on my ability to predict a dangerous situation to earn me the few seconds it will require to rack the slide.

Quote

You should carry a BRICK instead, because that is all you really have. I hope for your safety that you are never involved in a gun fight because it will be over in 5 seconds.Maybe the perp will give you a few seconds to tap, rack and fire.

• Quote

[rhaig 0]

Quote

You should carry a BRICK instead, because that is all you really have. I hope for your safety that you are never involved in a gun fight because it will be over in 5 seconds.Maybe the perp will give you a few seconds to tap, rack and fire.

refer to my earlier post regarding training. If racking the slide is part of the weapon presentation, and it's practiced it would only add half a second or so.

maybe if you didn't have one in a chamber it would be effectively a brick, but you don't train that way.

--
Rob

[beqa 0]

Firstly, I agree whole heartedly that you should have the right to protect yourself and your family at all times. That no one should be able to tell you that you can't, or how to.

Secondly, yes, I would detain someone with a gun, if need be. Otherwise, I don't think they would listen.

Third, I think all laws that protect crimals when they are commiting a crime is bad. It is giving them a free pass to do wrong, and that is detrimental to our society. If we were stricter on crime, there wouldn't be so many criminals.

Fourth, I am in the state of Ohio. We have concealed carry, btw. But, if someone was to break into my house, (mostly if you live in town) you are required, if possible, to barracade yourself in a room with a phone, or try to get out of the house. If you barracade, you are supposed to yell and warn the person that you are armed, and tell them to leave, and then tell them if they come after you, you will shoot.

Won't do anyone any good if they decide to set fire to your house. But, that isn't likely to happen.

Now, the laws are really strict about men shooting intruders. They can get in trouble way faster than a woman can. (bias, I know). Basically, if someone would break into our home, and threaten us, I could shoot them, and there would be less reprocussions. They say you have to 'fear for your life' before you can use deadly defense.

That being said. My husband asked the local sheriff once about what would happen, if someone broke in where we live, and they said that they really couldn't do anything about us protecting ourselves, because of how far away from town and whatnot we were. So, even with the laws, it is an up in the air issue of your local police forces. They know they can't protect us in the event of something like that happening, so that pretty much tells me we are kinda on our own.

But, as I said before, I hope it never happens, and it would take something really serious to make me even think about pointing a loaded gun at a human being.

[billvon 2,396]

> So, I would rather be prepared for something that will prolly never
>happen, than have it happen and someone I care about get hurt.

I agree, and preparation is key for incidents like that - and guns can certainly play a role in that preparation.

However, too many people (in my experience) translate that to "I need a loaded weapon within reaching distance to keep my family safe" - and all too often that leads to this:

===========================
Bakersfield toddler killed in accidental shooting

Last Update: 12:21 am

Bakersfield police say a two-year old boy was killed following an accidental shooting in a southwest Bakersfield apartment.

Authorities say the boy's 3-year old sister shot the boy once in the chest, he was transported to Kern Medical Center where he later died.

It appears that while their mother was in another area of the apartment, the victim's three year old sister gained possession of a .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun, from under their parent's bed, and accidentally shot her brother.
============================

Now, it goes without saying that responsible gun owners do not leave loaded weapons accessible to children. Unfortunately, many do - and thus we have both incidents like the one above and calls for laws to protect other people against those negligent gun owners.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

So why would you support a ruling that will certainly lead to another little girls death?

Nice loaded question. How about this? Can you pass me a law that would guarantee that another little girl would ever suffer death from a firearm? Remember it's for the childern.

Quote

A two-year-old boy has died after being accidentally shot by his three-year-old sister in California, according to police. Skip related content
The girl apparently found a .45 calibre semi-automatic handgun under her parents' bed and fired it at her brother by mistake.

The boy, Ruben Soto III, was reportedly shot once in the chest.

He was taken to Kern Medical Centre but later pronounced dead.

Police said the children's mother was in another area of their flat at the time of the shooting. Their father was at work.

"It's pretty shocking, you know, parents having a gun when kids can get to it and it's loaded," Bobby Ortiz, who lives in the area, told news service TurnTo23.com.

"I don't know if there's another word to describe it, it's just a tragedy," said Bakersfield police sergeant Greg Terry.

"It's so important that, if you're going to have firearms in your possession, (you) make sure they're stored safely, so that incidents like this don't occur."

