2 Rhode Island school districts to have parents sign storage compliance letter

[Buck F]

I agree with you. Except locking up guns around kids is actual legitimate common sense and denying that by failing to acknowledge it makes you seem unreasonable....

Say what?!? There are storage laws in effect in RI: RI Gen L § 11-47-60.1 (2014). There's absolutely no justification for a school district to require anyone to sign an acknowledgment that they understand those laws. The school department requiring acknowledgment is unreasonable. WTAF....?

 

[kalash]

Except locking up guns around kids is actual legitimate common sense and denying that by failing to acknowledge it makes you seem unreasonable and therefore encourages undecided people over to the other side of the argument…

It's none of your, the school board's, or the state's f***ing business how I store my guns. You need to recognize that you're being lead by pure emotion and fear, despite zero facts to back up this nonsense.

 

[not new guy]

The NFA should be repealed. It's silly, irrational and never should have been passed. I'm with you there. But, in MA, we are clearly only a generation or so away from being Canada and, my point is, all of us are, in a sense, a $3 suitcase lock away from a 10 year felony for exercising a Constitutional right. That's the tyranny that exists right now and all our efforts have made zero progress at changing it for more than 20 years. Maybe its time for a new strategy - fight incrementalism cloaked in "common sense" with the same of our own, except using actual common sense. But, we may have to agree to disagree.

Nope.

 

[Oley]

Say what?!? There are storage laws in effect in RI: RI Gen L § 11-47-60.1 (2014). There's absolutely no justification for a school district to require anyone to sign an acknowledgment that they understand those laws. The school department requiring acknowledgment is unreasonable. WTAF....?

I agree. Not what I said.

 

[not new guy]

Just one more compromise will get us what exactly? Left alone? Or are you saying we should concede that the schools should be involved when it comes to firearms in the home?

 

[Buck F]

I agree. Not what I said.

" ...and denying that by failing to acknowledge it makes you seem unreasonable...." Was that sarcasm I missed?

 

[Oley]

Unlike the NFA, AWBs, banning stun guns, etc, I just don’t think eliminating all storage regulation is a winnable fight and I think taking the position that any regulation at all is unreasonable detracts from our ability to win more important issues. It’s a battle whose cost is not worth the spoils. That said, I’m saying the MA storage laws are tyrannical and awful not because locking up your gun is unreasonable, but b/c it’s used as a method to go after us all and strip our rights permanently. Now, go out to the majority of people on the street and ask “should guns be kept locked up when not in use” and there will be a resounding “yes” from majority, and, unlike other issues like AWBs, their reasoning will be reasonable and logically consistent. So, the better attack is on the penalty.

 

[Oley]

Just one more compromise will get us what exactly? Left alone? Or are you saying we should concede that the schools should be involved when it comes to firearms in the home?

not what I said.

 

[TJ4]

Say what?!? There are storage laws in effect in RI: RI Gen L § 11-47-60.1 (2014). There's absolutely no justification for a school district to require anyone to sign an acknowledgment that they understand those laws. The school department requiring acknowledgment is unreasonable. WTAF....?

So you have to sign a letter saying you are not doing something illegal? That’s a frightening precedent. Looks like someone in the town loves the town counsel enough to toss him the massive legal fees to address the obvious lawsuits that are going to spring up from this nonsense. What do they care, they aren’t paying the legal bill for the town. I would assume they ran this by town counsel first and those legal geniuses gave it the thumbs up?

 

[not new guy]

Maybe try restating your point then, since so many are misunderstanding it. What additional "common sense" measures are we supposed to go along with?

 

[kalash]

Unlike the NFA, AWBs, banning stun guns, etc, I just don’t think eliminating some storage regulation is a winnable fight and I think taking the position that any regulation is unreasonable detracts from our ability to win other issues.

Do you actually believe that storage laws have anything to do with storage? Random unenforceable garbage passed by the bureaucracy has no effect on the physical reality of life. It's no different from gun free zones - sounds great on paper, has no practical application in the real world.

 

[Buck F]

I agree with you. Except locking up guns around kids is actual legitimate common sense and denying that by failing to acknowledge it makes you seem unreasonable and therefore encourages undecided people over to the other side of the argument…now…locking guns up around kids is one thing…making it a criminal offense not to is quite another…the latter is a much better battle to fight. (Personally, I think it would be reasonable for the storage issue to be treated like a speeding ticket - a couple tickets, no bad incidents, not really a big deal. Get in an accident going 100 on a cul de sac and kill little Suzie on her trike - big problem. In other words, no real danger, pay a small fine and that’s it. Leave a gun on an elementary school playground and a kid gets killed, you’re in trouble).

