This is covered in strict tort liability. The same tort laws apply to this as to storing explosives or keeping a tiger in a cage on your property. We need no criminal laws in this regard. Tort law covers it.
This is silly. I have a right to eat, but that doesn't mean that I have a right to eat your food, or drive a jeep onto your orcherd and eat your peaches. My rights extend to the tip of your nose, and no farther, as the saying goes. So long as I am not causing harm, or violating someone's private property rights, or other rights, I may exercise all of my rights, including to keep and bear arms.
Fortunately, words already have meaning, so you don't need to depend on me to decide what they mean. I was arguing as to the meaning of a word. You are free to argue that what the Founders meant by "arms" was the appendages attached to your shoulders. Let the reader decide which argument makes the most sense. Words have meaning. Neither you or I are free to alter that meaning. We may both, however, make arguments as to the objectively correct meaning.
Seems to me that your example of checking guns at the town entrance is a proof that gun restrictions were much looser at that time. How do you think a town marshal today would respond if I showed up with a gun on my hip requesting to check it with his office? Keep in mind, also, that prior to marshal's requiring guns to be checked, they were not required to be checked. Do you have crime stats to prove that there were more murders prior to this change in town ordinance?
Are you seriously suggesting the contrary? Not only is it rigorously logical to equate it, it is proven by scientific observation. Florida's population has not decreased since the passage of Shall Issue CCW, yet violent crime against Floridians has decreased significantly. Every such example proves my assertion.
That is not a good analogy to what I argued. A typewriter or computer are merely more efficient machines for expressing one's self with words to a wider audience. A machine gun, likewise, is merely a more efficient machine for directing harm against others. An RPG is merely a more efficient method for destroying your enemy's stuff (and/or your enemy) than tossing a bomb. Being more efficient and effective does not change the classification. The closest approximation to a nuke that existed at the Founders' time, however, would be to disperse poison into the public drinking water or knowingly distributing disease contaminated blankets. I don't think the Founders considered either of these to be "arms," therefore I don't think they would consider a nuke, or nerve gas, or disease to be "arms" either. These are substances that can destroy life and real estate, but that doesn't make them "arms," regardless of the fact that they are currently used in warfare. They are, more essentially, dangerous substances, and are thus, IMHO, not barred from regulation by the Second Amendment.
Gene, I lived there just prior to the passage of Shall Issue, and for four years after Shall Issue. The change was sudden, and the only possible cause was Shall Issue. An example: Carjackers, shortly after passage of Shall Issue, who were captured by police were questioned as to why they recently began targeting only rental cars (prior to Shall Issue, they didn't particularly target rental cars). Overwhelmingly, their response was that they assumed that rental cars were occupied by vacationers, who where unlikely to have applied for or received a Florida CW license.
As you have observed, there are two types of persons who may be disarmed, 1) a person under legitimate custody, i.e., arrest or imprisonment, and 2) a slave. Chattel slavery has been outlawed, so that leaves people under legitimate custody, i.e., arrestees or prisoners. In these cases, guns are not being regulated; people are. Those under arrest are made, temporarily, into slaves. That's what disarming someone does, i.e., makes them into a slave for that period of time. In the case of arrest, however, they must eventually prove your guilt, and if convicted, you may eventually serve out your time, at which point you cease being a slave. This issue, however, has nothing to do with compromising on the absolute right to keep and bear arms. In an absolute sense, even slaves have that right, as it attaches to being an adult human being. The question is, does the law defend that right in that case, and the answer is no. The law has never defended it in that case, even if it is acknowledged as existing. This is because there are competing rights in conflict in this situation.
The word absolute refers to both the right and to the government's ability to regulate arms. In both cases, the government is legally powerless. It is legally powerless to remove the right from anyone (as government is not the source of the right), and it is powerless to legally regulate the types of arms we may own because this would be an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, and such an infringement is illegal, according to the Second Amendment. This is the absolutist position. It does not make my position less absolute in those regards if I acknowledge that those rightfully suspected of crimes may be disarmed while in legitimate custody. The right remains in that case, but there is a conflicting right which temporarily subordinates it. That is, the right of society to arrest suspected criminals without placing those making the arrest in reasonable fear for their lives and limbs. Everyone has a right not to be placed in "reasonable fear" for their lives and limbs.
I never said government can "remove" a right. That's absurd. Government doesn't give us our rights, so how can they remove them. The best government can do is makes laws which determine what is to be done when two equal rights are in conflict. If government subordinates a right due to its being in conflict with a non-right, as in your examples above, government is acting wrongly. We do not have a right walk around without fear, only to walk around without "reasonable fear." If someone draws his gun and starts aiming it at people randomly, my fear is reasonable, and his right to keep and bear arms must be subordinated to my right not to be put in reasonable fear for my life. If, however, someone carries a firearm in a non-offensive way, my fear of him is unreasonable so, in this case, I do not have a right superior to his. His right wins.
If he is storing it in such a way as to put a reasonable person in fear for his life and limbs, then I suppose a tort action could be argued based on Neglegent Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress or perhaps the crime of Reckless Endangerment. "A person is guilty of RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, that person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death."
That would depend on apparent intent. In Switzerland, for example, the population (men, women and children) parades yearly past government buildings with assault rifles slung over their shoulders as a sign of patriotism, and in celebration of their ancient and cherished right to keep and bear arms. It's a big festival, and no one thinks of it as threatening to government officials. Generally, it is only governments that wish to impose tyranny on the people which have anything to fear from the people's weapons.
You apparently didn't understand the post you are responding to. The post you are referring to argues that there is no need for a firearm specific law to deal with the situation you describe (dangerous storage), because there are already laws on the books that deal with reckless endangerment. If, by the standard of a reasonable person, what you are doing creates an extreme hazard to the safety of others, this is a crime. For example, if you liked loading your rifles up and placing them so they face your neighbor's children while they are playing in their back yard, you can be prosecuted under reckless endangerment statutes. There is no need for a firearm specific law, and it would be unconstitutional to have a firearm specific law, regulating how you must store firearms, because that would be an infringement on the right to keep them. That doesn't mean, however, that gun owners are free to violate general reckless endangerment statutes.
