Home inspection assault bill provision

[pepper]

http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...neat17xml.html

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

Seriously? Whats worse, is that the guys that came up with this act as if they were not aware...

"The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said."

Shouldn't be in there? Why, because you were called on it? This is a very important issue, and it's like the Obamacare bill all over. I guess we'll see what these bills contain once they're passed?


It's amazing that as these pols rush to implement gun control measures, they are absolutely the most ignorant people on the issue. The wacky provisions based on arbitrary cosmetic designs are revealing. (see proposed ban on mini Ruger 14 with folding stock Vs the exact same gun with rigid stock for example)

The people with the least knowledge are actually crafting legislation that they seem to have not even read!

It's amazing that you can sponsor a bill that involves cops doing random warrant less searches of the homes of people that have not commited any crimes, and then say you didn't know it was part of it?

"Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.

“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

This, while many libs mock the gun owners that claim, "they're going to take our guns".

The writer correctly points out that this kind of legislative BS is rightly fueling that reasoning.

[Wizard777]

Another problem with the bill is that SCOTUS has already shot down mandatory trigger locks in DC v. Heller. They are likely to do the same with mandatory gun safes.

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

I expect that The Usual Suspects(tm) will completely and conveniently ignore this little tidbit.

[banner1124]

The government has no business telling you that you have to keep you gun in a safe, or have trigger locks, or any of that protective stuff. However, I think at the same time their should be legal consesquences of some kind if your completely unsecured or poorly secured gun is used in commission of a crime, or if a kid accidentally kills themselves with it.

[ivanbalt]

The government has no business telling you that you have to keep you gun in a safe, or have trigger locks, or any of that protective stuff. However, I think at the same time their should be legal consesquences of some kind if your completely unsecured or poorly secured gun is used in commission of a crime, or if a kid accidentally kills themselves with it.

So if someone breaks into my home and steals a gun that isn't locked up and goes and shoots someone or whatever, I'm liable? How about if they steal a knife or bat and commit a crime?

I somewhat agree on being liable for securing firearms in homes with children.

[Jeebus]

Another problem with the bill is that SCOTUS has already shot down mandatory trigger locks in DC v. Heller.

That's not really true. It is still a law in MD that each and every handgun sold must have (mandatory) external safety locking device sold with it.

Maryland Code
PUBLIC SAFETY
TITLE 5 - FIREARMS
Subtitle 1 - Regulated Firearms
Section 5-132 - Handgun safety devices.

(1) A dealer may not sell, offer for sale, rent, or transfer in the State a handgun manufactured on or before December 31, 2002, unless the handgun is sold, offered for sale, rented, or transferred with an external safety lock.

While not specifically a "trigger lock" it must nonetheless render the firearm incapable of firing until/unless it is removed.

There is no MD law that requires the firearm to be locked up when in the home, other than a provision that it be "properly stored" and not be readily accessible to a child (under 15).

[banner1124]

So if someone breaks into my home and steals a gun that isn't locked up and goes and shoots someone or whatever, I'm liable? How about if they steal a knife or bat and commit a crime?

I somewhat agree on being liable for securing firearms in homes with children.

I think guns need to be treated differently than a bat. The knife is an interesting question but off the top of my head I'd say that needs to be treated differently from guns as well. Also, I would think that liability would have to have some caveats that would need to be worked out... not an easy thing to be sure, but that makes more sense to me than laws dictating that you MUST secure your firearms.