(02-18-2019 12:57 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 12:49 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 11:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  He never received his CCW. His FOID card (unique to Illinois) is what was revoked.

I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

Constitutional rights exist without due process. Someone convicted later has received due process and lost his rights. There should be a means to 'store' them, but they have received due process.

He could lie certainly... just like any other criminal... and they could do a search etc etc etc and if they don't find it, they've at least tried. Nothing is 100%. I just want our efforts to reduce gun crimes to focus on criminals rather than turning law abiding citizens INTO criminals.

If we banned guns, how many otherwise law abiding citizens do you think would 'lie' and keep their guns? I'm betting tens of millions. Some violently

I certainly fully support better enforcement of existing gun laws - I can't imagine anyone would argue that point.
However, that does not negate the need for some additional regulation (and effective enforcement of that as well).

For example - this article from the Tennessean/Commercial Appeal/whatever you want to call the hot mess Gannett conglomerate:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...871666002/

In case you are locked out of it, the gist:

Nashville saw a 70 percent increase in firearms stolen from vehicles between 2016 and 2018, when there were 659 reported thefts of one or more guns from cars and trucks, according to Metro police.

Statewide, there was an 85 percent increase in guns stolen from cars and trucks in a two-year period from 2016 to 2017, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

******

In 2013, the Tennessee legislature approved what is called the "guns in trunks" law, which made it legal for valid permit holders to keep handguns in cars and trucks parked in public and at private employer-owned parking lots.

In 2014, lawmakers went further, enacting a law that allows legal gun owners to keep loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles in their cars without a state handgun carry permit.

Before the 2014 measure, only those with state-issued handgun carry permits could legally keep loaded firearms in vehicles. Owners of long guns, including hunting rifles, who don't need a permit to carry those firearms in their vehicles, were not allowed to keep them loaded before the 2014 law.

In December, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings urged state lawmakers to act, saying the gun laws have led to the "unintended consequence" of an increase in weapons left in cars by their owners, then stolen — and a corresponding spike in violent crime. Rallings said he would like the laws repealed.

Firearm thefts from vehicles in Memphis have increased by 256 percent since 2013, according to the city's police.


Why should there not be some kind of punishment for people who are being irresponsible with their guns, leading to them being stolen and/or crimes being committed with them?
That in no way means that the criminals themselves should not be fully punished for both the theft AND any crimes committed.

So, let me get this straight. You want people punished if someone robs them?? If a robber then commits a crime with what they stole, the original victim should be punished?? That about right?

I take it that if some thief steals a car, gets chased by cops - then has an accident where they T-Bone some other innocent - you want the original car owner punished? What's different from this scenario than the gun one??

It's a two-fold attack on gun rights.

The first is the same old hassle that hoplophobes want to impose on gun owners. Make it to where you have to jump through so many hoops to own firearms that people just decide it's not worth jumping through the ever increasing hoops.

The second is the fact that a law such as this makes concealed carry just about impossible. With the number of places where firearms are not allowed where exactly is a gun owner supposed to keep their everyday carry?

(02-18-2019 01:50 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 01:05 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 12:49 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

Constitutional rights exist without due process. Someone convicted later has received due process and lost his rights. There should be a means to 'store' them, but they have received due process.

He could lie certainly... just like any other criminal... and they could do a search etc etc etc and if they don't find it, they've at least tried. Nothing is 100%. I just want our efforts to reduce gun crimes to focus on criminals rather than turning law abiding citizens INTO criminals.

If we banned guns, how many otherwise law abiding citizens do you think would 'lie' and keep their guns? I'm betting tens of millions. Some violently

I certainly fully support better enforcement of existing gun laws - I can't imagine anyone would argue that point.
However, that does not negate the need for some additional regulation (and effective enforcement of that as well).

For example - this article from the Tennessean/Commercial Appeal/whatever you want to call the hot mess Gannett conglomerate:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...871666002/

In case you are locked out of it, the gist:

Nashville saw a 70 percent increase in firearms stolen from vehicles between 2016 and 2018, when there were 659 reported thefts of one or more guns from cars and trucks, according to Metro police.

Statewide, there was an 85 percent increase in guns stolen from cars and trucks in a two-year period from 2016 to 2017, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

******

In 2013, the Tennessee legislature approved what is called the "guns in trunks" law, which made it legal for valid permit holders to keep handguns in cars and trucks parked in public and at private employer-owned parking lots.

In 2014, lawmakers went further, enacting a law that allows legal gun owners to keep loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles in their cars without a state handgun carry permit.