Say what?!? There are storage laws in effect in RI: RI Gen L § 11-47-60.1 (2014). There's absolutely no justification for a school district to require anyone to sign an acknowledgment that they understand those laws. The school department requiring acknowledgment is unreasonable. WTAF....?

I agree. Not what I said.

" ...and denying that by failing to acknowledge it makes you seem unreasonable...." Was that sarcasm I missed?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding that sentence in your original post. Are you saying that in general, failing to acknowledge safe storage of firearms makes one seem unreasonable or are you saying that failure to sign the acknowledgment form the school district is requiring makes one seem unreasonable?

 

[Oley]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding that sentence in your original post. Are you saying that in general, failing to acknowledge safe storage of firearms makes one seem unreasonable or are you saying that failure to sign the acknowledgment form the school district is requiring makes one seem unreasonable?

The former. It makes us all seem unreasonable, as a general matter, to seemingly believe that keeping guns locked up makes no sense at all.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Unlike the NFA, AWBs, banning stun guns, etc, I just don’t think eliminating all storage regulation is a winnable fight and I think taking the position that any regulation at all is unreasonable detracts from our ability to win more important issues. It’s a battle whose cost is not worth the spoils. That said, I’m saying the MA storage laws are tyrannical and awful not because locking up your gun is unreasonable, but b/c it’s used as a method to go after us all and strip our rights permanently. Now, go out to the majority of people on the street and ask “should guns be kept locked up when not in use” and there will be a resounding “yes” from majority, and, unlike other issues like AWBs, their reasoning will be reasonable and logically consistent. So, the better attack is on the penalty.

Per District of Columbia v. Heller (emphasis mine):

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

What's unreasonable about protecting the rights that we've enshrined in the Constitution, and fought for in the Courts?

 

[Mesatchornug]

The former. It makes us all seem unreasonable, as a general matter, to seemingly believe that keeping guns locked up makes no sense at all.

Nobody has claimed this, except you.

We have said, continually, that locking them up is a fine idea, but must be an individual decision.

 

[kalash]

The former. It makes us all seem unreasonable, as a general matter, to seemingly believe that keeping guns locked up makes no sense at all.

You're misunderstanding the conversation. No one is arguing against keeping guns locked up. We're arguing against anyone (you, the school board, the town, the state, etc) forcing us to keep them locked up. It's not your call to make.

 

[Oley]

You're misunderstanding the conversation. No one is arguing against keeping guns locked up. We're arguing against anyone (you, the school board, the town, the state, etc) forcing us to keep them locked up. It's not your call to make.

I understand that…and I actually agree with it…I’m saying I think it’s a losing argument in the court of public opinion (where the majority of the jury are not gun people) at the end of the day so much so that the courts won’t back it up (despite Heller, et al.) And, being seen as “reasonable” on this one particular issue, bolsters our credibility on the other issues. Just my opinion.

 

[not new guy]

I understand that…and I actually agree with it…I’m saying I think it’s a losing argument in the court of public opinion at the end of the day so much so that the courts won’t back it up (despite Heller, et al.)

This whole thread is talking about a specific situation going on in RI. Who's talking about litigating the issue more generally in the court of public opinion?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Just one more compromise will get us what exactly? Left alone? Or are you saying we should concede that the schools should be involved when it comes to firearms in the home?

A compromise could get us something.

But, in order for it to be a compromise each side must not only give, but get something it wants.

The surest way to end any discussion of a "compromise" with the other side it to ask to get something like - "We'll agree to universal gun licensing as long it is objective, does not include recognition, included nation wide reciprocity and a strict standard as to what qualfiies as a sensitive place" and there will be no offer of any concession.

It's like neighbors who want to meet with gun clubs to discuss a "noise compromise" - which always means "agree to limits stricter than those required by law". Just respond with something like "You want us to open an hour later on Sunday. Sure, we can do that as long as you submit and pass legislation allowing us to open an hour earlier that allowed by the MA gun noise law on Saturday" and they will slither away.

"Unless you are prepared to give us something we do not have, and cannot get without your consent, any conversation would be negotiating the terms of surrender so we respectfully to even discuss the matter."

 

[not new guy]

Exactly. Unfortunately "compromise" invariably means giving up something in the hope that they'll go away and leave us alone for a little while. That's not compromise though.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Do you actually believe that storage laws have anything to do with storage? Random unenforceable garbage passed by the bureaucracy has no effect on the physical reality of life. It's no different from gun free zones - sounds great on paper, has no practical application in the real world.

