Bill requiring securing of guns

**ShooterInPA1** · August 1st, 2018, 07:26 PM

So are the democrats going to offer a $2000 tax credit for gun safes? If this is an issue, then it is an issue with the poor more than other groups.

Yet we never hear about tax credits for gun safes.....because democrats do not care about saving lives.

**ShooterInPA1** · August 1st, 2018, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by oldengineer

The original memo about this isn't very draconian but it's just the beginning. I'm pretty sure that all of us responsible poofers are more than in compliance with this already.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI...6187_17699.pdf

Liberals are f****ing hypocrites.

They pontificate about gun owners needing to own gun insurance if they have a gun.....yet these same people recently shut down the NRA's insurance program.

**ShooterInPA1** · August 1st, 2018, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by Bang

Riding on the crest of the shootings perpetrated by the 6 percent of crazies who will always be with us no matter what laws are enacted, a democrat here in PA introduces a bill requiring that all guns be secured.

This is a subject that, as time goes by, the "more is better" rule eventually kicks in, and those keeping us and the children safer will climb from gun locks to requiring lockable storage aka safes.

I'm old. And old in my ways. I always thought, and still do, that by locking all of our windows and locking our doors, things inside are secured. Blaming me if someone breaks in and removes things is blaming the victim.

Fuck that!

In times of universal deceit, Lie, Defy, Do Not Comply.

**Tacgunner** · August 2nd, 2018, 11:53 PM

When dealing with governmental fools, you must have them define every word they have in the bill. What exactly do they mean by: storage, lock, safe, locking storage? The devil is in the details. Next thing you know, if you have more firearms than will fit into what they "define" as a "safe", they might limit how many firearms you can have. If they define "storage" as what we call a "safe", and they say it can only be a specific size, then what?

You really have to nail down these folks on the exact meaning of every word, and the specifics of everything. Of course, once they get a law on "locking storage containers", they will work with insurance companies to pass a bill requiring "firearms storage insurance". After that, laws limiting how much ammunition (and reloading items) you can "safely" store, and special fire codes and signs you must abide by. And yes, special storage containers for ammo and reloading materials.

Go ahead, give them just one inch, and we will be fighting bills later that cover these things.

**GunLawyer001** · August 3rd, 2018, 03:29 AM

The goal of all gun control is NOT to reduce deaths, it's to disarm the people. They don't even pretend to look at "unjustified deaths" when comparing crimes between mostly-white nations (they warp statistics by excluding all of Africa, most of Asia, and everything below our border with Mexico, apparently because the gun control advocates believe that non-whites "just can't help themselves" so we can't compare apples to oranges when it comes to murders). No, they only compare "gun deaths" between the USA and the UK, never "all murders" between the USA and Mexico, which bans all military caliber weapons.

A few things get in the way of unilateral disarmament of the people, including the 2nd Amendment, common sense, the inability of the government to enforce disarmament without having all guns registered, and the belief of people that having a gun makes them safer.

They packed the courts for decades and were on their way to nullifying the 2nd Amendment, but Alan Gura stopped them cold, in a 5-4 squeaker.

Common sense doesn't matter to the herd of lemmings that believe whatever the MSM tells them, and the MSM has been telling them all sorts of lies.

Gun registration is the sine qua non of any gun ban, so they tried to enact it openly, and when that failed they started sneaking it in under various Trojan Horses, like "1 gun a month" or "mandatory background checks", both of which contain universal gun registration.

People believe that guns make them safer, and with good reason. Millions of times per year, people use defensive displays of live firearms to scare away bad guys, and sometimes they shoot them in self-defense. The media have found that simply ignoring these incidents is helpful, but the word gets around anyway. So they need to stop the successes. They do this by opposing concealed carry laws, and by making it more difficult to defend yourself in your own home, with the extremes being Washington DC style laws against having your gun even assembled, or these laws requiring "safe storage" which impedes access at precisely the time when you need immediate access.

What would they say to air bags which only deploy 3 minutes after a crash, if you punch in the PIN code? Just as stupid.

Forget about whether carrying +1 is a good idea, they want your gun completely unloaded and locked up, so that instead of grabbing a gun and shooting the maniac clutching the butcher knife who you just saw running toward your daughter's bedroom at 4 AM, you've got a chore to do, to find your key and unlock the gun safe and find some ammo . . . by then, your daughter's dead and you probably are as well. So they eliminate one more awkward self-defense story that the citizens would use to justify having a gun handy.

**alpacaheat** · August 3rd, 2018, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by ShooterInPA1

So are the democrats going to offer a $2000 tax credit for gun safes? If this is an issue, then it is an issue with the poor more than other groups.

Yet we never hear about tax credits for gun safes.....because democrats do not care about saving lives.

Sure, I'll take a free gun safe, but I'm still keeping them where I can reach them if needed.

**Wilderness 1864** · August 3rd, 2018, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by oldengineer

The original memo about this isn't very draconian but it's just the beginning. I'm pretty sure that all of us responsible poofers are more than in compliance with this already.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI...6187_17699.pdf

I read this bill as not allowing me to keep an unlocked handgun the closet or another room or even a nightstand drawer when I sleep at night because under the terms of the statute it is not as accessible as if I were carrying it.

This is an attempt to burden law abiding citizens with unworkable laws to curtail rights to self defense in the home or the automobile. How is it going to be enforced? That will be the subject of another bill, the one that gives police the right, like in Australia, without cause or warrant, to search a home to ascertain compliance. Which home to search? The home listed in the registry that will next be proposed.

Once again, time to write my legislators.

**archie19** · August 3rd, 2018, 12:44 PM

didn't DC have a similiar law? that was struck down because having a firearm for self defense that must be locked up made it useless for self defense???

**theshadow** · August 6th, 2018, 09:53 AM

Hmmm, I got an idea, think we can get a pro-gun legislator to highlight the stupidity of this and introduce a companion amendment? "In as much as poverty and lack of parental supervision is a leading cause in violence, also acknowledging people receiving public assistance are unable to provide for their current family, it is here-by ordered to receive public assistance all females will be required to have their tubes tied and all males receive a vasectomy. These procedures will be done by Planned Parenthood as a public service with no cost to the individual, with costs being made up by not having the additional burden of paying more money for additional offspring. The surgical procedure is reversible and may be done so at any time with the cost carried by the individual, if the procedure is reversed while still on public assistance, said compensation will be terminated effective the date of the reversal surgery." Talk about your poison pill (but not a bad idea really).