Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

HR 1883 - Secure Gun Storage

Discussion in 'Activism' started by Outlaw Man, May 9, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. r1derbike

    r1derbike Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    848
    Location:
    Northwest Arkansas
    On the fence, on this one. Have a safe just installed that is bolted to the concrete slab and studs in the wall.

    I'm in the middle of a disability/SS claim, and it is getting rough, not able to work. I don't want to tap into my IRA investments, because of the horrible tax (at least a 10% break for emergencies), and I'm seriously considering it.

    BTW, there is a paper trail to 2 weapons I own (wife owns the other) for SD, and fully suspect illegal shenanigans from the government, when they lose their minds.

    Have two other safes for ammo and a safe only small enough for a sidearm and some ammo. That one is hidden in the car and cable locked to a bolted seat bracket, for those odd instances I cannot carry in a business.

    Hope I'm dead, before I see that a registration of safes is being used by an alphabet soup agency to conduct illegal searches/confiscation. Second thought, I might be dead because of it.

    This would be a slap in the face to all the careful gun owners.

    What's that old saying? "No good deed shall to unpunished".
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2013
  2. SKILCZ

    SKILCZ Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    365
    I am totally opposed to this.

    1) It is a redistribution of tax dollars. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for my safe or that of anyone else. Remember, the government doesn't have its own money. It is taking ours and bribing us with it. The quote controversially attributed to de Tocqueville got it right: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

    2) It is incrementalism. It will start with "approved" safes voluntarily, then it will eventually be made mandatory and more strict.

    3) The ban on registration sounds good, but in practice is irrelevant. The FOPA of 1986 also bans registration, but the ATF and government already collect data that would violate that ban.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2013
  3. swalton1943

    swalton1943 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Location:
    southwest of fort worth
    next question on the yellow sheet; do you have an approved safe?
     
  4. Green Lantern

    Green Lantern Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,665
    My initial reaction....for 'bout 5 seconds...was "WOO HOO!"

    Then I remembered that all "Government" (read: TAXPAYER) money comes with strings attached...!

    Totally...as I recall it, we have California to thank for no longer being able to purchase the safe and sturdy Scepter fuel cans, for instance. We really need a firewall to keep California regulatory insanity IN California.... :cuss:
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2013
  5. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    3,364
    I often am coming up with bizarre and unlikely scenarios. All those thought experiments in college when going over case law. Intricate legal lingo to provide all encompassing and seemingly loophole free legislation. I do agree with certain aspects of the CA DOJ safe storage standard, namely the construction requirements to keep unwanted fingers and the casual burglar away from firearms. My issue with safe storage is the mandatory ownership requirement for households with firearms.
     
  6. Ed Ames

    Ed Ames Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,899
    Location:
    Tejas Norte
    HW...ever listen to Princeton Review's LSAT logic podcast? I strongly recommend it to you. ;)

    My issue with your issue is, in abstract, the same as my issue with the crowd that cries "registry" about everything. That is probably too abstract to ensure you'll get my drift but I'll leave the rest unsaid.

    To be concrete about your post:

    1) Your questions were not appropriate to the proposed legislation. You spoke in terms of mandatory storage, while HR 1883 is an income tax credit. Such credits follow a well established pattern which goes like this: Taxpayer spends $N on X in year Z, she gets $N (up to Y) credit on year Z tax bill. They won't define X too tightly because the drafters of these proposals (the industry that sells X) want to make sure their current products qualify for the credit. Otherwise the point of the regulation (transferring money into the accounts of the people who sell X) will be unfulfilled.

    2) Your questions imply that safe ownership requirements, including "inspectors", are reasonable provided that the regulations are well drafted. That is an essentially anti-liberty/authoritarian position and I disagree with it on principle. You aren't waiting for a slippery slope, you are first in line to charge up the hill.

    3) Your focus on de jure safe ownership requirements ignores the present and growing de facto safe ownership requirements. In plain language: If you have any assets, you had better lock up your guns when not under your control. Your method of locking had better look reasonable to a civil jury. Otherwise those assets are going to go bye-bye the first time something goes wrong.


    I enjoy a creative and well thought out hypothetical more than most. ...
     
  7. Bob2222

    Bob2222 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    PRNJ
    It's a tax deduction, not a tax credit. If the gun grabbers actually wanted to do something that would "protect the children", a tax credit for a gun safe would be infinitely more effective than Feinstein's proposed AWB 2.0.

    I'm skeptical that all of this legislative furor has anything at all to do with protecting children, but at least putting this to a vote would expose the hypocrisy of the gun grabbers.
     
  8. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    3,364
    As do I. However we got a tad off topic talking about the CA DOJ safe storage requirements when this thread is talking about tax deduction for purchasing a safe. I will look into that LSAT podcast though. Could always use more things to listen to when I travel.

    What I agree with in the CA DOJ requirements for RSC are the construction guidelines. The beauty of the construction guidelines they outline is RSC/safe building companies want to have as wide a market as possible for their product. So if they follow or exceed the CA DOJ requirements, that opens up business in California. I never have and never will agree with small clauses that allow "inspectors" into a private residence, without a legal warrant signed by a judge with probable cause, to inspect firearms to meet "safe storage" requirements imposed by a state. Nor do I agree with the mandatory ownership of a safe/RSC for firearms. I have said in other threads it is up to the firearm owner.

    My grandfather has 3 rifles that he keeps in a closet. Children are long gone from his house so he keeps them locked behind a simple key lock on a wood sliding door. He also lives on a fixed income so requiring him to purchase a safe would put a financial burden on him where he feels it does not need to be. If he ever feels he wants a safe or RSC, I will be the first one to help him pick one out according to budget, but I am not going to say he needs one and neither should the State or government. Now if you have multiple children (yours or others) in your house on a daily basis it would be a good idea to invest in a safe or RSC for firearms. But I still don't think the State or government should mandate ownership in that case either.
     
  9. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    This is just another fine example of government pork programs that are driving the economy into the dirt in the name of "benefit to society".

    Just the thought of it makes me throw up a little.
     
  10. Ed Ames

    Ed Ames Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,899
    Location:
    Tejas Norte
    Well requirements to own are quite outside the scope of this proposal, but... to continue the exposition of CA follies....

    CA does not require anyone own a safe. They require the recipient of a firearm from a dealer to receive (purchase if needed) a lock. That's where all the throw away trigger locks, cable locks, and cases with ickle padlocks that come along with many new guns came from.

    They further said that if you have proof of ownership of an approved RSC (e.g. a receipt for same) the dealer need not provide (cannot force you to buy) a lock for the individual gun.

    Additionally, CA said that if guns are used negligently/criminally by minors, and they were not locked in some approved fashion, the owner of the gun can face criminal charges.


    So nobody would force your grandfather to buy a safe or inspect anything without a warrant, but in CA his choice not to use those toy trigger locks that don't actually stop a gun from firing may expose him to criminal penalies on top pf the civil liabilities he risks anywhere in the USA.
     
  11. HKGuns

    HKGuns Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,396
    Location:
    Bora Bora
    Stop playing silly tax incentive games with dollars you don't have legislature. When will they ever learn. I'm 100% opposed to this PORK as well, even though I could probably take advantage of it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page