|
Alphecca is a member of "the lunatic fringe of the US right" --Guardian (UK) 6/26/06 *******************
Email me at:
gunnut -at- alphecca -dot- com Check it out:
My Latest Blatherings...
Do We Need "Assault Weapons?" DC Congressional Seat Tied To Gun Rights Go Stats Installed Grass Roots & Gun Rights Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes. . . Gun Control Bills Advancing Bye-Bye SiteMeter Gun Rights in Texas KS Bill Would Overrule City Gun Laws Some Good News More on Alphecca and IE 7 More on Giuliani on Gun Control Bloomberg Pushes Pelosi on Gun Control NY: Now it's Bullet Control Trouble Reading Alphecca With IE7? Hit Job on Gun Rights Lawyer WaPo & Guns: A Good Question SCOTUS Review of DC Circuit Could Sidestep Central Issue George Will Warns Dems on Gun Control Meanwhile in Knife-Free Scotland. . . Dell Computer Support Howler of the Day Friday Bear Blogging Idiot of the Day on Gun Rights MO: Bill To Prevent Gun Confiscations Advances Proximity Laws Against Guns? No Slippery Slope? Stuck in Massachusetts Please Welcome... NY: Gov. Spitzer to Promote Hunting?
Care to comment?
Take your best shot:
Note: Comments close-down on posts after seven days.
Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer" Alphecca gets noticed! Check out these GLOWING REVIEWS I've just made up:
|
August 07, 2004CA Considering More Gun ControlSpecifically, it would be a crime to store your gun in the same location as the ammo if "a child" could find it. And all guns would have to be under lock and key. From the Record Searchlight:
At least this news story prints plenty of quotes of opposition to the bill, including that of a local sheriff who says the bill is too vague. I'm all for safe storage of firearms in homes where young children are present. But the definition of safe storage has to be the firearm owner's, not the state's. I think education would be a far better approach to the problem, not just piling on more criminal charges. And what if it's a teenager who breaks into the home and steals the gun? Would the firearm owner still be criminally negligent if he didn't have the gun locked up and seperate from the ammo? For folks without children, keeping a loaded gun about is just common sense. You need that gun ready to rock if an intruder breaks in. This proposed legislation would pretty much make that gun all but useless. Comments
"The bill also would allow district attorneys to file either felony or misdemeanor charges for keeping firearms in the same place a child could find their ammunition" And exactly how do they propose to enforce this? Do they plan (as some actually have proposed in the past) to inspect every home that has firearms? Note yet another part of the "slippery slope": Several years ago, California made gun owners strictly liable if a child got hold of and misused a firearm. Then it was made a crime if a child got hold of and misused a firearm Then gunshops were required to post large signs that said people could be prosecuted if a child got hold of and misused a firearm Now it is a crime to store firearms where a child could find it, whether or not it actually happens. Fuck the Democrats, fuck these RINOs, and Fuck Arnie if he signs such a bill (which, BTW, would be a certainty given his history of support for disarming law-abiding citizens). Posted by: Ken Summers at August 7, 2004 01:36 PMI think it's important to make a distinction. It's safe storage when you evaluate your life situation and choose the best method to store your firearms and ammunition. It's mandatory storage when the government passes a law telling you what that decision is. And from experience of a state where there is mandatory storage, yes, you can be found liable if someone breaks into your house. That's why I have a small safe attached to my metal bed with two cable locks. At least I've made it tough for any criminals. I also give my gun to one of my co-workers when I go to a state where I cannot have it. Posted by: Bitter Bitch at August 8, 2004 06:00 PMThat's outrageous, Bitter, that you could be held liable if some mutant breaks into your home and steals a firearm that wasn't locked up. What if they stole a kitchen knife and stabbed someone? What if they stole a baseball bat and committed a hidious crime such as just happened in Florida? I can understand slimy lawyers trying to make it an issue in a civil-suit, that's what those bastards always try to do -- it's never the mutant's fault. But for the state to say that you're liable is absolutely WRONG! Why does anyone live in Massachusetts? Posted by: Jeff Soyer at August 9, 2004 10:05 AMBecause we think we can change it. :) Posted by: Bitter at August 9, 2004 10:33 AMThe California laws against allowing young people access to firearms have so far saved at least one live, that of the man who attacked a neighbor's children with a pitchfork. Their older sister, reportedly a competant gun handler, was unable to access the gun with which she could have saved her siblings' lives. Posted by: triticale at August 9, 2004 01:25 PMthe comment input form disappears. Your comments are welcome. You don't need to enter a URL and you don't need a "valid" email address, either. Note though that MT Blacklist is installed to flag suspiciously spam-like strings. Unfortunately, because of the bastard spammers, the strings "google.com" and "yahoo.com" (even in your email address) are currently banned as well. So are strings such as "cialis" (a common spam) which rules out words such as "socialism". Try putting a hyphan in a word like that. By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...Into science fiction? Check out my group blog novel, Colony: Alchibah. See the reader's guide there for first-timer tips. |