According to the officer, it is illegal to leave a gun somewhere in the home where a child can get hold of it.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090528/twl-two-year-old-boy-shot-dead-by-sister-3fd0ae9.html

Yea, its for the children

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

My situation is vastly different from yours, so I've made the decision to carry with nothing in the chamber. I have two small children who are with me most days (and one who likes to put things in and out of my pockets), and I'm sure that my familiarity/comfort with firearms in general is years behind yours. I figure that carrying with the hammer down on an empty chamber requires only one more step should I actually have to use the weapon, and I'm willing to rely on my ability to predict a dangerous situation to earn me the few seconds it will require to rack the slide.

You should carry a BRICK instead, because that is all you really have. I hope for your safety that you are never involved in a gun fight because it will be over in 5 seconds.Maybe the perp will give you a few seconds to tap, rack and fire.

Dude, if I'm ever involved in an actual gun fight (involving two or more parties, armed with firearms, shooting at each other) when I've got my kids with me, then I've made a miscalculation of a massive order.

In a situation where another person is shooting at me with a firearm, my top priority is to get the hell out of that situation. I've got no delusions about the survivability of a real firefight, and I'd personally like to live.

My personal defense firearm is almost exclusively for defense from unarmed (or not armed with firearms) individuals. If the other guy has a gun, the rules are very different, and basically involve me (and mine) trying to get out of harms way until help arrives.

If we're talking about a home defense situation, then (a) if they're not running as soon as I've fired a shot I'm real worried because they're probably a hit squad, and (b) I doubt I'll be using a handgun anyway.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[steve1 5]

Quote

My situation is vastly different from yours, so I've made the decision to carry with nothing in the chamber. I have two small children who are with me most days (and one who likes to put things in and out of my pockets), and I'm sure that my familiarity/comfort with firearms in general is years behind yours. I figure that carrying with the hammer down on an empty chamber requires only one more step should I actually have to use the weapon, and I'm willing to rely on my ability to predict a dangerous situation to earn me the few seconds it will require to rack the slide.

Quote

You should carry a BRICK instead, because that is all you really have. I hope for your safety that you are never involved in a gun fight because it will be over in 5 seconds.Maybe the perp will give you a few seconds to tap, rack and fire.

If I was going into a gunfight at the OK corral I'd be cocked and loaded with the safety off.

For home defense, though, that is different. I have safety concerns. We don't have any kids at home now, but sometimes there are kids in the house.

I have an automatic pistol up high where kids can't reach it. It is also hidden under something. There's also no bullet in the chamber. Most younger kids would have trouble chambering a round even if they knew how. In that sense it is fairly safe.

A friend of mine was killed by keeping an automatic pistol on his headboard (cocked and locked). I don't know if it was on safety or not. One day his cat was crawling around up there and nocked it off. It shot my friend through the head....

• Quote

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

A friend of mine was killed by keeping an automatic pistol on his headboard (cocked and locked). I don't know if it was on safety or not. One day his cat was crawling around up there and nocked it off. It shot my friend through the head....

So those drop tests in California actually have value?

Or just for those with kids or cats?

[steve1 5]

reply]

So those drop tests in California actually have value?

Or just for those with kids or cats?

[beqa 0]

I think in that instance that the parents should be charged with something. Heck you can't even be in a car accident without getting at least getting charged with failure to control, or safe distance or something.

I would love to smack parents like that over the head. I have a 4 year old, and I don't even leave markers or scissors where he can reach them, let alone a loaded gun! That is a recipe for disaster. I don't think that anything loaded should be kept lying around. Guns should also be kept out of a childs reach. That doesn't mean they need to be locked up, or have locks on them though.

All the guns we have are in kept up high where he can't reach them. Are never left loaded, and are in a room he is not allowed to be in unless we are there with him. We baby gate it off, just to keep him from going in there, even though it really isn't needed for his age.

You have to be a responsible parent, especially if you want to keep guns in your home. You also have to be prepared to teach your children to handle them safely, so they understand that they aren't toys to be played with.

I am actually more scared of children from other families coming to my home and getting into things they are not supposed to, because I know my son won't. I also tell any parent that brings their child to my home (especially for the first time), that hey, there are guns in that room, make sure your kids don't go in there. Then we all know, and we all can watch.

Children are too precious to risk because someone wants to be irresponsible about gun safety. I think if you want to own a gun, you should be responsible about it. It's unfortunate that people can't be adults, and take that responsiblity into consideration.

But, it's those people that do take it seriously, and do try to prevent injuries to innocent people, that get shafted by these laws that are put into place, that don't solve the problem. That is why we get so mad. Why should law abiding people be punished? Especially when you know that some criminal, or teen gang member is gonna be hiding a loaded gun where some little kid can find it, and they don't listen to the laws anyway.

