Responsible Gun Owners...NOT!

[Peglegjoe]

The biggest difference between guns stolen from cars and guns stolen from homes is that guns stolen from unattended cars is 100% preventable at no cost to the owner. Every year thousands of guns fall into the hands of criminals because of this preventable act. Make up as many scenarios that you want but in my opinion it is incredibly irresponsible to leave a gun in an unattended car.

It is irresponsible. Nobody is arguing that point with you.

Legislating against it, is where the disagreement is.

This is a common sense matter...not a legal or governmental (over-reach) matter.

You can't fix stupid...and the government needs to quit trying. They're not exactly playing with a full deck themselves...

 

[the obsrver]

The biggest difference between guns stolen from cars and guns stolen from homes is that guns stolen from unattended cars is 100% preventable at no cost to the owner. Every year thousands of guns fall into the hands of criminals because of this preventable act. Make up as many scenarios that you want but in my opinion it is incredibly irresponsible to leave a gun in an unattended car.

OK, but if a place wished to restrict or infringe on the 2nd, should they not be responsible and thus liable for the people parked or otherwise on their property? If you are infringing on someones legal right to carry and defend themselves should you not be responsible for their security? If you require them to leave their ability to defend themselves in their car. should you not be responsible for that firearm and possibly their car?
If someone breaks into your car sitting in your driveway does not your homeowners cover it? So shouldn't the same apply if you are required to leave your weapon in your car because someplace wishes to infringe on your legal right to carry it?

 

[jumpinjoe]

OK, but if a place wished to restrict or infringe on the 2nd, should they not be responsible and thus liable for the people parked or otherwise on their property? If you are infringing on someones legal right to carry and defend themselves should you not be responsible for their security? If you require them to leave their ability to defend themselves in their car. should you not be responsible for that firearm and possibly their car?
If someone breaks into your car sitting in your driveway does not your homeowners cover it? So shouldn't the same apply if you are required to leave your weapon in your car because someplace wishes to infringe on your legal right to carry it?

There's a line between 'infringement' and 'private property rules'. The first one is done by the gov't to the citizenry by way of regulation or legislation. The second applies to those who own private property and you want access to it wherein the owner can set his/her own rules pertaining to that property.

The private property owner is not infringing on your right to "keep and bear", only that you cannot bring it onto their property. A significant difference since we can choose to either not access their property or abide by their rules.

Your question regarding liability of places that forbid you carrying has been raised in several instances over the past few years but as far as I know has never actually been challenged nor settled. It may have, I'm just not aware.

 

[BobM]

OK, but if a place wished to restrict or infringe on the 2nd, should they not be responsible and thus liable for the people parked or otherwise on their property? If you are infringing on someones legal right to carry and defend themselves should you not be responsible for their security? If you require them to leave their ability to defend themselves in their car. should you not be responsible for that firearm and possibly their car?
If someone breaks into your car sitting in your driveway does not your homeowners cover it? So shouldn't the same apply if you are required to leave your weapon in your car because someplace wishes to infringe on your legal right to carry it?

That thought and liabilities incurred may open more doors for 2A rights? Generally speaking, if someone comes over as a guest, the host is responsible for guests welfare.

 

[the obsrver]

There's a line between 'infringement' and 'private property rules'. The first one is done by the gov't to the citizenry by way of regulation or legislation. The second applies to those who own private property and you want access to it wherein the owner can set his/her own rules pertaining to that property.

The private property owner is not infringing on your right to "keep and bear", only that you cannot bring it onto their property. A significant difference since we can choose to either not access their property or abide by their rules.

Your question regarding liability of places that forbid you carrying has been raised in several instances over the past few years but as far as I know has never actually been challenged nor settled. It may have, I'm just not aware.

Ok. So since a private property owner ( open to the public) can infringe on the 2nd amendment of a law abiding citizen to legally bear arms. Then a private property owner (open to the public) can also infringe on other amendments. Correct? Such as the right to choose who you allow on your property based on color, sex or religion? As a business owner and private property owner (that is open to the public) or government (5th and 14th) a person, business owner or government should be able to discriminate in hiring as well as who they allow on their property?
If you as a property owner, business owner or government can infringe on the 2nd amendment why not other amendments as well?

 

[the obsrver]

That thought and liabilities incurred may open more doors for 2A rights? Generally speaking, if someone comes over as a guest, the host is responsible for guests welfare.

There is a lawsuit here for that exact thing. If you are not going to allow someone to legally carry, you assume the responsibility of their security.

