A court case in Massachusetts deals with the question of what constitutes safe storage of a handgun. The cops charge a guy because his Glock was found in an Igloo cooler. Now, within that cooler, the Glock was locked up in its original box with a cable lock, nice and safe. But in gun-phobic Mass., that's not enough: they wanted the locked box to be locked within another locked container, not an Igloo cooler.
Fortunately the Appeals court seems to have decided that the locked box did satisfy the Mass. statute for safe storage of a handgun.
Two commenters on the Volokh Conspiracy ask, in a state that is as hysterically frightened of guns as Massachusetts, what constitutes safe storage?
Fortunately the Appeals court seems to have decided that the locked box did satisfy the Mass. statute for safe storage of a handgun.
Two commenters on the Volokh Conspiracy ask, in a state that is as hysterically frightened of guns as Massachusetts, what constitutes safe storage?
Avatar: The question is, what responsibility is incurred by a gun owner to make sure unauthorized people don’t gain access to their gun?G.R.Mead: This is perhaps the best argument to make carry — MANDATORY ?!?!?
I cannot think of more secure way to keep the weapon from unauthorized persons ...
Yes! If you buy a handgun, you MUST carry it at all times. It's the only way to be sure.
Posts
3 comments:
I would not want it manatory, but highly encourage. Seeing it is a person, and yes wise choice to carry a form(preferably a gun) for defense against gobblins.
As to the silly secure contaner, sort of defeats the purpose doens't it now.
Then again that is the goal the liberals are going for
Hell, why not make it mandatory... Or require each home to have guns like Kennesaw, GA :-)
I'm as opposed to mandating things as I am to prohibiting them. But if government really just can't keep itself from "doing something about crime," the evidence suggests that a mandate works better than a prohibition.
Post a Comment