No Second Amendment in the UK

[Dave N]

See what you started, Richard? Almost as good as e-bikes!

I have more than a couple guns of various types. Nobody's business what or how many. Some (most) are in one of those cheap gun lockers hidden away mainly just to slow someone down as well as keep them secure. Ish. Some are scattered throughout the house for use when and if required quickly. Yes, they are loaded. Otherwise they are clubs. Some are hanging on display out in the open as showpieces and overall decorations in our homemade "rustic" living room. Kids are grown and gone but were brought up learning and knowing not to touch daddy's guns. Both girls, and they listened. One hunted with me and has several guns of her own. Out here in the country most farmers have some sort of weapons and everyone seems to know it and leave us alone. Nothing wrong with that. I try not to argue rights and politics about guns, but I will defend my position to possess what I do have. Some folks on here seem to enjoy "strongly debating" others about different subjects. I'll just sit this one out, thanks.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

See what you started, Richard? Almost as good as e-bikes!

I have more than a couple guns of various types. Nobody's business what or how many. Some (most) are in one of those cheap gun lockers hidden away mainly just to slow someone down as well as keep them secure. Ish. Some are scattered throughout the house for use when and if required quickly. Yes, they are loaded. Otherwise they are clubs. Some are hanging on display out in the open as showpieces and overall decorations in our homemade "rustic" living room. Kids are grown and gone but were brought up learning and knowing not to touch daddy's guns. Both girls, and they listened. One hunted with me and has several guns of her own. Out here in the country most farmers have some sort of weapons and everyone seems to know it and leave us alone. Nothing wrong with that. I try not to argue rights and politics about guns, but I will defend my position to possess what I do have. Some folks on here seem to enjoy "strongly debating" others about different subjects. I'll just sit this one out, thanks.

Its called combative learning

 

[SAJ-99]

See what you started, Richard? Almost as good as e-bikes!

I have more than a couple guns of various types. Nobody's business what or how many. Some (most) are in one of those cheap gun lockers hidden away mainly just to slow someone down as well as keep them secure. Ish. Some are scattered throughout the house for use when and if required quickly. Yes, they are loaded. Otherwise they are clubs. Some are hanging on display out in the open as showpieces and overall decorations in our homemade "rustic" living room. Kids are grown and gone but were brought up learning and knowing not to touch daddy's guns. Both girls, and they listened. One hunted with me and has several guns of her own. Out here in the country most farmers have some sort of weapons and everyone seems to know it and leave us alone. Nothing wrong with that. I try not to argue rights and politics about guns, but I will defend my position to possess what I do have. Some folks on here seem to enjoy "strongly debating" others about different subjects. I'll just sit this one out, thanks.

Responsible gun owner. Great. We need more. You have an FOID card?

 

[VikingsGuy]

The safe issue is more feel-good than anything. Most "safes" people own can be defeated with pry bars or angle grinders. Once someone breaks into your home, they have already defeated a protective measure and at that point no responsibility should be put upon the owner.

I think the approach is about kids and path of least resistant burglars not the prepared thief. I don’t let a 10 yo use an angle grinder unattended.

 

[seeth07]

I don’t let a 10 yo use an angle grinder unattended.

And that is what is wrong with our world today in America....these damn kids can't ever get hurt and learn from it ;p need to let them screw up a few times and end up in the ER at least 5 times before age 16 to toughen them up. Now they are just in the ER once for carpal tunnel at age 16.

 

[Dave N]

Responsible gun owner. Great. We need more. You have an FOID card?

Yes I do!

 

[SAJ-99]

Yes I do!

So you accept some limitation to your ability to own a firearm. That limitation being the card provided by the State of Illinois after performing a more extensive background check than required by the ATF. That card allows you to purchase firearms and ammunition and the confirmation of the card is required by any sales agent. Excuse me, legitimate sales agent. Most reasonable people accept some limitations on freedoms. That being said, I doubt if the FOID card prevents any crime, see Chicago. (However the city does try to trace weapons recovered (see https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam... Room/Press Releases/2017/October/GTR2017.pdf), which can tell you the seller source of a LOT of guns used in crime.) But I digress. The hodgepodge of state rules vs Federal causes more confusion and is a mess for legitimate legal gun owners. A discussion on gun ownership is warranted and it should be started by gun owners. The OP and this thread flow shows that stringent requirements probably reduces gun crime. This is why I say WE should start the conversation. Most citizens agree with the premise of the 2A. It's a good starting point.