 

[ghosttwofive]

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, while taking a walk in B&E report to a vehicle, the owner of the vehicle actually told me "I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO LOCK MY VEHICLE! I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING MY CAR BROKEN INTO." "Ma'am, your car wasn't broken into, you left all four doors unlocked." "THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM IS THE POLICE NOT BEING THERE WHEN WE NEED THEM!" "The police can't everywhere all the time ma'am, there are not that many police officers." "THAT'S NOT AN EXCUSE! I'M GOING TO MOVE SOMEWHERE WHERE I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THESE THINGS HAPPENING IF I DECIDE TO LEAVE MY CAR DOOR OPEN!!!!" Under my breath on the way back to my desk I suggested maybe moving to Mayberry circa de 1950.....lol

 

[the obsrver]

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, while taking a walk in B&E report to a vehicle, the owner of the vehicle actually told me "I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO LOCK MY VEHICLE! I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING MY CAR BROKEN INTO." "Ma'am, your car wasn't broken into, you left all four doors unlocked." "THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM IS THE POLICE NOT BEING THERE WHEN WE NEED THEM!" "The police can't everywhere all the time ma'am, there are not that many police officers." "THAT'S NOT AN EXCUSE! I'M GOING TO MOVE SOMEWHERE WHERE I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THESE THINGS HAPPENING IF I DECIDE TO LEAVE MY CAR DOOR OPEN!!!!" Under my breath on the way back to my desk I suggested maybe moving to Mayberry circa de 1950.....lol

I see your point, but I see hers as well. The police can not be everywhere. People need to try and be preventative.
However as she said if there was not criminals people would not need to lock their doors. We can not blame the innocent for the actions of criminals. If we do we are in real trouble. You can not blame the person who works and invests, just to find out that the person they trusted to look after their investment embezzled it all. It is indeed the criminals fault ALWAYS. Even if we think the victim is a little naive.

 

[Peglegjoe]

Personal Responsibility.

That is the beginning and the end of it. Take care of yourself, because nobody else will. If something goes wrong...it's your own damn fault. The upside to that? When you're a success, you don't have to share credit with anyone.

 

[BobM]

Ok. So since a private property owner ( open to the public) can infringe on the 2nd amendment of a law abiding citizen to legally bear arms. Then a private property owner (open to the public) can also infringe on other amendments. Correct? Such as the right to choose who you allow on your property based on color, sex or religion? As a business owner and private property owner (that is open to the public) or government (5th and 14th) a person, business owner or government should be able to discriminate in hiring as well as who they allow on their property?
If you as a property owner, business owner or government can infringe on the 2nd amendment why not other amendments as well?

Exactly. Is a house of cards waiting to fall?
But? We also have rights not to go most places too?
A local Dick's Sporting goods for example, parking lot is almost bare.
So, for business's open to public? Anti 2nd Amendment? Likely more lawsuits? Or?

 

[jfmorris]

The only time I leave a weapon in my *LOCKED* vehicle is if I have to park and go inside some place that I cannot carry - the court house for example. Its locked up inside a locked up car though. I would never leave it in my own driveway overnight, locked or unlocked. Heck, some teenagers tried to break into my car a few years ago, leading me to install a Ring floodlight camera over the garage. The kids were unsuccessful, but did manage to knock a hole in my drivers door with a hammer and screw driver, and disconnect the door lock linkage.

 

[BobM]

The only time I leave a weapon in my *LOCKED* vehicle is if I have to park and go inside some place that I cannot carry - the court house for example. Its locked up inside a locked up car though. I would never leave it in my own driveway overnight, locked or unlocked. Heck, some teenagers tried to break into my car a few years ago, leading me to install a Ring floodlight camera over the garage. The kids were unsuccessful, but did manage to knock a hole in my drivers door with a hammer and screw driver, and disconnect the door lock linkage.

Same situation here.

 

[the obsrver]

The only time I leave a weapon in my *LOCKED* vehicle is if I have to park and go inside some place that I cannot carry - the court house for example. Its locked up inside a locked up car though. I would never leave it in my own driveway overnight, locked or unlocked. Heck, some teenagers tried to break into my car a few years ago, leading me to install a Ring floodlight camera over the garage. The kids were unsuccessful, but did manage to knock a hole in my drivers door with a hammer and screw driver, and disconnect the door lock linkage.

