[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If you introduced a federal law saying that all gun owners have to keep their guns in a safe, there would immediately be issues with this. Critics would point out that firstly, you need to define what qualifies as a safe because people will look for loopholes. A cardboard box will not suffice. Easy fix for that is to certify gun safes and certify the installation of them to a standard (otherwise a thief can just steal the whole safe). So you set standards for the metal, the hinges, locks and for the bolts that you would be required to use to bolt them to a wall structure. Then standards for the wall because drywall isn't going to cut it. You need to close these obvious loopholes in order to sidestep the initial objections to such laws.

Except that we accept similar technical regulations in all other areas of life. Us having to share a road leads to traffic laws and e. g. speed limits. You can have an honest discussion whether the speed limit on a highway should be 130 km/h, 100 km/h or 117 km/h. Or whether the speed limit in a school zone should be 20 km/h, 30 km/h or 35 km/h. The numbers are, to a degree, arbitrary.

Likewise, you'll have to have some rules and regs on what constitutes safe storage.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The problem with all that is that you then have to inspect and maybe license these installed safes and the gun lobby isn't going to stand for that (is it?) In the UK, a firearms officer can do spot inspections on gun owner's safes to make sure they are storing them correctly and according to the rules. Absolutely no way in hell is a law requiring/allowing that going to survive for long in the US if it even makes it into law in the first place. And not just because of the current supreme court I suspect.

Just think beyond the present Supreme Court: I think this can fall under “well-regulated militia”.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The upshot is that you cannot practically enforce any standard of responsibility on gun owners PROAVTIVELY. My idea is to enforce one retroactively. So you mandate safety training, to be rectified regularly. How to clean and maintain, how to store, how to shoot, etc etc. You mandate storage specs and standards as mentioned above. You mandate restricting access to minors or uncertified persons. You set rules requiring the registering of resales and reporting of thefts.

Yup, agreed.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

But you don't punish the failure to do any of this until after something goes wrong.

You do need teeth for the enforcement mechanism. They become empty, applied probably to people who have committed some other crime. You slap on yet another gun charge.

Ideally, you'd want those regulations, their enforcement and all that to be done in collaboration with the gun-owning public at large.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So owners don't truly have to do any of these new requirements. But if you shoot someone and you didn't get re-certified for ten years. Oh dear. Big fines and jail time for you. If your kid does a school shooting with your gun and your safe wasn't up to spec. You're on the hook now too. If someone else commits a crime with a gun you bought and didn't report the resale or theft? You're an accessory now.

I hope that an unsafe gun storage charge will be the least of my problems if I unjustifiably shoot someone.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Hopefully this makes the concept clearer? It's a potential method to implement sensible gun laws without making it easy for them to be struck down by the usual suspects.
One of the usual generalised arguments is about not penalising responsible gun owners for the crimes or the irresponsible ones (even though this is how all laws work). My version only punishes the irresponsible ones. But it maintains American's freedom to be irresponsible gun owners which apparently is sacrosanct.

The problem is IMHO American gun culture, because fewer people own guns and the policies are dominated by an extreme and extremely vocal minority. Public pressure must build up until responsible makes a comeback in “responsible gun owner”.

Responsibility means
- safe storage,
- regular classes and certifications,
- different levels of certification for different gun types/carry options (someone wanting to carry concealed has to undergo more strict and rigorous training), etc.

The second prong is that we collect good, scientifically sound data to guide policies. If you want to do something that is statistically risky, e. g. if you have kids in the house and own a firearm, policies should be designed to take the risks into account.

The third prong is to simply strictly enforce existing laws as they are on the books now.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

This suggestion isn't a guns issue. It's property rights. We have an affordable housing crisis in the US, for multiple reasons I won't go into here. But owning a home is an expensive dream, requiring sacrifice to obtain freedom from rent, and greater freedom in general.

Yes, and you have building codes and the like. You are not allowed to build something willy-nilly if it is not up to code. You are not allowed to drive without a license either.