 

[SaskHunter]

...and I thought Canadian gun laws sucked, I mean, they still do but not as bad.

We have three categories of firearms:

Non-restricted; most long guns - these can be purchased as long as you have your Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) with no wait time. They have to be locked when not in use and cannot be stored loaded, meaning when there is no one who holds a PAL around, which I 100% agree with. The non-restricteds, which are the vast majority of guns in Canada, are not registered anywhere (unless you live in Quebec. HAHA suckers!).

Restricted; handguns and some long guns (mostly scary looking ones) - these can be purchased as long as you hold a Restricted PAL (RPAL). There is a wait time for transfer as these guns are registered. Once the transfer is processed, anywhere between 2hrs to weeks depending on which Province you're in, you can bring your gun home. Restricted guns MUST be double locked, ie trigger lock and locked case, when not in use and unloaded. Also, you need an authorization to transport (ATT) for places you want to bring your gun to. Like the US border crossing into Vermont, which allows me to literally unlock my double locked gun, slam a mag in and CCW that bad boy... Anyway, these guns are tightly regulated and you should always take the shortest route while transporting them and Provinces like Quebec have extra laws like you can't drive in front of a school or daycare with it?!?

Prohibited; all others that are... prohibited... - some firearms were prohibited based on caliber (like .32 special, WTF?), length of barrel (4.2 inch minimum for handguns), because they are auto or "easily modified to shoot auto" (which is a BS clause they use for a lot of guns, like sure, with a complete tool shop I can modify this semi-auto AR to auto, but I could also just you know, manufacture them from scratch). This gun category is weird, you can technically still own them and buy them if you hold the right license as you were grand-fathered, you inherited one, etc. There are several types of Prohib licenses, the most common are the lucky old farts who owned prohibs before they became prohibs, these lucky devils can buy and sell them as they please. The other categories are pretty much people who inherited prohibs or became the owners of prohibs in recent years, essentially, they can only own the firearms they inherited or had in their possession at the time. Same rules apply as the restricted for storing and transportation and I do believe to types of prohibs can still be brought to the range under certain circumstances.

PAL/RPAL: To get your PAL, you have to pass the approved firearms safety course. If I remember correctly, it is a two day course where you have a written and practical test. The RPAL is a additional course where you have an additional written and practical test. The Province of Quebec has an additional in-class course, where you have to physically hit the range after and get a certain score while shooting targets. This final course is valid as long as you go to the range to shoot a restricted firearm once a year (unless you have a good reason not to), if you fail to do so, you have to re-take that stupid course.

Final thought, as of 1 May 2020, I became the owner of prohibited firearms as our knee jerking Gov't decided to band AR15s as well as other firearms following the largest massacre in Canada where 9 people were shot and 13 burned to death (Dentist who was a drug and gun smuggler in his spare time, had a court ordered firearm prohibition, who was well known by police, killed a police officer, used HER gun as well as smuggled guns from Maine, went on a rampage, dressed as a Cop, driving a fake cop car, and finally killed 22 people). They wrote their order so poorly that they ended up prohibiting hundreds of thousand more firearms based on energy produced at the muzzle in joules as well as bore diameter (20mm+ prohib). They were so clueless, that their 20mm prohib class now rendered thousands of shotguns prohibited as some brands overbore their bores or when the chokes can be removed. Anyway, gun orgs/owners are taking the gov't to court on this one...

 

[schmalts]

Lots of people and politicians here, trying to make it like there...

 

[Wildabeest]

Kids find all sorts of ways to gain access to things they're repeatedly told not to. If you have kids, should you lock up weapons? Absolutely. I don't have any and still lock them up. But they'll watch the numbers you punch in on a keypad, or where you stow a key. A tumbler will be more difficult generally, but if you accidentally leave the safe ajar they'll investigate. People are curious and determined, even the little ones.

Which is why it’s a good idea to lock ammo up separately. In addition to being ingenious, kids are also kinda lazy. So once they defeat that gun safe lock and then learn that they have to defeat a whole other set of locks to get the ammo, you’ve essentially reduced your odds of a tragic incident exponentially.