I agree, that is the wise thing to do.
This does go back to my other point though, police stations and other government buildings have all sorts of security devices and armed personnel. They have cameras covering everything, they have metal detectors and numerous other security measures. The combination of those measures leads to a reasonable taking of responsibility for the people on the properties security, including their vehicles in the parking lot.
The simple answer is to not infringe.
You go to vegas with a million dollars and they will provide you with a safe, security and have everything on camera. You let a valet take your car and they assume responsibility for it.
You are in government or rich and you do not carry, because you are assigned or pay for someone else to assume that responsibility.

Exactly. Is a house of cards waiting to fall?
But? We also have rights not to go most places too?
A local Dick's Sporting goods for example, parking lot is almost bare.
So, for business's open to public? Anti 2nd Amendment? Likely more lawsuits? Or?

Well, it would seem that certain people and groups have been using our own laws against us for a long time, it is about time we catch up and win some ourselves. I can not remember the subject matter off hand, but about 6-8 months ago I was reading something and said to my wife "look, they are using our own laws and system against us".

 

[uspatriot1960]

Some people need to realize that every person's situations are different. Some people are faced with options of which neither option is optimal. Sometimes, leaving the house with a firearm to go somewhere that you know a firearm is not welcome is a necessity. To travel to a part of town without being armed would be unadvisable. But part of that trip entails not being able to carry the firearm inside. Is it more irresponsible to put myself in danger on the way to or leaving that place than it is to leave the firearm locked inside a locked car? What would happen if one pulled up to a stop light and was confronted by some neerdowells with no way to defend themselves because they left their firearm at home knowing they couldn't take it into their destination? Or on the way to the no firearm destination, had to make a stop for something else or for gas and was without firearm?

I am in the ATM business. There are times I have to go to more than one location to service an ATM. One location may allow firearms, while the next one doesn't. I have ATMs in downtown Atlanta and work and live around 40 miles north of there. I am not going to leave my firearm at home or in the office to make this trip and be unarmed the whole time, including at the location I can take my firearm in with me, just because one of the locations does not allow firearms. That would be stupid. And I'm not driving 40 miles one way to go to the location where I can take my firearm inside, then driving 40 miles back to the office to leave my firearm inside and driving 40 miles each way just to go to the location that will not allow firearms.

I'm all for firearms safety, but sometimes risks must be taken. Do I take a risk with my own life and safety or do I take a risk of someone stealing my firearm that is locked inside a locked car for a short period of time?

I know the answer for me...

 

[BobM]

Some people need to realize that every person's situations are different. Some people are faced with options of which neither option is optimal. Sometimes, leaving the house with a firearm to go somewhere that you know a firearm is not welcome is a necessity. To travel to a part of town without being armed would be unadvisable. But part of that trip entails not being able to carry the firearm inside. Is it more irresponsible to put myself in danger on the way to or leaving that place than it is to leave the firearm locked inside a locked car? What would happen if one pulled up to a stop light and was confronted by some neerdowells with no way to defend themselves because they left their firearm at home knowing they couldn't take it into their destination? Or on the way to the no firearm destination, had to make a stop for something else or for gas and was without firearm?

I am in the ATM business. There are times I have to go to more than one location to service an ATM. One location may allow firearms, while the next one doesn't. I have ATMs in downtown Atlanta and work and live around 40 miles north of there. I am not going to leave my firearm at home or in the office to make this trip and be unarmed the whole time, including at the location I can take my firearm in with me, just because one of the locations does not allow firearms. That would be stupid. And I'm not driving 40 miles one way to go to the location where I can take my firearm inside, then driving 40 miles back to the office to leave my firearm inside and driving 40 miles each way just to go to the location that will not allow firearms.

I'm all for firearms safety, but sometimes risks must be taken. Do I take a risk with my own life and safety or do I take a risk of someone stealing my firearm that is locked inside a locked car for a short period of time?

I know the answer for me...

Servicing ATM's? In many places it's legal carrying in that situation and in others it should be. If you haven't already, would check into that further. For example, armored truck couriers normally carry.

When going to court house here, just check in any weapons like guns or knives at metal detectors, they secure them for you and you pick them up on way out. Better than leaving in locked vehicle, but that's here. Like you stated, many different situations in different places and scenarios.

 

[Peglegjoe]

I - a white, straight, Christian male - went for surgery last week.

In Baltimore.

Where I - as a white, straight, Christian male - am "the enemy".

A friend drove me, in my vehicle. She - a straight, white, Christian female - is a cancer survivor and weighs about 64 lbs soaking wet and fully clothed. We arrived at Hopkins at 05:30. It was maybe 45 degrees and drizzling out. People - LOTS of people, not just one or two - were sitting on front stoops, or on benches all along the sidewalks. Not businesspeople waiting for a bus, either - not a suit and tie among them.