Before the 2014 measure, only those with state-issued handgun carry permits could legally keep loaded firearms in vehicles. Owners of long guns, including hunting rifles, who don't need a permit to carry those firearms in their vehicles, were not allowed to keep them loaded before the 2014 law.

In December, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings urged state lawmakers to act, saying the gun laws have led to the "unintended consequence" of an increase in weapons left in cars by their owners, then stolen — and a corresponding spike in violent crime. Rallings said he would like the laws repealed.

Firearm thefts from vehicles in Memphis have increased by 256 percent since 2013, according to the city's police.


Why should there not be some kind of punishment for people who are being irresponsible with their guns, leading to them being stolen and/or crimes being committed with them?
That in no way means that the criminals themselves should not be fully punished for both the theft AND any crimes committed.

Who draws that line? Does someone get in trouble if someone steals a gun from their home? So a criminal commits two crimes against two separate people and you want to punish the first victim? If your gun is on your property, whether it be your vehicle or your home, someone still has to commit a CRIME to take it.

I don't think this should extend to the home. I think out in public is where the line gets drawn.

This article specifically refers to vehicle thefts. If someone is going to choose to be careless enough to leave their gun in an unlocked (and in some cases according to the article, running??) car, then yes - I think they should have some consequences, whether it be a fine, suspending their gun permit for a period of time, etc.

What if the car is locked?

Again, if a thief steals a car and hits someone with it, should the victim be punished because their car was stolen? What makes this different than them stealing a gun?

(02-18-2019 02:13 PM)Crebman Wrote:  What if the car is locked?

Again, if a thief steals a car and hits someone with it, should the victim be punished because their car was stolen? What makes this different than them stealing a gun?

If the car is locked & the gun is out of plain sight (i.e. glove compartment/console), I don't think the owner should be punished. IMO that's a (legal in TN) reasonable expectation of responsibility if you're not going to keep your gun on your person.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that the laws have been relaxed to allow guns to be left in cars, but it is what it is. If that's legal, then there needs to some kind of reasonable expectation of responsibility with it - leaving your car unlocked with a gun in it is NOT responsible by any stretch of the imagination.

(02-18-2019 02:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 12:57 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 12:49 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

Constitutional rights exist without due process. Someone convicted later has received due process and lost his rights. There should be a means to 'store' them, but they have received due process.

He could lie certainly... just like any other criminal... and they could do a search etc etc etc and if they don't find it, they've at least tried. Nothing is 100%. I just want our efforts to reduce gun crimes to focus on criminals rather than turning law abiding citizens INTO criminals.

If we banned guns, how many otherwise law abiding citizens do you think would 'lie' and keep their guns? I'm betting tens of millions. Some violently

I certainly fully support better enforcement of existing gun laws - I can't imagine anyone would argue that point.
However, that does not negate the need for some additional regulation (and effective enforcement of that as well).

For example - this article from the Tennessean/Commercial Appeal/whatever you want to call the hot mess Gannett conglomerate:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...871666002/

In case you are locked out of it, the gist:

Nashville saw a 70 percent increase in firearms stolen from vehicles between 2016 and 2018, when there were 659 reported thefts of one or more guns from cars and trucks, according to Metro police.

Statewide, there was an 85 percent increase in guns stolen from cars and trucks in a two-year period from 2016 to 2017, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

******

In 2013, the Tennessee legislature approved what is called the "guns in trunks" law, which made it legal for valid permit holders to keep handguns in cars and trucks parked in public and at private employer-owned parking lots.

In 2014, lawmakers went further, enacting a law that allows legal gun owners to keep loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles in their cars without a state handgun carry permit.

Before the 2014 measure, only those with state-issued handgun carry permits could legally keep loaded firearms in vehicles. Owners of long guns, including hunting rifles, who don't need a permit to carry those firearms in their vehicles, were not allowed to keep them loaded before the 2014 law.

In December, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings urged state lawmakers to act, saying the gun laws have led to the "unintended consequence" of an increase in weapons left in cars by their owners, then stolen — and a corresponding spike in violent crime. Rallings said he would like the laws repealed.

Firearm thefts from vehicles in Memphis have increased by 256 percent since 2013, according to the city's police.


Why should there not be some kind of punishment for people who are being irresponsible with their guns, leading to them being stolen and/or crimes being committed with them?
That in no way means that the criminals themselves should not be fully punished for both the theft AND any crimes committed.

So, let me get this straight. You want people punished if someone robs them?? If a robber then commits a crime with what they stole, the original victim should be punished?? That about right?

I take it that if some thief steals a car, gets chased by cops - then has an accident where they T-Bone some other innocent - you want the original car owner punished? What's different from this scenario than the gun one??

