Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TwoNineMarine]

The police were called to the house literally because of the negligent storage. Did you read the article?

No. They were called there for poor living conditions. A welfare check. I'd be willing to bet they would have gone regardless of if the weapon was a part of the call.

[TZucchini]

No. They were called there for poor living conditions. A welfare check. I'd be willing to bet they would have gone regardless of if the weapon was a part of the call.

"According to police reports, officers responded to the address after receiving reports about two young children living in unclean conditions and having access to a loaded gun."

Should we just ignore that part?

[TwoNineMarine]

Plenty of laws like it though, so it doesn't automatically preclude its validity.

Sure. I understand that. Just trying to clarify Tiny's argument as I understood it.

I disagree with this sort of law though. I think they won't be able to define it well enough to be fair to everyone. If I'm a single guy with no kids I see no reason why I can't leave the weapon out. Especially if I'm home.

But I'll leave that up to the law makers to hopefully make fair for the vast majority of situations.

- - - Updated - - -

"According to police reports, officers responded to the address after receiving reports about two young children living in unclean conditions and having access to a loaded gun."

Should we just ignore that part?

Yes. Yes you should. Because police make a ton of welfare checks on residences with no weapons. The weapons are irrelevant to these calls.

[TZucchini]

Yes. Yes you should. Because police make a ton of welfare checks on residences with no weapons. The weapons are irrelevant to these calls.

Police don't make welfare checks. Social welfare organization do (such as the Department of Children and Family). It was upon that welfare check that the clinician saw the weapon. They reported it to the police. The police arrested the mother.

The police were called for an unsafe storage. The mother was arrested for unsafe storage. The law was enforced.

[Stormdash]

Does this change the facts? And on the topic of amusement, everyone is amused that we're supposed to think this appeal to "authority" has any merit. Does repeating this appeal supposed to make it any less ineffective? Who you billing this hour to? I'm sure your "clients" would love to know you're "working" on their legal issues with your full attention while billing them for it. What folly.

You mean the factor that drove it to unconstitutionality. Right. And I didn't read the decision. lol

It's painful, genuinely painful, how little idea you have what you are talking about. Let me slow walk it yet again -- if the critical issue of the 6th Circuit's ruling were a functioning avenue of restoration of rights (it was actually quite a bit more involved, but let's play Rukentuts ball here), then the NY case can't really distinguish itself on that basis because NY SAFE also has a big glaring hole where a functioning avenue of restoring rights should be.

You have, as many pretentious laypeople do who figure they are conversant in constitutional law from watching cable news and the rest from watching SVU, a very dim understanding of "what" a case might say but virtually no understanding of how or why it got there. You also have this just plum asinine notion that I'm on the clock for any client while teaching you what you don't know and never will, which is just rude and ignorant. To thine own self be true, at least.

[Rukentuts]

It's painful, genuinely painful, how little idea you have what you are talking about. Let me slow walk it yet again -- if the critical issue of the 6th Circuit's ruling were a functioning avenue of restoration of rights (it was actually quite a bit more involved, but let's play Rukentuts ball here), then the NY case can't really distinguish itself on that basis because NY SAFE also has a big glaring hole where a functioning avenue of restoring rights should be.

You have, as many pretentious laypeople do who figure they are conversant in constitutional law from watching cable news and the rest from watching SVU, a very dim understanding of "what" a case might say but virtually no understanding of how or why it got there. You also have this just plum asinine notion that I'm on the clock for any client while teaching you what you don't know and never will, which is just rude and ignorant. To thine own self be true, at least.

And all this rambling changes the fact it was the no recourse detail that constituted unconstitutionality how?

Shall we distract you from your "clients'" work more? Seriously. Appeals to authority aren't valid even when they're believable.

[TwoNineMarine]

Police don't make welfare checks. Social welfare organization do (such as the Department of Children and Family). It was upon that welfare check that the clinician saw the weapon. They reported it to the police. The police arrested the mother.

The police were called for an unsafe storage. The mother was arrested for unsafe storage. The law was enforced.

Talk to any police officer. They make welfare checks all the time. An elderly person who hasn't come outside in a while and the neighbor calls. The police go to check on them. Welfare check. A kid looks like they are being abused and someone calls. The police check on them. Welfare check.

The police in this case were called because of the living conditions. The weapon was secondary.

[Stormdash]

And all this rambling changes the fact it was the no recourse detail that constituted unconstitutionality how?

What part of this pretty simple concept is too hard for you? You clearly think the 6th circuit case has no parallel to this suit. I've pointed out three times that, insofar as means of restoration mattered in the 6th circuit (which you take as definitive for reasons that aren't legally correct), it would matter in New York, because a NY resident has no more means of restoration under NY SAFE than Tyler did under federal law.

And even as I put in the paragraph break, I know you have abso-fucking-lutely no idea what any of what I just said means. Sigh.

Shall we distract you from your "clients'" work more? Seriously. Appeals to authority aren't valid even when they're believable.

Again, not billing anyone. Typically Rukentuts' of you to persist otherwise.

