But any prohibited person knowingly in possession of a firearm should face serious prison time. Of course, this guy is looking at Felon In Possession (or the local equivalent) charges; some sort of homicide charge (based on his criminal possession of a firearm and the resulting death) and whatever else the DA can think of.

forever.

unless they manage to crack the gun safe or steal the whole thing and you are every bit as much responsible for any subsequent death as the jackwagon who pulls the trigger, IMHO

I have a biometric safe; anyone but an expert burglar is NOT getting my firearms, I can get to a panoply of lethal protection in seconds.

(Not that I am paranoid, I just like high tech stuff in addition to loud things and things that goo 'boom'; I don't expect to ever use a firearm against another human being and think anyone who would actually even *fantasize* about doing so should never even be allowed to SEE one- gun or another human- from their rubber room.)

Not that I wouldn't ventilate someone threatening the life of my wife or I, I'd just consider the odds of my actually needing to do that about the same as winning the lotto after getting hit by lightning and would really rather just see them run off with any of my crap than kill another human (the conundrum being that anyone who would invade your house while you were home could be presumed to be dangerous to your person, so it's not that my basses are worth the life of even a POS, but my life is).

No good answers, no happy ending

In my perfect world I should be able to leave my pistol on the seat of my vehicle with the windows down and expect it to be there when I return. Clearly we do not live in that world. I cannot see requiring someone to spend 1K-2k on a safe to secure a couple of .22 rifles worth about $400. Regarding a burglary, once the house is broken into I cannot see holding the owner responsible for anything stolen. As you noted, a safe can be drilled or cut into or stolen outright. Regarding a negligent discharge (child/youth gets ahold of an unsecured weapon) I have no real problem with a generally strict liability standard.

In the case in the article it would be nearly impossible to trace the weapon back to the original owner, barring a miracle.

My retirement depends on some lottery winnings.


Anyone who fantasizes about killing clearly has some non-trivial issues.

Weapons are lost and stolen all the time. Any laws aimed at changing that reality will be most successful among the most diligent and honest folks among us. The sloppy, careless and criminal folks will continue. The first lesson here is that the "control" part of gun-control has it greatest effect (and I'm agreeing that sometimes that effect is a positive one) among those currently posing the least threat to anyone's safety. The second lesson is that control (and I'm addressing the control of those sloppy, careless and criminal folks) is a myth.


Diligence and respect will not come through the force of law. Both are needed.

My personal belief is that violent felons should be removed from the population for life. I'm against the death penalty.

However I do feel that violent ex felons such in the the article should not be allowed to purchase or own firearms and the person who sold him the weapon should be prosecuted if he/she was a straw purchaser or a person illegally selling firearms.

Everything else is truly irrelevant.

What *is* needed is for draconian penalties for ANYONE who has anything to do with a stupid jerk like this guy getting the gun. Straw purchasers should be made a horrific example of, as well as any asshole who leaves their firearm where it can be stolen.

I'm willing to undergo pretty much any sort of background check and regular inspection and proficiency testing, but then I'm anal about mastering whatever I set out to do, be it shooting a .50 at 500 meters or chopping onions as good as Thomas Keller...

I think 'catch 22' should apply - the people who DON'T want background checks, registration and yearly proficiency testing are the folks who should not own a gun in the first place.

Like most gun owners, I do support background checks and waiting periods to prevent crimes of passion. While I also never load my firearms at home (only at the range) and store them unloaded and locked up, I cannot support registration or inspections.

Registration lists could be stolen or released by people who dislike gun owners and criminals would get a shopping list, or a state may decide to impose onerous taxes or rules on the owners like limitations on where they can live. Registration will prevent absolutely no crimes, and most guns used in a crime are traced back to the original purchaser by 4473 forms.

You state you want proficiency tests, but make no distinction that others may not be in their prime. While I was a skilled target competition shooter, an injury has sidelined me as wait to see if I will need surgery to correct the condition. Do you seriously propose stealing my firearms because I am temporarily disabled? Or even if it was permanent?

Inspection is a hideously authoritarian scheme in that it violates the 4th amendment by allowing authorities to enter your home without a warrant. The safe storage laws are unenforceable and can only be used after an event has happened.

Well thought out. Thank you