It's a two-fold attack on gun rights.

The first is the same old hassle that hoplophobes want to impose on gun owners. Make it to where you have to jump through so many hoops to own firearms that people just decide it's not worth jumping through the ever increasing hoops.

The second is the fact that a law such as this makes concealed carry just about impossible. With the number of places where firearms are not allowed where exactly is a gun owner supposed to keep their everyday carry?

It's not an "attack on gun rights." It's a reasonable expectation that if you are responsible enough to own a gun, that you store it and secure it properly, ESPECIALLY out in public.

(02-18-2019 02:18 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 02:13 PM)Crebman Wrote:  What if the car is locked?

Again, if a thief steals a car and hits someone with it, should the victim be punished because their car was stolen? What makes this different than them stealing a gun?

If the car is locked & the gun is out of plain sight (i.e. glove compartment/console), I don't think the owner should be punished. IMO that's a (legal in TN) reasonable expectation of responsibility if you're not going to keep your gun on your person.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that the laws have been relaxed to allow guns to be left in cars, but it is what it is. If that's legal, then there needs to some kind of reasonable expectation of responsibility with it - leaving your car unlocked with a gun in it is NOT responsible by any stretch of the imagination.

That's a lot more fair that your initial "punish the victim of a theft" from earlier. I'm actually okay with if a person keeps a gun in their car, and they park it, they have to lock the car and put the gun out of sight.....

(02-18-2019 02:22 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 02:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 12:57 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 12:49 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Constitutional rights exist without due process. Someone convicted later has received due process and lost his rights. There should be a means to 'store' them, but they have received due process.

He could lie certainly... just like any other criminal... and they could do a search etc etc etc and if they don't find it, they've at least tried. Nothing is 100%. I just want our efforts to reduce gun crimes to focus on criminals rather than turning law abiding citizens INTO criminals.

If we banned guns, how many otherwise law abiding citizens do you think would 'lie' and keep their guns? I'm betting tens of millions. Some violently

I certainly fully support better enforcement of existing gun laws - I can't imagine anyone would argue that point.
However, that does not negate the need for some additional regulation (and effective enforcement of that as well).

For example - this article from the Tennessean/Commercial Appeal/whatever you want to call the hot mess Gannett conglomerate:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...871666002/

In case you are locked out of it, the gist:

Nashville saw a 70 percent increase in firearms stolen from vehicles between 2016 and 2018, when there were 659 reported thefts of one or more guns from cars and trucks, according to Metro police.

Statewide, there was an 85 percent increase in guns stolen from cars and trucks in a two-year period from 2016 to 2017, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

******

In 2013, the Tennessee legislature approved what is called the "guns in trunks" law, which made it legal for valid permit holders to keep handguns in cars and trucks parked in public and at private employer-owned parking lots.

In 2014, lawmakers went further, enacting a law that allows legal gun owners to keep loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles in their cars without a state handgun carry permit.

Before the 2014 measure, only those with state-issued handgun carry permits could legally keep loaded firearms in vehicles. Owners of long guns, including hunting rifles, who don't need a permit to carry those firearms in their vehicles, were not allowed to keep them loaded before the 2014 law.

In December, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings urged state lawmakers to act, saying the gun laws have led to the "unintended consequence" of an increase in weapons left in cars by their owners, then stolen — and a corresponding spike in violent crime. Rallings said he would like the laws repealed.

Firearm thefts from vehicles in Memphis have increased by 256 percent since 2013, according to the city's police.


Why should there not be some kind of punishment for people who are being irresponsible with their guns, leading to them being stolen and/or crimes being committed with them?
That in no way means that the criminals themselves should not be fully punished for both the theft AND any crimes committed.

So, let me get this straight. You want people punished if someone robs them?? If a robber then commits a crime with what they stole, the original victim should be punished?? That about right?

I take it that if some thief steals a car, gets chased by cops - then has an accident where they T-Bone some other innocent - you want the original car owner punished? What's different from this scenario than the gun one??

It's a two-fold attack on gun rights.

The first is the same old hassle that hoplophobes want to impose on gun owners. Make it to where you have to jump through so many hoops to own firearms that people just decide it's not worth jumping through the ever increasing hoops.

The second is the fact that a law such as this makes concealed carry just about impossible. With the number of places where firearms are not allowed where exactly is a gun owner supposed to keep their everyday carry?

It's not an "attack on gun rights." It's a reasonable expectation that if you are responsible enough to own a gun, that you store it and secure it properly, ESPECIALLY out in public.

Sure...


So what's the percentage of guns stolen from cars then used in the commission of a crime again?