My Hellcat was on my hip on the way in.

My friend is an accomplished marksman and fighter (her specialty in the day was swords), so I made sure she had an RFID key to the safe under the seat (attached with a metal security cable, to the seat frame).

When I exited the vehicle to the hospital, the Hellcat went into the RFID safe, and got slid under the seat where she could reach it if needed (but locked up, as she is without a carry permit).

If it's not on my body...it's locked in a safe. Living room or automotive...it gets strapped on, or locked up.

 

[the obsrver]

Some people need to realize that every person's situations are different. Some people are faced with options of which neither option is optimal. Sometimes, leaving the house with a firearm to go somewhere that you know a firearm is not welcome is a necessity. To travel to a part of town without being armed would be unadvisable. But part of that trip entails not being able to carry the firearm inside. Is it more irresponsible to put myself in danger on the way to or leaving that place than it is to leave the firearm locked inside a locked car? What would happen if one pulled up to a stop light and was confronted by some neerdowells with no way to defend themselves because they left their firearm at home knowing they couldn't take it into their destination? Or on the way to the no firearm destination, had to make a stop for something else or for gas and was without firearm?

I am in the ATM business. There are times I have to go to more than one location to service an ATM. One location may allow firearms, while the next one doesn't. I have ATMs in downtown Atlanta and work and live around 40 miles north of there. I am not going to leave my firearm at home or in the office to make this trip and be unarmed the whole time, including at the location I can take my firearm in with me, just because one of the locations does not allow firearms. That would be stupid. And I'm not driving 40 miles one way to go to the location where I can take my firearm inside, then driving 40 miles back to the office to leave my firearm inside and driving 40 miles each way just to go to the location that will not allow firearms.

I'm all for firearms safety, but sometimes risks must be taken. Do I take a risk with my own life and safety or do I take a risk of someone stealing my firearm that is locked inside a locked car for a short period of time?

I know the answer for me...

Yeah that is a pickle.
Just because a place says it is their rule that you can not carry does not make it a law. Most they can do is call the police and they are going to show up and ask you to leave the property.
HOWEVER, what happens when your job depends on being able to be on that property? That is a problem.
Again I say that if they wish to make a rule that infringes, they then assume responsibility for the security of the people they wish to infringe on.

 

[jumpinjoe]

Ok. So since a private property owner ( open to the public) can infringe on the 2nd amendment of a law abiding citizen to legally bear arms. Then a private property owner (open to the public) can also infringe on other amendments. Correct? Such as the right to choose who you allow on your property based on color, sex or religion? As a business owner and private property owner (that is open to the public) or government (5th and 14th) a person, business owner or government should be able to discriminate in hiring as well as who they allow on their property?
If you as a property owner, business owner or government can infringe on the 2nd amendment why not other amendments as well?

No, a property owner cannot "discriminate" based on sex, religion, race, and several other qualifiers, however they can set rules for all such as "No shirt, no service", "No Smoking", etc, etc, because that is not discrimination, it's a rule.

Where discrimination impacts only a certain individual or segment, rules cover everyone so there is no discrimination. Maybe a fine line, but not a line that can be successfully argued in the law.

Much the same as a rule to limit one's speech. You have a right to free/protected speech in affront to the gov't, but not necessarily to an individual person/property owner. Again that doesn't make it an infringement of your 1st amendment rights since it's personal and your 1st amendment protections are directed at and toward the gov't. And there are many limits to that free speech directed to certain groups based on sex, race, religion, etc.

 

[the obsrver]

Servicing ATM's? In many places it's legal carrying in that situation and in others it should be. If you haven't already, would check into that further. For example, armored truck couriers normally carry.

When going to court house here, just check in any weapons like guns or knives at metal detectors, they secure them for you and you pick them up on way out. Better than leaving in locked vehicle, but that's here. Like you stated, many different situations in different places and scenarios.

EXACTLY. They take security responsibility for you and your weapon.

 

[BobM]

Yeah that is a pickle.
Just because a place says it is their rule that you can not carry does not make it a law. Most they can do is call the police and they are going to show up and ask you to leave the property.
HOWEVER, what happens when your job depends on being able to be on that property? That is a problem.
Again I say that if they wish to make a rule that infringes, they then assume responsibility for the security of the people they wish to infringe on.

Have noticed some places stating "No firearms or smoking within 75' of their property."
Usually unenforceable on public property or anothers private property, but yet still they persist and post?