High Court Rules That Homeowners Must Lock Up Their Guns

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Shadow
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:52 pm

Post by Shadow »

Tither,

The Massachusettes case was about a violation of NRA rule number 10.

http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

"Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.

Many factors must be considered when deciding where and how to store guns. A person's particular situation will be a major part of the consideration. Dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available. However, mechanical locking devices, like the mechanical safeties built into guns, can fail and should not be used as a substitute for safe gun handling and the observance of all gun safety rules. "

All the other stuff you're posting we all agree with and we've all heard it a million times. No one disagrees with that that I can see.

The Massachusettes case is a good example of how a person that doesn't use common sense has to compensate people that get hurt.

Nothing in the case violates anyone's Constitutional Rights in any way.

Philip
Tither
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:39 am
Location: Fairview Park

Post by Tither »

Shadow wrote:The Massachusettes case was about a violation of NRA rule number 10.

http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

"Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Shadow my friend. I am not saying we should not do everything we can to keep our guns safe. In fact this is a subject all of us take seriously. We are not in disagreement about that.

What I said is this ruling set a precedence that was never the law before, it was never intended by the lawmakers or by any of our proceeding generations back to our Founders. This is new law, and a judge made it. That is not his or her job.

What I am saying is that, it is dangerous to us all because the Brady’s probably will exploit this in every way they can, even hauling us into court one by one suing the crap out of us in order to make gun ownership as costly as possible. I posted all of the other stuff to show how serious the anti-gunners are and how much of a threat this might be. The Brady’s might and probably will, now work with prosecutors that are sympathetic to their cause like Mike DeWine to drag us into court using the public’s tax money. If they get enough of these rulings gun ownership for personal protection is now a huge liability that could possibly cost people their homes and everything they work for, which is, my good friend, a violation of one’s Constitutional Rights.
Don't blame me, I voted for McCain
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry
יזכר לא עד פעם
Shadow
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:52 pm

Post by Shadow »

Looks like LEOs may be held to the same standard as the rest of us.

Deputy Predicament

Often LEOs are not held accountable for such errors.

Anyway, a child dead, for no good reason. A cop's life on hold, probably ruined.

NRA rule number 10. "Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons."

Philip



musterion
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:27 pm
Location: Norwich Township, Franklin County

The Mindset in Massachusetts

Post by musterion »

I lived in Massachusetts for 6 years whilst getting my Ph. D. at UMass/Amherst. In Massachusetts it is illegal to start you car to warm it up in the winter and go back inside your abode whilst it is running. This is because someone might steal it. You see the blame lies with you and not the thief. He can't help it. If he sees an unattended car running he has no choice. That is the mindset in that state.
Post Reply