Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by berettaprofessor, Oct 3, 2019.
Some people just deserve to be ignored.
That is what would have to be specified (as in the law in question in this thread) in the law.
On lots of cars these days you yank the loops beside the seat backs and they fold down, so you can run longer objects in the car. More than a few also have the battery in the trunk, with electric latches only to open them. So in the event of a dead battery you fold down the seat backs and grab the glow in the dark trunk release to pop the trunk and replace the dead battery.
Then where does this "logic' end? Should a man who wears a valuable watch in public and is beaten and robbed of that watch share the blame for the crime because he presented opportunity to the robber?
This attitude sickens , really sickens me.
I have bought enough safes to know about the California DOJ "requirements." And yeah I agree. Some of the safes on the list have proven pretty easy to beat.
I pity the poor man who was robbed once by a hoodlum, then robbed again by elected hoodlums.
I think laws that enable things like this, are at least in part, designed to make us afraid to own guns at all!
Not just to confiscate, but to have us so nervous about possible litigation and liability, that we disarm ourselves voluntarily.
lawyers are destroying America slowly but surely from within. Changing our culture through the law. Controlling us through fear.
No, the issue is not one of encouraging some criminal activity, it is rather about the responsibility of all of us who own firearms to keep them secured.
Some of you are suggesting that the victim of the crime be punished. I think this is wrongheaded. The criminal has no right to go into your personal property and steal your property. I do agree that the victim made a big mistake leaving the gun in an unlocked car.
What I do when I am going to a place like the VA hospital in Minneapolis where I don`t even have the option of leaving the gun in my locked vehicle is leave it at home. I will not tread on federal property with weapons of any kind. If caught I most likely lose my guns and gun rights.
Think before you act!
Yes. But I think we knew that, didn't we?
Well, that's interesting. Does Capt. Conklin mean that small safes are insufficient to satisfy the law? That one could be charged for not using a large enough safe? Or simply that they don't solve the problem of theft? I hope it's the last one, because I don't see any authority for him to determine what kind of safe a gun owner uses.
This is where I found what I believe to be the text of the law: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2019/TOB/h/pdf/2019HB-07223-R00-HB.PDF
I did a little digging in Westlaw and found the law, but the full publication isn't quite caught up yet. Meaning the law in available in Westlaw, but the title had to be supplied by the publisher, etc. So, with those caveats, let's unpack this:
So that's the text. Let's take a peek at a few specific provisions, just for fun, shall we?
So if the car is owned and operated by a 19-yo and a thief steals a gun, it was never unattended and he can't be charged? (Not that I have any idea at the moment if a 19-yo may even own a gun in CT.)
I just did a bunch of car shopping. Pretty much every sedan I looked at had fold-down seats. I've even seen one that had an opening behind the back seat arm rest so that back seat passengers could reach through.
That's a whole lot of .gov exceptions! What if my department, agency, organization, etc., doesn't have a safe storage policy?
So, I can't get my prosecution suspended unless I agree to waive other constitutional rights?!? How about I hang onto my constitutional rights, like the one to challenge this law on constitutional grounds?
I'm pretty sure this Division is for probation, but I wonder exactly what its powers are. If it could jail me for more than a year, I'd be extremely cautious about my dealings with them.
Class A misdemeanor = Not to exceed 1 year jail.
Class D felony = not more than 5 years prison. Of course, this would include loss of gun rights.
Yes but then you extended your logic to include making a victim of any theft responsible for what a criminal does with what they stole. That goes way beyond being responsible for safeguarding your dangerous weapons. It is bad enough that I should even have to worry about someone taking my possessions. But now you're saying I should also have to worry about what they do with them. Absolute nonsense.
Agreed, Waveski. It's like the "logic" of a woman dressing sexy is asking to be raped, therefore whatever happend was her fault.
Sorry, using the vomitorium at the moment, you'll have to get your own.
Yes, unless she keeps her "girl parts" properly secured with an approved, locked chastity belt.
This is off topic, but I feel the need to respond to it anyway...
I believe you do that at your own peril. (the ignore feature)
I think it's much more beneficial to hear the inanity that comes out of some mouths, and disagree! Than it is to block them out altogether, and know not at all what they say.
How else better to "understand" the buffoonery of the incorrect? The wisdom found in an echo chamber may be vast, but it is indeed circular.
It is wise to have an open mind, but with the filters of Logic and Reason applied.
There will be no refunds of my $.02
duh. We don't need new laws punishing the bystanders of crime to know this.
anybody who appeals to government to "do more" and broaden the scope of what a criminal action is, has truly misunderstood what our newfangled style of government is supposed to be about.
Heck Cali can't even get the transient population to use the public rest rooms. I can't possibly condone those onerous firearms laws the oppressive states push on the population. The loud screamer minorities are causing fear amongst the rational of us in the general population now and it has to stop or we are going to end up without a country soon.
I agree... to a point but also disagree.
I choose to not ignore people who have a contrary view but could affect my life. e.g. public officials, bosses, spouses, friends, etc. I believe that you should be closer to your enemy than your friend, at times. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, as the saying goes. That is wise.
Now, on an open forum where every has (and is entitled) to their own opinion and they continue to state it as a fact instead of an opinion and they come across as the only one in the room with enough intelligence to grasp the premise of his opinion, well, I have better things to do with my free time than listen to drivel from someone who is obviously so full of himself that only his opinion matters, no matter how many refute it. These people are easy to ignore. I now have 1 person on ignore from this forum. From my point of view, I am better off not listening to his drivel no matter how much he believes he is right.
Yeah, I'll agree that there are people who have zero to add, on any occasion, and so there's no net loss.
I can just skim over the drivel pretty easily. Or, it's good for comic relief.
There's a guy on here with whom I disagree politically, and I could ignore him.
But, he's pretty well rounded, and his scope of knowledge outside of politics is deep.
So, I'd be doing myself a disservice to wholly ignore him.
it's not too tough to sort the wheat from the chaff.
That's just my take on it.
I think we've gone far enough here.
Separate names with a comma.