 

[ignorethefringes]

Decouple mental health from gun control and destigmatize responsible behavior.

NRA could push for/ financially support suicide hotlines. Streamlined access to counselors. Support groups. Etc

Local gun ranges could provide voluntary gun storage, i.e. no questions asked if you don't want your gun in the house you can leave it there and retrieve it without any bs. Just like a gym locker at the Y. I'm sure there are some folks who recognize they are going through some shit, possibly have suicidal ideation, know that having a gun in the house isn't good for them, but at the same time don't want to hand their guns over to the cops never to be seen again or check themselves into a hospital. Same folks might always feel like shooting or hunting is their only outlet. They are totally fine at the range, or in the woods... but alone in bed at 2am thinking about shit maybe not. Give them a better way to make it through the day that doesn't involve upending their lives or flagging themselves as "crazy".

We have this all or nothing approach to mental health, you're either fine, or you're a nut who needs to be locked away.

Reaching out for help should not be treated as weakness, it's an act of personal responsibility, it should not be a disqualifier.

Still lots of replies to read, but I really like this. Even responsible gun owners could start a personal movement of just telling their gun owning friends/family something like, "If you ever need to store your gun in my safe, for any reason, I will do it with no questions asked. And as soon as you're ready to take it back, I'll give it back with no questions asked. I just want you to be safe." Almost seems like one of those social media, post this challenge type of things. When one start looking into suicide statistics with personal firearms it's incredibly saddening.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Kids find all sorts of ways to gain access to things they're repeatedly told not to. If you have kids, should you lock up weapons? Absolutely. I don't have any and still lock them up. But they'll watch the numbers you punch in on a keypad, or where you stow a key. A tumbler will be more difficult generally, but if you accidentally leave the safe ajar they'll investigate. People are curious and determined, even the little ones.

True, but no reason not to make it difficult - will deter many.

 

[VikingsGuy]

That being said, I doubt if the FOID card prevents any crime, see Chicago.

This is what really rubs on me the wrong way. I accept that reasonable constraints are both necessary and constitutional, but I strongly believe that any constraint that is not effective in actually reducing the harm is by definition unreasonable. Reasonable should by definition require that the balance of the "burden" against the strength of the evidence of the benefit clearly side with the benefit. I do not support passing any gun control law (or any of a hundred other "nanny state" laws) that impinge upon our independence/liberty without in fact paying us back with actual positive impact. So, I believe a gun owner licensure process is worth considering - but only to the extent it actually reduces gun violence, accidents, and suicide. But it seems like folks just want the restrictions to "feel good", "signal virtue", and "gotta do something can't just sit by". I reject this thinking and I believe absence of effectiveness greater than the encumbrance clearly fails at least two (maybe all three) of the constitutional standards.

 

[Shangobango]

So if they check to see if it is locked up and it isn't they just fine you $500, or whatever.? I think the point is the "right" to ownership can come with limitations.

I am not arguing if such a law is constitutional or not or that rights have limitations. What I was getting at is you can count on the fact that it would be challenged and that there are reasonable arguments that can be made for it being found unconstitutional. I personally see all kinds of 2nd and 4th Amendment considerations with such a law but what I think doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Incidentally, I don't see where a law mandating that firearms must be locked away would do a whole lot to address either accidental firearms deaths or suicides due to firearms. I think that there are numerous reasons as to why it would not do much but it seems like most have their minds made up on this issue so I don't see much use in discussing it further.

 

[VikingsGuy]

And that is what is wrong with our world today in America....these damn kids can't ever get hurt and learn from it ;p need to let them screw up a few times and end up in the ER at least 5 times before age 16 to toughen them up. Now they are just in the ER once for carpal tunnel at age 16.

I don't believe that not allowing a 10 yo to use an angle grinder to cut open a gun safe is "helicopter parenting." I view it as trying to deny Darwin an early win. YMMV.

 

[ignorethefringes]

I don't believe that not allowing a 10 yo to use an angle grinder to cut open a gun safe is "helicopter parenting." I view it as trying to deny Darwin an early win. YMMV.

It's ok, I also taught my kids to swim since I have a pool in the backyard. I guess I helicopter parent too.