The practical application is to enable the police to take guns away from commoners.

 

[kalash]

I understand that…and I actually agree with it…I’m saying I think it’s a losing argument in the court of public opinion (where the majority of the jury are not gun people) at the end of the day so much so that the courts won’t back it up (despite Heller, et al.) And, being seen as “reasonable” on this one particular issue, bolsters our credibility on the other issues. Just my opinion.

Credibility? You will never have any credibility in the eyes of the gun control crowd. It makes no difference what measures you support or don't, as far as they're concerned you're an evil child murderer, period, end of discussion. You cannot reason your way out of this so ANY compromise is a losing proposition for gun rights. They've been boiling the frog for almost a century - the sooner you realize that you can't give in AT ALL, the better.

The practical application is to enable the police to take guns away from commoners.

Exactly.

 

[Oley]

So this thread is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. I say, essentially, the idea behind storage regulations isn’t crazy. A bunch of people go nuts on me, don’t really read what I said.

Enter self righteous, liberal politician that wants to be king: “Hey, all I want is to make sure 13 year olds aren’t bringing their parents gun to school to shoot people. See, these people are evil and crazy. We need to stop them.”

I’m trying to say that this issue is a dangerous one for us b/c, unlike AWBs and the like that are truly, logically irrational, failure to approach storage issues in a moderate way can be effectively used, more than any other issue in my opinion, to make us look crazy in the eyes of the voting public.

 

[not new guy]

So this thread is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. I say, essentially, the idea behind storage regulations isn’t crazy. A bunch of people go nuts on me, don’t really read what I said.

Enter self righteous, liberal politician that wants to be king: “Hey, all I want is to make sure 13 year olds aren’t bringing their parents gun to school to shoot people. See, these people are evil and crazy. We need to stop them.”

I’m trying to say that this issue is a dangerous one for us b/c, unlike AWBs and the like that are truly, logically irrational, failure to approach storage issues in a moderate way can be effectively used, more than any other issue in my opinion, to make us look crazy in the eyes of the voting public.

So do you support storage regulations?

The simple fact that we own guns is used to make us look crazy.

 

[Buck F]

So this thread is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. I say, essentially, the idea behind storage regulations isn’t crazy. A bunch of people go nuts on me, don’t really read what I said.

I read what you said a couple of times and some of it could easily be interpreted differently than you intended. I don't think you write as clearly as you think you do.

 

[Oley]

So do you support storage regulations?

The simple fact that we own guns is used to make us look crazy.

Hypothetically, I think it should be treated like speeding. If you get caught, no harm has been done, small fine, end of story. No loss of rights, etc. If it’s your 20th ticket and then you leave a gun on an elementary school playground and a kid gets killed, yeah, I think there should be a consequence there.

I know; but I’m saying this particular issue has the most dangerous teeth when it comes to ‘make us look crazy’ ammunition. Unlike simply owning them, or the other issues, I think the majority of politically moderate people in the US would see us as crazy for categorically refusing to acknowledge the issue.

 

[Oley]

I read what you said a couple of times and some of it could easily be interpreted differently than you intended. I don't think you write as clearly as you think you do.

Fair enough. Doing my best.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Hypothetically, I think it should be treated like speeding. If you get caught, no harm has been done, small fine, end of story. No loss of rights, etc. If it’s your 20th ticket and then you leave a gun on an elementary school playground and a kid gets killed, yeah, I think there should be a consequence there.

I know; but I’m saying this particular issue has the most dangerous teeth when it comes to ‘make us look crazy’ ammunition. Unlike simply owning them, or the other issues, I think the majority of politically moderate people in the US would see us as crazy for categorically refusing to acknowledge the issue.

You're still the only one claiming anyone says "safe storage" isn't smart. You're not the victim here.

 

[not new guy]

Hypothetically, I think it should be treated like speeding. If you get caught, no harm has been done, small fine, end of story. No loss of rights, etc. If it’s your 20th ticket and then you leave a gun on an elementary school playground and a kid gets killed, yeah, I think there should be a consequence there.

So you do support storage regulations. Do you support them because you believe that government should have a say in how guns are stored in private residences, or do you support them because you're worried what anti-gun people will think if you oppose them?

Bonus question: How about safe knife storage regulations? Or maybe something even crazier - just holding people responsible for their negligence that actually results in some sort of injury?

 

[Oley]

You're still the only one claiming anyone says "safe storage" isn't smart. You're not the victim here.

I’m not claiming that at all. I’m talking about how we approach things politically/strategically with gun grabbers. I can see how what I said could be misinterpreted.