No gun safe at Lanza home?

"Republican support is anticipated in part because the four senators involved in the talks have agreed that any new background check program would exempt private transactions between family members or people who completed a background check in order to obtain a concealed-carry permit, according to aides. But the four senators are grappling with how to make the process of obtaining a background check as seamless as possible for private dealers while also ensuring that someone keeps a record of the transaction. "  Washpost

------------------------------------------------

IMO a federal background check law has a good chance of passage if it follows the guide lines outlined above.

The one "sticking point would be the "keeps a record of the transaction" mentioned in the WaPo articel.  If such a record is kept then this is nothing more than the creation of a national firearms register and the bill will fail in the House if not in the Senate.

The police in Connecticutt appear to be intent on hiding the facts with regard to how Adam Lanza secured the use of his mother's guns on that fatal morning.  Were the guns and ammunition merely placed in a closet as some sources seem to report?  If that is true, then Lanza's mother caused her own death and contributed to the deaths and wounding of so many more.  A gun safe like the one pictured above with a combination lock would likely have prevented this terrible loss.

These guns belonged to Lanza's mother, not to him.  She passed a state and federal gun check.  Stricter gun sale checks would not have prevented his access to these firearms.  He was not the owner.

His mother knew or should have known that her son was dangerous and she did nothing to deny him access to these guns.  pl  

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/01/23/Friend-Nancy-Lanza-did-not-secure-guns/UPI-96501358921210/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-near-a-deal-on-background-checks-for-most-private-gun-sales/2013/02/23/d55e5f4a-7d0c-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html?tid=pm_pop

http://www.gunsafes.com/Winchester-S49-Silverado-2-Hour-Fire-Safe-54-Gun-Safe.html

 

 

Comments

[turcopolier]

shepherd

IMO guns should be stored safely and securely. i am not looking to legislate that. pl

[Fred]

said in reply to Fred...
"I don't see how a state's rotten implementation of a poorly thought out policy has anything to do with what I'm talking about."

I disagree. The failure of the state to craft a well thought out policy (in this example while attempting to lower the number of traffic fatalities) and implement it well are exactly the issue. What you are asking for is a new law that would cover ownership liability in the case of firearms - and only firearms - whereby owners would be responsible for the conduct of persons who stole such property. I disagree with the idea of the policy - that owners are liable for the conduct of people who rob them (not the intent - that owners should secure their firearms safely). I also disagree with the idea that state implementation of such a policy is going to be done well solely because it is related to firearms. No state has ever to my knowledge set aside sovereign immunity related to damages caused by use of property stolen from the state. I see no point in holding citizens to a higher standard regarding only one type of property other than to make such ownership onerously expensive.

[shepherd]

I don't have statistics on this, just my impression. I'm just a guy wasting time when he should be working.

But to your point. I think with the problem of school shootings, no one particular measure will do very much, and nothing will eliminate them entirely. But that's not the point. You need to take a number of smaller measures and put them together. That way, maybe you could reduce the number of deaths by 15%, remember that these are children we're talking about. And 15% less dead children would be something.

Militia had regulations (hence "well regulated") for the proper care and handling of weaponry. I'm proposing something similar. While I don't think the right to bear arms should be abridged, but they can be dangerous and you should take reasonable precautions about them.

Obviously it's just a concept. I haven't studied it. I have no expertise in this field. Given that, I doubt that this would prove to be workable, but not for the reasons given on this thread.

It wasn't bears come to think of it. The most dangerous animals we faced were bulls that ranchers let graze free range, or onto whose land we happened to wander.

[Charles I]

Would it be a constitutional affront to approach the gun safety storage issue from a civil negligence perspective?

Methadone users who share or store their orange coloured liquid dose in an Sunny C container have been held liable for injury to ignorant third parties, sometimes their own children, who consume the stuff and od.

Why can't unsafe storage and the matter of at least non-criminal liability for an easily stolen loaded weapon be a matter of foreseeability, causation and remoteness? These tests are applied everyday. Surely deadly weapons can be at least subject to negligence law after the fact, and significant damages if the facts and the common law, er, warrant?

[shepherd]

Thanks for, at last, a civil, reasonable reply.

But still, I think you are jumping to conclusions about this, and adding things that aren't in there. I did say that safeguards would have to be in place so that the situations you're discussing do not occur. Obviously, if someone steals a gun out of your locked home, you'd be off the hook. That would be absurd. The law would have to make it hard, not easy, to attain redress, and you could limit liability too. Perhaps that puts it in the realm of pipe dream impracticality, but we're discussing here, not actually legislating.

[Fred]

Do we have a federal law holding methadone users lialbe? Where in the constitution is a right to methadone? Isn't that used to overcome drug addiction - mainly heroin - which is illegal?

"Surely deadly weapons can be at least subject to negligence law after the fact, and significant damages if the facts and the common law, er, warrant?" How does a national gun registry prove negligence? If such negligence is already in the common law why is another law needed?

[shepherd]

I'd guess that it would probably be impossible to pass, overly complicated, and that the paranoia it would produce would be more damaging than any good that might come of it.

[John Minnerath]

Shepherd,

I find it hard to believe anyone would write something like that.
If you carried a gun onto open range or trespassed onto private land where a cattleman's bulls were ranging as protection against such animals and you did shoot one, you would find yourself under arrest and in a court being required to pay a very large restitution to the owner.

[Fred]

My reference wasn't meant to 'jump to conclusions' or discuss 'pipe dreams'. but to point out a specific example of legislation enacted that fails to provide for due process of law for those accused of a crime. As for liability for negligence, there are already legal mechanisms to seek redress from harm caused by negligence of firearms owners.

[Locksmith lynnwood]

great post.Never knew this, thanks for letting me know.

[Dorthy Packer]

I think it is important for everyone who has a gun to have a gun safe. Where is a good place to purchase a gun safe in canada? I'd appreciate your help! Thanks!

[Jason Damon]

If you call yourself a responsible gun owner it is your duty to keep your firearm and ammunition secured in a high quality gun safe. I got mine from Godby Safe and Lock at their store down in Lantana, Florida. Check out their variety www.godbysafeandlock.com

[jimstout7878]

I think that everyone who owns a weapon should own a gun safe. It is the responsible thing to do.

[Jerry Howard]

Thanks for the post here! Great info, This looks like a great safe, I might need to look in to buying one of these bad boys! Thanks again! http://www.affordablelock.ca

[Staceybeck01]

Thanks for all the great advice. I need to find safes in Toronto and this is really good to know. http://www.affordablelock.ca/services.html

[jstrong196]

This is awesome! I've been looking for some insights on finding quality safes in Toronto, and this gave me some great insights of what to look for when choosing one. So far this and http://www.affordablelock.ca/en/services.html have been the most helpful. Thanks for sharing!

[Sillowine Sanderson]

When I got down to the point at the second-to-last paragraph, I realized it's true that stricter gun sales wouldn't have stopped him from accessing those guns. Reading further in the last paragraph, I don't know if the mother was fully conscious that he'd be dangerous. I just feel like if you own a gun, you should definitely store it in a gun safe and not let anyone know of the password.
http://www.saguarolockandsafe.com/safes/gun-safes/

[turcopolier]

Sillowine

"I just feel like if you own a gun, you should definitely store it in a gun safe. At least you see that "universal checks" would not have stopped this crime. He was mad and she foolishly gave him access to her guns. i agree that in general guns should be securely stored. They are not in my house. We do not have children. My wife and I have have been around guns all our lives. The house is well secured and if she decides to shoot me I probably will have deserved it. BTW we have been married 52 years. pl