Originally Posted by reader50 

If you do a 30-year mortgage to own your own home, no one has the right to intrude outside of immediate crimes. Or if you invite them in. Cops should not be inspecting your gun safe, or your refrigerator, or that your bed is made properly.

If you are building a new home or do extensive renovations, a building inspector will check if everything is up to code. How is that different? Can you refuse a building inspector and not expect consequences? Ditto for the car that you own, there are regular state-mandated checks on that, too.

Originally Posted by reader50 

Private homes have extensive legal protection, requiring search warrants to intrude. […] Your home is kinda your castle, or at least your private space. With legal teeth behind the "private" part.

Which is why laws should take personal rights into account. But no right is absolute since there are almost always other, competing rights.

Originally Posted by reader50 

And requiring only licensed safe installers? Are you kidding? Why sign away half your life to own something, that you aren't allowed to work on yourself?

The building trade already is very regulated. My understanding is that I would not be able to call myself a plumber in the US. (I definitely wouldn't in Germany as plumbers are a “protected trade”, unlike, say, business consultants.)

Originally Posted by reader50 

A gun left to itself will do nothing. It will corrode until the house falls down around it from old age. If "something goes wrong", it's because someone handled the gun. Perhaps while drinking. Following the euro logic, how would (say) annual inspections catch that?

I think that's a very myopic point of view. The point of safe storage laws is to protect others living in the house, e. g. the owner's children and spouses. And often it is precisely because people handle guns irresponsibly, especially when combined with alcohol and narcotics. The rights of the owner collide with the rights of others.

Originally Posted by reader50 

Would monthly or even weekly be any better? If your home is open to officials checking on your gun storage, it will logically evolve into requiring a live camera pointed at the safe. Officials record the feed, and you bear no liability if the guns are in storage the whole time. This also lets them verify you keep the door closed & locked. Not just when the inspectors come by.

Yes, an inspection is only a screenshot. But that applies directly also to, say, CPS, health inspections in restaurants and places where toxic chemicals are handled. It is for good reason that these exist even though none are a perfect measure, especially in isolation.

Originally Posted by reader50 

What I was saying above, is that it wouldn't be gun lobby groups arguing against these in-home inspection requirements. It would be all homeowners, their wives/husbands, plus gun owners, plus civil libertarians. Even individuals who are against gun rights, but are members of other categories.

That seems very categorical and self-assured.


PS Fun fact: if you license certain software, most notably from Microsoft, in many cases you do allow them to randomly/“randomly” audit your company. Happened to my brother's company a few years ago. He predicted that they'd have to pay a high six-digit amount. His bosses laughed. Until Microsoft came to a number that was very close to my brother's. I know that this is different from the scenario we are talking about now (state vs. agreements between companies, etc.), but I think few people know about it and hence, do not object.

Conversely, a lot of the discussion is based too much on hypotheticals, the idea some have that “Obama will come for their guns.” They build up a straw man and then fight against that straw man.

[subego]

Is 14 too young to have unrestricted and unsupervised access to a gun and ammunition? That was how it was for me.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, and you have building codes and the like. You are not allowed to build something willy-nilly if it is not up to code. You are not allowed to drive without a license either.
...
If you are building a new home or do extensive renovations, a building inspector will check if everything is up to code. How is that different? Can you refuse a building inspector and not expect consequences? Ditto for the car that you own, there are regular state-mandated checks on that, too.

A substantial change requires inspection. Adding a room, changing the room size, replacing the roof framing, etc. In most cases, jobs that require inspections get handed off to contractors, and the contractor pulls the permits.

Minor changes typically do not require permits if the owner does them him/herself. ie - replacing your garbage disposal. Installing a wall shelf, or adding lockdown screws to a safe. Or installing blinds. It varies by state and city. ie - installing a gas furnace in a home that previously had an oil furnace would be a major change. However, installing a washer/dryer in a space set up for them doesn't need a permit, because the home isn't being modified in any serious way.