[Rukentuts]

What part of this pretty simple concept is too hard for you?

Maybe it's the part where you still haven't been able to dispute the facts. The mental health requirements were fine before the federal government decided to stop funding the recourse for reinstatement of rights.

[TZucchini]

Talk to any police officer. They make welfare checks all the time.

OK, yes. Those types of checks exist. I was referring to individuals on government welfare, that receive checks from social agencies as a result.

The police in this case were called because of the living conditions. The weapon was secondary.

The weapon was not secondary. It was the primary purpose of the check. The mother was reported for unclean living conditions and a negligently stored weapon. She wasn't reported for unclean conditions, and while the police were there, they also happened to stumble upon the firearm. This was a primary enforcement of the law.

[Rukentuts]

Honestly guys, I am having a hard time denoting what the primary purpose of the check would be, when they would in all likelihood made the check in either case (access to gun, conditions). 911 calls don't just go unheeded unless it's an obvious hoax.

[TZucchini]

I would imagine that "negligently stored firearm around children" would be more likely to elicit a visit compared to "unclean living conditions." One of those is an imminent threat. The other is not.

[TwoNineMarine]

OK, yes. Those types of checks exist. I was referring to individuals on government welfare, that receive checks from social agencies as a result.



The weapon was not secondary. It was the primary purpose of the check. The mother was reported for unclean living conditions and a negligently stored weapon. She wasn't reported for unclean conditions, and while the police were there, they also happened to stumble upon the firearm. This was a primary enforcement of the law.

The unclean living conditions would have been enough to have them respond. Especially since there were children present. I imagine the weapon call accelerated their response. But they would have responded regardless.

[TZucchini]

The unclean living conditions would have been enough to have them respond. Especially since there were children present. I imagine the weapon call accelerated their response. But they would have responded regardless.

Which has no bearing on whether or not the firearm violation was the primary purpose of the visit. Which it was.

[TwoNineMarine]

Which has no bearing on whether or not the firearm violation was the primary purpose of the visit. Which it was.

The issue though is that this isn't directly related to safe storage. It's because the kids could grab a weapon.

Would this call have happened if a neighbor saw a weapon on the table of a single guy and called the cops or whatever?

[TZucchini]

this isn't directly related to safe storage.

the kids could grab a weapon.

The children had access to a loaded weapon, but it's not related to safe storage? This is very confusing.

Would this call have happened if a neighbor saw a weapon on the table of a single guy and called the cops or whatever?

Would the call have happened? Or would the single guy be arrested?

If a law was broken, I would assume the same actions would be taken.

[TwoNineMarine]

The children had access to a loaded weapon, but it's not related to safe storage? This is very confusing.



Would the call have happened? Or would the single guy be arrested?

If a law was broken, I would assume the same actions would be taken.

And that is the issue I have. If a single guy is home and has his weapon out, who cares? Why should he get in trouble for that?

I fully understand if you leave a loaded pistol on a table and a toddler can grab it. That's just plain stupid. But for a single guy, or a couple with no kids? I mean come on.

And it's not safe storage. That mom could have had the pistol on her person and it would have been ok. So it's not a matter that the weapon wasn't locked up somewhere. It's a matter that she left it within reach of the children.

Unless you are considering carrying the weapon on their person as safe storage and there are kids around. Then perhaps you have an argument.

[petej0]

Would the call have happened? Or would the single guy be arrested?

If a law was broken, I would assume the same actions would be taken.

If it was the home of a single guy and some neighbor peered into his window I doubt anyone would have called the cops. Even if some busy body, do gooder neighbor did, I doubt much would have and should have been done about it.

[TZucchini]

And that is the issue I have. If a single guy is home and has his weapon out, who cares? Why should he get in trouble for that?

I fully understand if you leave a loaded pistol on a table and a toddler can grab it. That's just plain stupid. But for a single guy, or a couple with no kids? I mean come on.

And it's not safe storage. That mom could have had the pistol on her person and it would have been ok. So it's not a matter that the weapon wasn't locked up somewhere. It's a matter that she left it within reach of the children.

Unless you are considering carrying the weapon on their person as safe storage and there are kids around. Then perhaps you have an argument.

A comprehensive safe storage law should mandate safe storage of the firearm around children (to prevent accidental injury), and when the occupants are not home (to prevent theft). That's my stance on the issue.

[petej0]

A comprehensive safe storage law should mandate safe storage of the firearm around children (to prevent accidental injury), and when the occupants are not home (to prevent theft). That's my stance on the issue.

What does "safe storage" mean? What would it include? While you may have some compliance to have guns locked up when you are not home, but you will have a hard time enforcing "safe storage" while people are home. Is it safe storage if I carry the magazine in my pocket, but leave the gun on top of the dresser (or vice versa) when I am home and have kids around?

Secondly, there is no way you can ensure that people obey "safe storage" laws to begin with. What stops a single person from leaving his gun on a closet shelf when he is not home? Will cops go door to door and check while he is away?