Florida Gun Ban Proposed

[Pertinacious Tom]

9 hours and no comment from Tom...waiting for the media spin maybe...

A week and no indication that Ncik thinks that black lives exist.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

There is an answer every bit as reasonable as banning .22's as assault weapons being proposed.

Senate Bill 142 changes the language in the state’s safe storage law, deleting this line: “This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.”

Grabbers don't give a shit if a criminal was the problem. The REAL problem is always the gun owner, so no need for that nonsense about exempting thefts.

Florida grabbers know that this is bullshit:

Silly man,

If its properly secured in a safe, you cant steal it....

But you knew that, Right ?

That's why they wanted to amend our safe storage law to make gun owners responsible for the actions of criminals who engage in unlawful entry and steal properly secured firearms.

You just can't make gun ownership risky or expensive enough for grabbers. Nor can you make them tell the truth about the fact that any security system in the world can be defeated, as eva dent.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

There is an answer every bit as reasonable as banning .22's as assault weapons being proposed.
Senate Bill 142 changes the language in the state’s safe storage law, deleting this line: “This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.”

Grabbers don't give a shit if a criminal was the problem. The REAL problem is always the gun owner, so no need for that nonsense about exempting thefts.

Ok, I'll take a swing at this for you. Note, I have not invested any time at all reading this proposal you are fuming about.

I am fine with the state mandating gun-storage standards. Hopefully this is along the lines of bolted-down safes, not some weenie little box on the night-stand.

Not reading at all before commenting is the tradition around here, so I understand.

People move stuff around so the links above are broken now. In case BeSafe or some other reader comes along, the law is here.

Is compliance as burdensome and expensive as grabbers would like? By definition, never.

I have a bolted down safe. If I'm gone, thieves have my sawzalls, chainsaws, and loader/backhoe. I'm betting on the thieves with my tools to remove the safe, so I'm not sure it's more secure than my "weenie little box" safe. I'm sure it's more of a target.

 

[sunseeker]

The process means this bill will never get out of committee. I like that result but I'm not so sure I'd call what goes on up there fair or balanced.

But that applies to all bills. How about the substance of this one?

Do you think our .22 rifles are "assault weapons" that should be banned?

Every single gun in America needs to be registered.

Every single person who has a gun in their hand needs to be licensed.

Your precious right to bear arms is not infringed any more than the person who gets a license to catch a fucking fish.m

Get caught off of your property with an unregistered gun or without your license, 10 year mandatory minimum.

Trying to say a .22 isn’t scary is bullshit. It kills just as well as any other gun.

Fuck your guns and fuck you.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Trying to say a .22 isn’t scary is bullshit. It kills just as well as any other gun.

I've tried to atone for my earlier mistakes. I did indeed previously say that .22's are not weapons of war. I've come around on that issue, thanks to people here who informed me that they are used by militaries around the world.

I now understand that battlefield .22's are weapons of war, fully suitable for militia use, and deserving of the highest second amendment protection.

 

[jocal505]

Pertinacious Tom May 26, 2022​

A week and no indication that Ncik thinks that black lives exist.

RACEBAITER ALERT #14 for 2023 (Week 8).

Dogballs, in your constant, ten-year stream of racial concern, where the hell is Citizens United? Just asking.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Wait till the permit less gun carry goes into effect,
It's going to be an afternoon at "HIGH NOON"
View attachment 576358 View attachment 576359

Oh no! You mean to say that if we match the carry policy that Vermont has had for decades we will soon match their crime rate???

That would be terrible!!!

Seriously, all those permits do is form a list of people who are LESS likely than cops to commit a violent crime. Why do we need such a list? We don't. Just like Vermont doesn't. It does nothing at all to protect anyone.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Everyone except for the ski tourists and new transplants have guns in Vermont. The ski tourists pay a big chunk of the state's taxes but don't have a lot of say in the laws. We have quite a bit of gun crime for our small size. Unlike places like Florida and Alabama, it only happens in the cities here and is almost universally associated with heroin/oxy/meth activity. Note: Our biggest city is about the size of a big Florida subdivision.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Everyone except for the ski tourists and new transplants have guns in Vermont. The ski tourists pay a big chunk of the state's taxes but don't have a lot of say in the laws. We have quite a bit of gun crime for our small size. Unlike places like Florida and Alabama, it only happens in the cities here and is almost universally associated with heroin/oxy/meth activity. Note: Our biggest city is about the size of a big Florida subdivision.

The stupid drug war is responsible for a lot of crime in FL. Not sure where you heard otherwise.

I'd argue that it's responsible for more crime than battlefield .22 ownership, so voting for a drug warrior is more irresponsible behavior than owning a battlefield .22. Lots of people disagree, of course, and happily vote for drug warriors while calling me a murderer for owning a battlefield .22.

 

[Battlecheese]

Not reading at all before commenting is the tradition around here, so I understand.

People move stuff around so the links above are broken now. In case BeSafe or some other reader comes along, the law is here.

People do indeed move stuff around. This is not my thread.

I have gone and read your law, and notice that it relates entirely to giving weapons to minors, or being a bad example in front of them, and contains explicit carve-outs so you do not get in trouble when the minor accesses your gun via other illegal acts (such as breaking in).
Is this really the one you are talking about?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

People do indeed move stuff around. This is not my thread.

