NRA Asks: What kind of idiot would keep his gun in a safe where his children can't even get to it?

[Robb]

Here is a weird thing: The NRA must actually believe it is bad for people with kids to lock their guns up in a safe, since there is no actual moneygrifting reason for them to oppose laws that tell people with kids to lock their guns up in a safe. Like, it is not like hollow point bullets or whatever, where there is a hollow point bullet manufacturer spreading around a little grease. Maybe the gun safe manufacturers forgot to pay up?

Whatever the reason, the NRA has now come out against bills requiring parents to lock their guns up in a safe, and it is all like, PFFFT DUMMY, how is your four-year-old gonna save your family from Intruderz if they cannot even get to your Glock, HENGHHH?

Here is a bill in Michigan that is CLEARLY very stupid, as it requires parents to lock up their guns.

Senate Bill 268, introduced by State Senator Martha Scott (D-2), would undermine a citizen’s right to self-defense by imposing onerous storage requirements on Michigan gun owners, rendering firearms useless in self-defense situations.
SB 268 would require households with children to store their guns in locked boxes with trigger locks installed. A violation would be punishable as a misdemeanor offense if a juvenile gains access to the firearm.
The bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee but has not been scheduled for a hearing.
Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and let them know this bill is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous.

Read More: http://wonkette.com/518403/nra-asks-what-kind-of-idiot-would-keep-his-gun-in-a-safe-where-his-children-cant-even-get-to-it

[Thinkingabout]

1. The idiots are the ones who do not lock their weapons to keep their children safe. They want to

"protect their families from harm" so the leave their weapons where small ones has access and bad things happens. Anyone who does this should be immediately reported to CPS and the children removed from a dangerous home. Dumb Idiots leave weapons for kids to kill themselves or others.

[MiniMe]

2. I thought this was going to be a satire piece

The Onion, or Borowitz.

[malaise]

3. Same here

[Robb]

7. Google even labels it "satire"

...proving the word has no meaning anymore.

[malaise]

21. Well your words have meaning

Fugg google

[hack89]

4. The trigger lock requirement is clearly unconstitutional

as Heller specifically addresses trigger lock requirements.

I wonder if Michigan is setting up to challenge Heller or if it just political grandstanding.

BTW I have no problem with storage requirements - I go as far as to lock up my guns and ammo in separate safes. Perhaps the law could be reworded to require biometric safes such that kids can't access the guns yet they are accessible to adults.

[ThoughtCriminal]

6. Or maybe we could get Heller reversed

and return to sanity.

[hack89]

13. If you want to wait several decades, why not?

nothing like long term thinking.

[ThoughtCriminal]

24. 5-4

Majority was led by the usual gang of right-wing nit-wits. I'm hoping that we get to replace one of them long before several decades.

[hack89]

25. Anti-choicers said the same about Roe v Wade

and yet look where we are even with a gang right-wing nit-wits.

Precedence being what it is, the SC will not be changing their minds anytime soon.

[Jenoch]

52. If Heller made mandatory

trigger locks unconstitutional, then it must not have been challenged in Minnesota. There has been a state law requiring guns be dismantled or locked away from ammunition for quite some time in Minnesota.

Edit: this law only applies to guns in homes where minors are living.

[hack89]

53. Heller says you cannot render a gun inoperable

to the point that it cannot be used for self defense. What that means precisely is anyone's guess.

Heller does not make every such law unconstitutional - you are right that they have to be challenged. Heller also specifically says that not all safe storage laws are unconstitutional.

[Eleanors38]

5. A law would indeed be onerous if it restricted self-defense

to such a degree that having a weapon would be of little value to a citizen. For exp., pre-Heller D.C. did allow people to have guns, but they had to be rendered inoperable (taken down) with the components stored in separate rooms. Clearly, this clinical -- even lurid -- manner of denying self-defense would not stand.

It didn't.

As with most other gun-owners, my weapons are stored unloaded in a locked safe. But when responsible adult(s) are at home, a loaded gun (or one quickly chambered) is necessary for home defense with a firearm. Any measure must allow for quick unfettered access to a SD firearm, and not serve as a ruse to deny the right of self-defense using a firearm, either by jumping through "security" hoops or by imposing undue financial burden. And the law must have the clarity to be enforceable.

[BainsBane]

9. It's the right to bear arms

Not the right for your children to kill.

[hack89]

16. Yes - but the law has to obey Supreme Court rulings

Supreme Court precedent is not optional.

Why not change the proposed law to accommodate Heller while still protecting kids?

[BainsBane]

19. Where does Heller say gun nuts need to kill their kids?

Instead of using a safe?