[chriswelker 0]

refer to my earlier post regarding training. If racking the slide is part of the weapon presentation, and it's practiced it would only add half a second or so.

Quote

Really? Have you ever timed yourself or anyone else doing this?

• Quote

[chriswelker 0]

Quote

Dude, if I'm ever involved in an actual gun fight (involving two or more parties, armed with firearms, shooting at each other) when I've got my kids with me, then I've made a miscalculation of a massive order.

I agree. You should always avoid situations that could turn bad.

Quote

In a situation where another person is shooting at me with a firearm, my top priority is to get the hell out of that situation. I've got no delusions about the survivability of a real firefight, and I'd personally like to live.

Me too!

***My personal defense firearm is almost exclusively for defense from unarmed (or not armed with firearms) individuals. If the other guy has a gun, the rules are very different, and basically involve me (and mine) trying to get out of harms way until help arrives.***


My personal defense weapon is EXCLUSIVELY for defense from ARMED ATTACKERS. Ever heard of "confront force with force"?

There are many ways to practice but advanced training enhances SURVIVAL. Training needs to be realistic and stressful. You must be able to draw your weapon, fire and hit your target in under 2 seconds.

[fasted3 0]

I will jump in here, but with the disclaimor that I'm not sure what to say. I'm more for freedom to own guns than not, but reading this stuff is shaking my beliefs. You guys sound like you live in Beruit or something. The idea of people walking around their house with a loaded gun in a holster is insane. I see a lot more reports of accidental shootings and murders than self defense, and by a large margin. Even intentional incidents often don't need to be solved by gunfire. Some guy innocently walks into a person's yard and gets blown away, for example.
I'm still not in favor of taking away your toys, but I've gotta tell ya I'm starting to wonder.
And that comment about slapping the parents was priceless. Their toddler kid just shot her baby brother dead and they need to be slapped.
I bet they would rather be shot themselves instead.
One other comment real quick. Some claim we need them to fight the government. Fat chance. You won't last 5 minutes against the black helicopters if it ever comes to that.
Sorry for the rant. Carry on.

But what do I know?

[rhaig 0]

Quote

refer to my earlier post regarding training. If racking the slide is part of the weapon presentation, and it's practiced it would only add half a second or so.

Quote

Really? Have you ever timed yourself or anyone else doing this?

Yes in fact I have. My first CHL instructor carried with an empty chamber as an undercover cop. He trained to chamber a round as part of his draw. We timed him from draw buzzer to first shot and it added 0.2sec to his time. His point when he explained to us how he used to carry was it's more dependent on your training.

--
Rob

• Quote

[rhaig 0]

google "defensive gun uses"

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I will jump in here, but with the disclaimor that I'm not sure what to say. I'm more for freedom to own guns than not, but reading this stuff is shaking my beliefs. You guys sound like you live in Beruit or something. The idea of people walking around their house with a loaded gun in a holster is insane.

It's not something I do either, but I'm 200lbs. Your profile suggests you're not a 110lb woman either.

Yet you live near New Orleans, so you must have some idea why others might want to do so.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I will jump in here, but with the disclaimor that I'm not sure what to say. I'm more for freedom to own guns than not, but reading this stuff is shaking my beliefs. You guys sound like you live in Beruit or something. The idea of people walking around their house with a loaded gun in a holster is insane. I see a lot more reports of accidental shootings and murders than self defense, and by a large margin.

Media coverage is not representative of what's happening, presumably because defensive gun use usually stops at brandishing which isn't exciting enough for the news. Only exciting and uncommon events get covered.

Each year under 700 fatal accidents (The National Center for Health Statistics reported 649 in 2007) occur, about 10,000 murders with guns (The FBI's Uniform Crime Report lists 10,086 for 2007), over 100,000 defenses are reported to authorities (National Crime Victimization Surveys), and 2,000,000 - 2,500,000 defensive uses are suggested by Kleck's random-digit-dialed telephone survey with callback confirmation.

Quote

Even intentional incidents often don't need to be solved by gunfire.

It usually stops with "I have a gun"

Quote

One other comment real quick. Some claim we need them to fight the government. Fat chance. You won't last 5 minutes against the black helicopters if it ever comes to that.
Sorry for the rant. Carry on.

Resistance movements have the advantage of not being easily identified as hostiles. and can operate for decades like the IRA which eventually bombed their way to the negotiating table.