Mandatory storage bill could come up

[Steal2B]

Yes...That's todays answer...correct...backup 60 years ago and the answer was...the property in my house is mine and keep your hands off unless invited to touch and if your kids are here, keep an eye on them so they keep their hands off also. That's how it was.

Yup. This proposed change will not make a responsible owner or parent any safer.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Gotcha, @Steal2B. Same page.

 

[Truebeliever]

The word “should” is important. So my reading is , if one locks up their gun in a safe but loaded, it’s still legal. If one uses a device that locks the shotgun but loaded as many police departments do, it’s legal under this law.

The other question is what is immediate control and what if someone else has the combination to the lock

 

[Cooolone]

Sorry... But yawn!...

More BS...

More unenforceable BS that is nothing but pouring gas on the fire, "if and when" you ever need to use your firearm.

But for those who have carry permits, this law cannot apply...

Your honor, I had "all" my firearms available (out) because I was unsure which one, or two, or all... I was going to wear that day!

Thank you, case closed!
lmao!

Not worrying about any of this nonsense because it won't end, and my worrying won't do anything about it.

By the way, didn't that SCOTUS ruling by that Scalia guy say something about having a firearm "ready/useable", let alone in the home?... I'm going to have to refresh my memory and look it up!

/end rant

Thanks for reading...

 

[RayKnobs]

I did read the the bill and that is not exactly what it says.
"

You might have read it but you didn't comprehend what you were reading. Your quote was from the notice that is going to be required to be posted at firearms dealers. You left out this part of the law that explains that.
"
1 (2) Every person, firm or corporation engaged in the retail business
2 of selling rifles, shotguns or firearms, as such terms are defined in
3 section 265.00 of the penal law, shall, in the place where such rifles,
4 shotguns or firearms are displayed or transferred to the purchaser, post
5 a notice conspicuously stating in bold print that:

You also missed another thing that makes it obvious that what you quoted is not the actual law



"FIREARMS SHOULD BE STORED UNLOADED AND LOCKED IN A LOCATION SEPARATE FROM AMMUNITION."




"should be" is not enforceable, it's only a suggestion on a sign. The enforceable part of the law was stated
earlier in the bill and states what is summarized in my first post

 

[Celt]

The bill...for those that didn't read it.

If a gun is not in your immediate possession and you live in a house with a person under 16 or prohibited person the gun must be locked up.
Nothing real shocking there as most of us probably do this anyways.

-you can still sleep with your gun under your pillow
-you don't have to store it unloaded or ammo in a separate location.
-if you don't have kids you can leave your loaded gun anywhere in your house while you are away.

So why make a law except to punish otherwise law abiding gun owners.. fuck these clowns.

 

[Phauxtoe]

Hasn't this already gone thru the courts?

 

[RayKnobs]

So why make a law except to punish otherwise law abiding gun owners.. fuck these clowns.

That's exactly why they made it.
When a firearm owner acts irresponsibly and a prohibited person obtains their firearm they now have a penalty on the books.

 

[RayKnobs]

Hasn't this already gone thru the courts?

No, that was different requirements than what is proposed in this bill.

 

[Steal2B]

You might have read it but you didn't comprehend what you were reading. Your quote was from the notice that is going to be required to be posted at firearms dealers. You left out this part of the law that explains that.
"
1 (2) Every person, firm or corporation engaged in the retail business
2 of selling rifles, shotguns or firearms, as such terms are defined in
3 section 265.00 of the penal law, shall, in the place where such rifles,
4 shotguns or firearms are displayed or transferred to the purchaser, post
5 a notice conspicuously stating in bold print that:

You also missed another thing that makes it obvious that what you quoted is not the actual law



"FIREARMS SHOULD BE STORED UNLOADED AND LOCKED IN A LOCATION SEPARATE FROM AMMUNITION."




"should be" is not enforceable, it's only a suggestion on a sign. The enforceable part of the law was stated
earlier in the bill and states what is summarized in my first post

Wow.

My posts actually did state, as you took the time to confirm (while discussing my reading comprehension), the quote was from new mandatory posting and not from the penal element. This was also discussed later in this thread.

You are wrong about legal implication of "should" statements. I suggest you never proceed pro se. Logical assumptions are often not legally correct assumptions. Similarly, the Court also determined that "shall" statements may be optional suggestions, and that is why Legislation wording uses "must" statements when a politician intends to be clear.

I posted comments on this thread because it appeared a post inferred this bill posed no legal risks or ramifications to storing a gun that was loaded. My posts were intended to highlight that in our litigious society, a NY gun owner could in fact face even more civil (and criminal if negligence is an element of a case) jeopardy following a consequential event (involving a stored but loaded gun, or choices for ammo storage), because of extraneous wording used in the bill. Commisioner Conway's office previously conceded these points about the legislative wording.

This bill will not improve safety and can be used to further jam up a legal gun owner who in fact made responsible choices.

I will double down on "Never trust a politician, especially if they are a lawyer." Lawyers and politicians are leeches on society.