[hack89]

22. Why not actually read Heller?

it will immediately jump out at you why this proposed law is unconstitutional.

Once you understand Heller it will be clear what is needed to make this law constitutional AND still protect kids.

[Sirveri]

32. It's technically only a crime if the kid finds and uses the gun.

So it wouldn't be a crime to have it loaded and accessible while you have control of the firearm.

[hack89]

37. Heller says you cannot mandate trigger locks

or impose storage requirements that hinder quick access to the gun for self defense. Any storage law has to conform to Heller regardless of what you think of the actual decision.

[Sirveri]

43. I don't know, I think they might have a shot at carving out a small exception here.

since it's not technically a crime to leave the firearm unlocked, unless it is accessed by minors, so it puts the onus onto watching ones kids more than a gun lock and can b e bypassed by vigilant parenting. Or at least that's how it will likely be argued.

[petronius]

46. I don't know about other states, but the MI bill cited in the OP doesn't mandate box/safe

and trigger lock, or even one of them as far as I can tell. Seems to be a lot of wiggle room in (1)b and (2). And it seems that the bill (from 2009) never got out of the committee...

Sec. 223a.

(1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm on premises under his or her control, and who knows or reasonably should know that the firearm is accessible to a minor without the lawful permission of the minor's parent or the person having charge of the minor, shall do 1 or more of the following:
(a) Keep the firearm in a securely locked box or container.
(b) Keep the firearm in a location that a reasonable person would believe is secure.
(c) Securely lock the firearm with a trigger lock.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a firearm that is carried on the body of the person or that is located within the premises so that the person can retrieve and use it as easily and quickly as if he or she carried it on his or her body.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2009-SIB-0268.htm

[hack89]

47. I suspect that you are right about the wiggle room

after all, in the Heller decision the Court declared that its analysis should not be read to suggest “the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.”

The DC law in essence required the gun to be stored in an inoperable condition and useless for self defense. A well written law that recognizes and accounts for Heller would most likely pass muster.

[Eleanors38]

17. I don't know where you came up with that "right," but childhood deaths-by-guns are declining...

and have been doing so for several years now; in fact they are declining faster than (and are below) the rates of several other causes of childhood deaths. People who own guns are taking action on safety measures, or we wouldn't have these declines, given the increase in the number of firearms in circulation.

It has been suggested that electronic recognition lock boxes might be a good measure. I am open to this. But there should in NO WAY be laws which merely throw spike-strips in front of citizens who are exercising their right of self-defense. That's someone else's agenda.

[BainsBane]

20. So how many children need to die before it matters?

38,000 dead Americans a year obviously aren't enough to warrant concern. There is nothing onerous about keeping weapons locked up. The greatest thread we face in this country is from the NRA and gun nuts. They are the enemy. They have killed more people that all the wars in the nation combined.

[treestar]

29. Why the hell would anyone with kids in a house

Not want the damned things locked up? The chances the kids will kill themselves are greater than the chance of an intruder. When it comes to taking chances, I'd take the chances on the intruder.

[BainsBane]

8. Hey NRA, more guns safes mean more profits

Your clients can occasionally make money off something other than homicide.

[justice1]

45. The Koch Brothers are spreading the wealth

Think of the profits for all the ALEC members when someone is shot. The medical field, bondsman, and prison systems to name a few. Reducing shootings doesn't make for a very good business plan.

[Initech]

10. When did "second amendment rights" trump common sense?

Bill Maher is right - your second amendment rights are not being attacked. It's all the other ones.

[BainsBane]

11. To oppose something like that

they have to want to see children die. There is no other explanation. It shows the NRA and their defenders truly do want to see people die, especially children. How is that anything other than unadulterated evil?

[Robb]

12. Heller! Freedom! My rights!

Etc. See above.

[hack89]

14. Regardless of what you think of Heller, it is the law of the land

any law that defies a Supreme Court ruling is going to be problematic. Any "solution" that ignores this basic fact may be emotionally satisfying but ultimately is nothing more than pissing in the wind.

Undo Heller first and then you can lock up all the guns. It is as simple as that. Or change the proposed law to accommodate Heller while still protecting kids. But that's not what you want, is it? You just want an issue to beat gun owners with - cooperation and accommodation are not in your vocabulary.

[Eleanors38]

18. I think that is the priority of some controller/banners: Getting pleasure from...

going after gun-owners, and enjoying that "...most delicious of moral treats" (Huxley). Oh, and children's safety, too, and all that.

[BainsBane]

31. It wouldn't have anything to do with saving lives

It's all about you. Everything is about you. No one else on this planet could possibly matter.

[Eleanors38]

34. Oh, fiddle dee-dee. In this debate, we know how the log book...

of personal indulgences balances out. As some notable controllers in these threads have pointed out, it's all about stigmatizing, now.