I have gone and read your law, and notice that it relates entirely to giving weapons to minors, or being a bad example in front of them, and contains explicit carve-outs so you do not get in trouble when the minor accesses your gun via other illegal acts (such as breaking in).
Is this really the one you are talking about?

Yes, I brought the post to where you could read the law for a reason.

Yes, that's the one I'm talking about.

Yes, specifically the carve-out. More specifically, removing it.

What do you think?

Should gun owners be liable when the minor accesses our guns via other illegal acts (such as breaking in)?

Or should owners who comply with the safe storage requirements be protected by such a carve out?

It's really the fundamental question of gun control all over again: are gun owners responsible for the actions of criminals?

 

[Battlecheese]

Yes, I brought the post to where you could read the law for a reason.

Yes, that's the one I'm talking about.

Yes, specifically the carve-out. More specifically, removing it.

What do you think?

Should gun owners be liable when the minor accesses our guns via other illegal acts (such as breaking in)?

Or should owners who comply with the safe storage requirements be protected by such a carve out?

It's really the fundamental question of gun control all over again: are gun owners responsible for the actions of criminals?

I am fine with this carve-out being removed.

Currently the law says: there is no need to secure your weapons unless you permit children onto the property.

With the change it will become: If you leave your guns laying around and someone mis-uses them, as long as they're not a minor, you're fine.

No. As a gun owner you have a social obligation to avoid leaving dangerous tools lying around where they can be easily stolen. By anyone, let alone kids.

Unbelievable.

 

[Gouvernail]

Nobody gives a shit. Let the gun nuts Darwin away their genes.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I am fine with this carve-out being removed.

Currently the law says: there is no need to secure your weapons unless you permit children onto the property.

With the change it will become: If you leave your guns laying around and someone mis-uses them, as long as they're not a minor, you're fine.

No. As a gun owner you have a social obligation to avoid leaving dangerous tools lying around where they can be easily stolen. By anyone, let alone kids.

Unbelievable.

If what you said were true, I would support the change.

It's not true. Deleting this line: “This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.”

Does "any person" somehow mean "a minor" to you?

The result of the proposed change would be that if someone unlawfully entered my home and defeated a safe and stole a gun, I'd be liable.

As I said, it's the usual gungrabby thinking: peaceful gun owners are responsible for the actions of criminals. They're just usually not so explicit. Unlike you, they're not stupid and know the effect their change would have.

 

[Battlecheese]

The result of the proposed change would be that if someone unlawfully entered my home and defeated a safe and stole a gun, I'd be liable.

FFS dude. Go to night school and learn to read.

It is a misdemeanor of the second degree ... if a person violates subsection (1) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result thereof a minor gains access to the firearm...

So comply with subsection 1, and keep your guns in a safe. If someone cracks your safe, well, at least you tried.

How are we supposed to take your concerns seriously when you repeatedly bring bullshit like this to us?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

So comply with subsection 1, and keep your guns in a safe. If someone cracks your safe, well, at least you tried.

I thought you supported the change where if someone cracked my safe there is no subsection 1 because it doesn't apply.

This is a laughable misreading:

With the change it will become: If you leave your guns laying around and someone mis-uses them, as long as they're not a minor, you're fine.

I'm not sure why anything I said led you to believe that I don't secure my guns. I do, and your lectures about my obligation to do something I'm already doing are superfluous. Why not ask instead of assuming?

 

[Battlecheese]

I thought you supported the change where if someone cracked my safe there is no subsection 1 because it doesn't apply.

Sigh.

Subsection 1 just details the conditions under which your guns should be kept responsibly secured. (all the time you're not holding them).

Subsection 2 indicates that if you don't comply with subsection 1, and a minor gets hold of your guns and starts causing a fuss, then you might get in trouble.

Subsection 2 also contains a little carve-out specifying that if a crime is being committed, then it doesn't matter that you didn't have your guns stored securely.

Slightly hilariously, this carve-out is not needed, because Subsection 1 already says that securing a weapon is only required when the owner is someone "who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm". Which is a pretty fucking low bar already. But they had to put yet another out in subsection 2.

Is it too cynical to suggest that they put two in so that in the future they could let one of them be removed to give the appearance of some sort of concession?

I thought it was this second "out" you were complaining they want to remove, is this correct?

I'm not sure why anything I said led you to believe that I don't secure my guns. I do, and your lectures about my obligation to do something I'm already doing are superfluous. Why not ask instead of assuming?

I haven't said anything about your personal guns. I am judging you by the extremely low quality of your legal arguments.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

So comply with subsection 1, and keep your guns in a safe.

I haven't said anything about your personal guns.

Ummm...

Nevermind.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

As a gun owner you have a social obligation to avoid leaving dangerous tools lying around where they can be easily stolen. By anyone, let alone kids.

Unbelievable.

As a gun grabber you have a social obligation to shut the fuck up and leave me alone.

 

[Battlecheese]

Ooh. When you get canned, all your quotes vanish too. That will make this a confusing thread...

 

[Battlecheese]

Ooh. When you get canned, all your quotes vanish too. That will make this a confusing thread...

Ah, Sorry. It seems I am on the reverse-ignore list.

To your question:

So comply with subsection 1, and keep your guns in a safe.

This is not speculating about how you choose to store items, this is discussing how you (or anyone) could not be concerned at all about this legislation or the planned changes to it.