Replacing an existing gas furnace falls in the grey area - all the hookups are already there, and the space was already set up for that very device. It requires skills, but replacing an appliance with a same-type appliance doesn't significantly modify the house. Likewise replacing a water heater. Many people replace water heaters themselves, and to my knowledge, it does not require a permit.

note: there is a big difference between if an owner fixes their own house, vs someone doing it for a fee. My answers here apply to the owner doing his/her own work. If you are paid to fix stuff for other people, you can require licensing. example: cutting hair (barbers, cosmetologists) require licenses. For home contracting, it's required if the job price exceeds a trigger threshold. Last I checked (30 years ago?) the trigger was $300.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think that's a very myopic point of view. The point of safe storage laws is to protect others living in the house, e. g. the owner's children and spouses. And often it is precisely because people handle guns irresponsibly, especially when combined with alcohol and narcotics. The rights of the owner collide with the rights of others.

I agree there can be no absolute rights, because they conflict with others' rights. Regarding safes, many (most?) states do require secure storage in homes with kids. Though there are no inspections - violations are punished after the fact.

The flip side is that someone who lives alone shouldn't have to store their guns in a safe, right? Or a home with only adults present? Or is this a "protect the kids" excuse to require ALL guns to be secured in safes, regardless of who lives there?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

{a majority oppose forced in-home inspections} That seems very categorical and self-assured.

Perhaps, but I'm only responsible for my own opinions. People are protective of private homes, with politicians and courts protective as well. It is what it is - people are intolerant of official intrusions in homes here.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is 14 too young to have unrestricted and unsupervised access to a gun and ammunition? That was how it was for me.

What is the legal drinking age?
What is the legal driving age?

So that question answers itself.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What is the legal drinking age?
What is the legal driving age?

So that question answers itself.

Does it?

No way I would have let unsupervised, 14-year-old me drive a car.

I would allow supervised drinking for 14-year-old me, which is what happened to me in real life. I would discourage unsupervised drinking, which is also what happened to me in real life. I’d know it’s going to happen though, and I wouldn’t make a huge deal out of it unless it became a problem, which is also also what happened to me in real life.

I’m totally fine with the gun.


So, they’re actually all kind of different.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

A substantial change requires inspection. Adding a room, changing the room size, replacing the roof framing, etc. In most cases, jobs that require inspections get handed off to contractors, and the contractor pulls the permits.

Point being that mandatory inspections are accepted in other areas of American life. Only once you involve firearms things suddenly become absolute and weird.

Originally Posted by reader50 

The flip side is that someone who lives alone shouldn't have to store their guns in a safe, right? Or a home with only adults present? Or is this a "protect the kids" excuse to require ALL guns to be secured in safes, regardless of who lives there?

No, firearms should be stored safely under all circumstances. That line of argumentation reminds me of people arguing against mandating background checks for e. g. private sales and the like. “But I have known Bob all my life!” 

Originally Posted by reader50 

Perhaps, but I'm only responsible for my own opinions. People are protective of private homes, with politicians and courts protective as well. It is what it is - people are intolerant of official intrusions in homes here.

Yeah, and they’d still be protected. Just that they’d have to accept additional responsibilities as a firearms owner.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

No way I would have let unsupervised, 14-year-old me drive a car. […] So, they’re actually all kind of different.

Using a gun is more dangerous than the other two activities. I did all sorts of moronic and dangerous things when I was 14 (including things that were extremely dangerous only to myself). I definitely wouldn’t want to have involved a firearm in that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That line of argumentation reminds me of people arguing against mandating background checks for e. g. private sales and the like. “But I have known Bob all my life!”

The issue is it would de facto allow anyone to run a background check on anyone.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Using a gun is more dangerous than the other two activities. I did all sorts of moronic and dangerous things when I was 14 (including things that were extremely dangerous only to myself). I definitely wouldn’t want to have involved a firearm in that.

Well, then you obviously shouldn’t have had a gun.

I didn’t do irresponsible things with the gun if only because I wanted to keep it. That, and I actually took it seriously, which weighed heavily into my dad’s decision it was an acceptable state of affairs.


In terms of danger, the only legitimate unsupervised activity with a firearm for a 14-year-old is target practice. On the whole, I’d say target practice with low powered rifle is safer than getting behind the wheel.