Remember, they aren’t trying to take your guns and aren’t trying to put restrictions on law abiding citizens
(Seattle Times) Seattle will require gun owners to lock up their firearms, after the City Council voted unanimously Monday to pass legislation proposed by Mayor Jenny Durkan.
Starting 180 days after Durkan signs the legislation, it will be a civil infraction to store a gun without the firearm being secured in a locked container.
The legislation will apply only to guns kept somewhere, rather than those carried by or under the control of their owners.
Also under the legislation, it will be a civil infraction when an owner knows or should know that a minor, “at-risk person†or unauthorized user is likely to access a gun and such a person actually does access the weapon.
The legislation allows fines up to $500 when a gun isn’t locked up, up to $1,000 when a prohibited person accesses a firearm and up to $10,000 when a prohibited person uses the weapon to hurt someone or commit a crime.
As for the first, how will the city know? Will they come and check people’s homes? What if a prohibited person takes the firearm and unlocks it? This is all about making it more difficult for the law abiding to defend themselves in their homes.
It’s also most likely illegal
In addition to allowing fines, the legislation will pave the way for lawsuits. The infractions will be considered initial evidence of negligence in civil court matters.
A state law says Washington cities can’t regulate guns, blocking Seattle from taking a bolder step, such as banning semi-automatic firearms.
Gun grabbers do not care about the law.
Making people responsible for the crimes of others. We have precedent in holding parents financially liable for the damages their children cause (cracker barrel doctrine). But to hold an unrelated person responsible for the deliberate criminal act of anyone under 18 is something new. Will car owners also be held responsible for the actions of car thieves? Not likely. So, this is all about the publicly stated doctrine of making gun ownership taboo or so expensive that people will choose to simply not do it. Like millennials choosing to not have kids so they don’t have to share their toys.
TEACH ‘accidently’ snipped out the following paragraph before from the original piece before posting:
The legislation will apply only to guns kept somewhere, rather than those carried by or under the control of their owners.
That seems pretty important. So if the owner has it under his control, the law doesn’t apply. If you keep a pistol under your pillow at night, you’re OK. If you keep an AR-15 next to in your recliner, you’re OK. If you carry it with you, you’re OK. Just don’t leave it on the kitchen table when you go to work.
Nothing like a firearm in a lock box to deter an intruder.
The Seattle law does not require you to lock up your gun when you’re home. TEACH is just inflaming you.
He edited the original before he posted, probably to support his claims.
Here’s what he left out: The legislation will apply only to guns kept somewhere, rather than those carried by or under the control of their owners.
Such disinformation by right-wing bloggers (and their Russian brethren and tRump) does no favors to America.
Actually, the accidental part is correct. When copying the text over, it included a few DIV functions in that section, and I did cut the whole thing when I thought I was just removing something else. I’ll put it back in.
Thank you.
Although not required here, we keep all our guns locked in gun safes (2), unless we’re preparing for a hunting or target practice trip.
We don’t keep guns for personal protection, but if others do, honestly that’s their right.
The Seattle policy (dishonestly described by the TEACH) requires guns be locked up when they’re not carried by or under the control of the owner.
Honestly, how does your gun being locked up at home, when you’re not home, keep you from defending yourselves?