Pete C. wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his
car secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we
are talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and
stealing a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon?
I'd love to hear the rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

In at least one state (probably others) there is a law holding the
gun owner responsible if the gun was not reasonably secured, with
exclusions for breaking and entering, etc. Basically if dad (or mom)
leaves their gun(s) in an unlocked cabinet (or comparable unsecured
location) in a home with children and the child takes the gun and
does something the parent is responsible (clear negligence anyway).
If the kid breaks into a locked cabinet and steals the gun, or a
burglar steals the gun the owner is not responsible. If a gun owner
leaves their gun(s) in an unlocked location in their home without
children they are fine as well since anyone gaining access would be
breaking and entering.

I was referring to the act of stealing a car, Pete. My state had a
similar law to the one you described above, and it was thrown out by
the state supreme court. A gun control group then rewrote the law as
an initiative, to account for the flaws in the law, and it was
trounced by 68% of the voters.

Seems a pretty reasonable law,

Maybe, or maybe not. It depends on if such a law causes the weapon
to become unusable for immediate protection. In my vehicle, I have a
digital safe. My Beretta 92F is kept in that safe with a loaded
magazine in an unlocked position in the handle. It provides security
for my weapon, but the digital combination allows near instant
access. It doesn't cripple my ability to deploy the weapon if needed.

though a bit redundant since anyone not
taking reasonable precautions to keep a potentially dangerous item
safe from unauthorized use would seem to be negligent anyway.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

I seem to recall that the law in question only applied to when the gun
was not in the owners immediate possession, i.e. in your holster. So
assuming you have a carry permit, it would be in your holster while
your in your vehicle. If it was stolen from the glove compartment of
your locked vehicle, it would still fall under the breaking and
entering type exception. Having it further locked is certainly a good
idea of course.

The law actually required trigger guards and lock boxes, with the ammunition
secured in a seperate location to the weapons

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com