 

[SAJ-99]

This is what really rubs on me the wrong way. I accept that reasonable constraints are both necessary and constitutional, but I strongly believe that any constraint that is not effective in actually reducing the harm is by definition unreasonable. Reasonable should by definition require that the balance of the "burden" against the strength of the evidence of the benefit clearly side with the benefit. I do not support passing any gun control law (or any of a hundred other "nanny state" laws) that impinge upon our independence/liberty without in fact paying us back with actual positive impact. So, I believe a gun owner licensure process is worth considering - but only to the extent it actually reduces gun violence, accidents, and suicide. But it seems like folks just want the restrictions to "feel good", "signal virtue", and "gotta do something can't just sit by". I reject this thinking and I believe absence of effectiveness greater than the encumbrance clearly fails at least two (maybe all three) of the constitutional standards.

Completely agree. The problem Chicago had was that it could trace guns used in crimes to 2 or 3 gun shops, but they were outside of Chicago city limits so there was little that could be done. I think one place was shut down by ATF for not following rules. FOID card is more feel hood than effective, but that doesn’t mean the rules couldn’t be more effective if done nationally. But States rights and all....

 

[SAJ-99]

Incidentally, I don't see where a law mandating that firearms must be locked away would do a whole lot to address either accidental firearms deaths or suicides due to firearms.

Most guns are stolen from legal owners when they aren’t home, and aren’t locked up. An added layer of security can’t hurt, which is why most of us own safes. You can look at stats between U.K. and US gun deaths per capita. If @devon deer has those rules maybe they are doing something right. The live affair with guns and gun violence in this country is the core of the problem, but that might be impossible to change.

 

[Shangobango]

Most guns are stolen from legal owners when they aren’t home, and aren’t locked up. An added layer of security can’t hurt, which is why most of us own safes. You can look at stats between U.K. and US gun deaths per capita. If @devon deer has those rules maybe they are doing something right. The live affair with guns and gun violence in this country is the core of the problem, but that might be impossible to change.

There is no way that a law requiring firearms to be locked away will be enforced proactively here in the U.S. on a nationwide scale, at least not in any of our lifetimes. Best case scenario is it would be enforced after an incident occurs, which has zero effect on the outcome.

The authorities are not going to be allowed to just randomly show up at people's homes and say " Do you have firearms in your home? You do? We need to check and make sure they are locked away."

In order for it to be policed effectively that would require firearm registration. It would also require all sorts of dancing around the 4th Amendment. It would require States to comply, which moves into 10th Amendment issues.

Right now some States and City's have stricter gun regulations than others. I assume that is because of the 10th Amendment. Are we going to just throw all of that out the window and have a standardized set of gun regulations across the country?

I am not saying that things cannot be done. I am not saying that something should not be done. I just think that what is proposed should actually have a chance of being implemented and also once implemented actually address the problems they are meant to address.

Also, something that I was pondering as I got ready for work this morning and not just pertaining to 2nd Amendment issues but as a broader question : At what point in the process of having limitations placed on it does a right cease to be a right and become a privilege?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

There is no way that a law requiring firearms to be locked away will be enforced proactively here in the U.S. on a nationwide scale, at least not in any of our lifetimes. Best case scenario is it would be enforced after an incident occurs, which has zero effect on the outcome.

The authorities are not going to be allowed to just randomly show up at people's homes and say " Do you have firearms in your home? You do? We need to check and make sure they are locked away."

In order for it to be policed effectively that would require firearm registration. It would also require all sorts of dancing around the 4th Amendment. It would require States to comply, which moves into 10th Amendment issues.

Right now some States and City's have stricter gun regulations than others. I assume that is because of the 10th Amendment. Are we going to just throw all of that out the window and have a standardized set of gun regulations across the country?

I am not saying that things cannot be done. I am not saying that something should not be done. I just think that what is proposed should actually have a chance of being implemented and also once implemented actually address the problems they are meant to address.

Also, something that I was pondering as I got ready for work this morning and not just pertaining to 2nd Amendment issues but as a broader question : At what point in the process of having limitations placed on it does a right cease to be a right and become a privilege?

I think something like what I outlined in #51 is probably the only realistic option. For all the reasons you just highlighted.