If the accidental gun-death rate of children is any indication, gun-owners are taking responsible measures, and the law is playing catch-up. If you have suggestions as to how a responsible law can be drawn up which advances firearm security without handicapping a citizen's right of self-defense in his/her own home, present them.

[BainsBane]

42. That you are unable to see the importance

of the experience of others is precisely the problem. Other people think about the 38,000 people killed by guns every year. You think only of yourself. Children die, and you think it's all about you.

Responsible law? You oppose gun safes. That is the most basic of precautions.

[Eleanors38]

49. Clean up your act, and quit the accusations...

The only reason I don't alert you is because these smear & demonization attacks appear coordinated to let stand most anything controllers say about gun-owners.

"You oppose gun safes." Who took this stand? Where? Where is the link?

[frylock]

38. the problem is that you DON'T think.

[Eleanors38]

50. You cannot discuss, only attack. And is it working?

If yes, show us your "progress."

If no, then you have other goals and feelings which are more dear to you than accomplishing safety measures regarding kids.

[LanternWaste]

54. I imagine the same was said, with the same accuracy and validity, of the three-fifths compromise.

"Regardless of what you think of Heller, it is the law of the land..."
I imagine the same was said, with the same accuracy and validity, of the three-fifths compromise. Jefferson himself may have told those who disliked the ruling that they were simply "pissing in the wind..."

"But that's not what you want, is it? You just want an issue to beat gun owners with - cooperation and accommodation are not in your vocabulary..."
I imagine we often attribute convenient motivations to those who may not hold the same opinion as we might, and pretend a clever premise predicated on that fictional attribution.

[hack89]

55. Good or bad, Heller can't be ignored.

my only point.

Your last line exploded my irony meter. There are threads in DU saying any opposition to gun control make one pro-murder. The broad brushed smears of gun owners are common and vile.

The discussion at DU is no longer a rational one - it is very polarizing with insults and stereotypes being flung equally by both sides.

[treestar]

30. Hell I've argued with some of them who actually admitted

Some children dying is a price worth paying!

[librechik]

15. The ones who don't keep guns in a safe are a DIFFERENT kind of idiot.

that is all.

[stevenleser]

23. This is the catch-22. A:Gun in safe=children are safe= Can't access the gun in time to thwart crime

Alternatively, B:Gun not in safe=children and other family members at risk=Gun accessible for self defense

Choice A means your family is safe from misuse of the gun but now the gun is harder to access if you need it against an intruder

Choice B means you can access the gun against an intruder, but you have opened up your family to misuse of the gun which statistically is more likely than one using the gun against an intruder.

Best option? Don't have a gun at all.

[frylock]

39. what about A: person in shower=can't access the gun in time to thwart crime..

or do you carry in the shower?

[stevenleser]

41. I don't own or carry ever. I am anti-gun. I am illustrating the conundrum in the pro-gun position

If you adequately secure a gun from your family and from theft, its not readily accessible if you are attacked. If you dont secure it, its a tempting theft target and a danger to your family.

[diabeticman]

26. PLEASE tell me this is somehow the Onion

[Robb]

27. I know, right?

[ileus]

28. I don't see a problem as long as you can still keep your firearm on your person.

If you're serious about home self defense and intend on using a sidearm it's best suited to be on your side. If it's not on your side it may as well be locked up. What good is a personal protection firearm if it's out or reach when you need it.

[In_The_Wind]

33. NRA is shooting itself in the foot.

[Puzzledtraveller]

35. My dad kept his rifles in a safe and had one 38 revolver he kept a trigger lock on

When I was 6 years old he took me out to a field and fired the 38, it scared the holy hell out of me, I freaked out. I never went near the gun. His lesson was very effective. Still, he had the sense to keep a safety lock on it.

[SunSeeker]

36. The best way to protect your kids is to just not have a gun in the home.

[CTyankee]

44. thank you for displaying that cartoon. It needs to be displayed again and again.

[Common Sense Party]

40. Belt and suspenders.

If the gun is in the safe, why would it also need a trigger lock?

[Thor_MN]

48. The NRA actually recommends storing guns in a child's room...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/04/1964091/nra-guns-kids-room/?mobile=nc

"Gun owners should store a gun in their kids’ room, according to a ‘Home Defense Concepts’ seminar offered at the National Rifle Association’s Annual Meeting, comments that came just days after the fatal shooting of a two-year-old at the hands of her five-year-old brother."

Hard to imagine...

[samsingh]

51. it's complete circular nra logic

the nra and gun lover's don't seem to want to do anything to reduce gun violence. it's just a game of delay to them.