Finally.. Its Here

[walkerwv]

HB21-1106 They LOVE weapons as long as they DON'T Work

[buffalobo]

HB21-1106 They LOVE weapons as long as they DON'T WorkLame post.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[buffalobo]

HB21-1106 Safe storage of Firearms

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb21-1106

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[buffalobo]

Lame bill.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[ray1970]

?A resident of the premises is ineligible to possess a firearm under state or federal law.?

So, if you can legally poses a firearm but someone living with you can?t then you can?t have a firearm in your residence?

[ray1970]

?The bill requires licensed gun dealers to provide with each firearm, at the time of a firearm sale or transfer, a locking device capable of securing the firearm. ?

Nice. Free gun safe with every firearm purchase.

[kidicarus13]

I'm sure the gun locks that all of us already have 35 of lying around will be provided free of charge by the dealers. No?

[Great-Kazoo]

?The bill requires licensed gun dealers to provide with each firearm, at the time of a firearm sale or transfer, a locking device capable of securing the firearm. ?

Nice. Free gun safe with every firearm purchase.

All new guns come with a gun lock. next.............

[ray1970]

All new guns come with a gun lock. next.............

Well I still want a free safe with every purchase.

Those silly locks don?t really ?secure? the firearm. Their wording not mine.

[TEAMRICO]

If you see a criminal with one of the gun locks dangling from the bottom of the trigger guard you know it is stolen!!!

[OctopusHighball]

It's "for the children", which is a phrase that instantly means I'll be against it, but just pushes all the right buttons for the suburban house wife set.

[XJ]

Remember last time when they pulled the safe storage bill because of whatever bullshit reason?

[eddiememphis]

It's "for the children", which is a phrase that instantly means I'll be against it, but just pushes all the right buttons for the suburban house wife set.

Similar to "if it saves only one life, isn't it worth it?"

Depending on the cost, sometimes no, it's not worth it.

[Eric P]

I secure my gun in my house by locking the doors and windows. Why am I to blame for a criminal breaking the law to enter my home?

Will not comply. Will not buy a safe. will not use trigger locks. Fvck the Dims and their blind stupidity and nonsense laws that protect no one, discriminate against the poor by adding another financial obstacle, and endanger the inner city dwellers as they pair back police funding.

[00tec]

Ain't no juveniles in my house, nor prohibited parties.

I would kinda figure that the prohibited party deal would already be a thing, but the juvenile (without any exceptions) is BS.

[nighterfighter]

I already posted about this elsewhere on a different website, but this is just victim blaming, and the victims are legal gun owners and the offenders are the criminals who broke into my house and stole my stuff.

It's literally no different than saying a woman deserved to get raped.

[00tec]

I already posted about this elsewhere on a different website, but this is just victim blaming, and the victims are legal gun owners and the offenders are the criminals who broke into my house and stole my stuff.

It's literally no different than saying a woman deserved to get raped.

The way this is presented, it wouldn't even punish you for a breakin, unless you left your house wide open, but it is so poorly written, who knows.

It says that of a prohibited party can access your gun, you have committed a misdemeanor, however, there are no descriptions of what is required to prevent that.
If an international jewel thief, fresh out of the penitentiary can pick/drill their way into your hi-point, you have committed a misdemeanor.

I have a feeling that there's a lot of ways this can be shot down

[nighterfighter]

The way this is presented, it wouldn't even punish you for a breakin, unless you left your house, but it I so poorly written, who knows.

It says that of a prohibited party can access your gun, you have committed a misdemeanor, however, there are no descriptions of what is required to prevent that.
If an international jewel thief, fresh out of the penitentiary can pick/drill their way into your hi-point, you have committed a misdemeanor.

I have a feeling that there's a lot of ways this can be shot down

It's also a gross 4th Amendment violation and unenforceable as written. Most likely it will be a tack-on charge.

[Rucker61]

It would seem that combining a safe storage law with mandatory theft reporting would require someone whose gun was stolen to incriminate themselves for failing to store a gun safely, which would run afoul of the 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination.

[Martinjmpr]

It would seem that combining a safe storage law with mandatory theft reporting would require someone whose gun was stolen to incriminate themselves for failing to store a gun safely, which would run afoul of the 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination.

IIRC there was a court decision some decades ago that effectively said that penalties for failing to register a firearm (in a jurisdiction where firearms were required to be registered) could not be assessed against convicted felons. The gist of the ruling was that since convicted felons are prohibited from owning firearms, requiring those convicted felons to register their (illegally owned) firearms would be tantamount to requiring them to testify against themselves in violation of the 5th amendment.

So in that jurisdiction, at least, convicted felons are the only ones who CAN'T be held criminally liable for failing to register their guns.

[Rucker61]

IIRC there was a court decision some decades ago that effectively said that penalties for failing to register a firearm (in a jurisdiction where firearms were required to be registered) could not be assessed against convicted felons. The gist of the ruling was that since convicted felons are prohibited from owning firearms, requiring those convicted felons to register their (illegally owned) firearms would be tantamount to requiring them to testify against themselves in violation of the 5th amendment.

So in that jurisdiction, at least, convicted felons are the only ones who CAN'T be held criminally liable for failing to register their guns.

Haynes v United States is the case you're referring to.

[00tec]

Goddamnit,
Now the Brady Campaign is airing "safe storage" commercials here. Just saw one.

[BPTactical]

I have a safe.
I store it in my house.
I have "Safe Storage".

[Martinjmpr]

The sad thing about laws like this is that they will actually DISCOURAGE people from reporting stolen firearms.

It's exactly the same thing that the illegal immigration activists say about asking questions about citizenship when people contact the police. The argument goes: If people are illegal and they are afraid of being questioned about their citizenship, they will simply not report domestic violence, rape, robbery, etc and as a result these crimes will go unpunished.

Same thing here - if somebody breaks into my house and steals a gun that is not locked up, I'm not going to report it because if I do, I'll be cited for having an unsecured firearm. So I'm better off keeping my mouth shut which means the police will not be notified of the stolen gun.

EDIT: Just reviewed the law in question. It's not quite as bad as I thought, it only prohibits unsecured storage of a firearm if the owner "knows or should know" a juvenile can access the firearm. It also seems to prohibit possession of a firearm by a resident of a home if another resident is prohibited from owning one.

As to the first provision, AFAIK there's no law against a juvenile possessing or even owning a firearm as long as it's not a handgun.

As to the second, I'd be interested in seeing a constitutional challenge to that. I don't see how you can deny the legitimate constitutional rights of one person simply because another person in the same household is prohibited from owning a firearm. That seems ripe for a challenge.