(02-18-2019 01:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 01:50 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 01:05 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 12:49 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Constitutional rights exist without due process. Someone convicted later has received due process and lost his rights. There should be a means to 'store' them, but they have received due process.

He could lie certainly... just like any other criminal... and they could do a search etc etc etc and if they don't find it, they've at least tried. Nothing is 100%. I just want our efforts to reduce gun crimes to focus on criminals rather than turning law abiding citizens INTO criminals.

If we banned guns, how many otherwise law abiding citizens do you think would 'lie' and keep their guns? I'm betting tens of millions. Some violently

I certainly fully support better enforcement of existing gun laws - I can't imagine anyone would argue that point.
However, that does not negate the need for some additional regulation (and effective enforcement of that as well).

For example - this article from the Tennessean/Commercial Appeal/whatever you want to call the hot mess Gannett conglomerate:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...871666002/

In case you are locked out of it, the gist:

Nashville saw a 70 percent increase in firearms stolen from vehicles between 2016 and 2018, when there were 659 reported thefts of one or more guns from cars and trucks, according to Metro police.

Statewide, there was an 85 percent increase in guns stolen from cars and trucks in a two-year period from 2016 to 2017, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

******

In 2013, the Tennessee legislature approved what is called the "guns in trunks" law, which made it legal for valid permit holders to keep handguns in cars and trucks parked in public and at private employer-owned parking lots.

In 2014, lawmakers went further, enacting a law that allows legal gun owners to keep loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles in their cars without a state handgun carry permit.

Before the 2014 measure, only those with state-issued handgun carry permits could legally keep loaded firearms in vehicles. Owners of long guns, including hunting rifles, who don't need a permit to carry those firearms in their vehicles, were not allowed to keep them loaded before the 2014 law.

In December, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings urged state lawmakers to act, saying the gun laws have led to the "unintended consequence" of an increase in weapons left in cars by their owners, then stolen — and a corresponding spike in violent crime. Rallings said he would like the laws repealed.

Firearm thefts from vehicles in Memphis have increased by 256 percent since 2013, according to the city's police.


Why should there not be some kind of punishment for people who are being irresponsible with their guns, leading to them being stolen and/or crimes being committed with them?
That in no way means that the criminals themselves should not be fully punished for both the theft AND any crimes committed.

Who draws that line? Does someone get in trouble if someone steals a gun from their home? So a criminal commits two crimes against two separate people and you want to punish the first victim? If your gun is on your property, whether it be your vehicle or your home, someone still has to commit a CRIME to take it.

I don't think this should extend to the home. I think out in public is where the line gets drawn.

This article specifically refers to vehicle thefts. If someone is going to choose to be careless enough to leave their gun in an unlocked (and in some cases according to the article, running??) car, then yes - I think they should have some consequences, whether it be a fine, suspending their gun permit for a period of time, etc.

What percentage of gun crime is committed with firearms stolen from vehicles?

I'v been trying to find that statistic, but it doesn't seem the ATF tracks the difference between stolen from a home or a vehicle.

This has come under the light because the Nashville musician that was killed by those kids was killed with a gun stolen from a car.

As a responsible gun owner, I do think there should be a fine if your weapon is stolen from your vehicle. I know that's what the left would call "victim shaming" but with I think it should be part of the responsibility of a gun owner to do everything they can to make sure their weapon isn't used for wrong.

There are of course circumstances where the judge can elect not to levy a fine. If you can't bring your CC in a location you are going you obviously have to leave it in the car and that shouldn't result in a punishment. A law like this should be directed at people leaving the guns in a car overnight parked unlocked in their driveway.

(02-18-2019 02:30 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 01:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 01:50 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 01:05 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 12:49 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  I certainly fully support better enforcement of existing gun laws - I can't imagine anyone would argue that point.
However, that does not negate the need for some additional regulation (and effective enforcement of that as well).

For example - this article from the Tennessean/Commercial Appeal/whatever you want to call the hot mess Gannett conglomerate:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...871666002/

In case you are locked out of it, the gist:

Nashville saw a 70 percent increase in firearms stolen from vehicles between 2016 and 2018, when there were 659 reported thefts of one or more guns from cars and trucks, according to Metro police.

Statewide, there was an 85 percent increase in guns stolen from cars and trucks in a two-year period from 2016 to 2017, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

******

In 2013, the Tennessee legislature approved what is called the "guns in trunks" law, which made it legal for valid permit holders to keep handguns in cars and trucks parked in public and at private employer-owned parking lots.

In 2014, lawmakers went further, enacting a law that allows legal gun owners to keep loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles in their cars without a state handgun carry permit.

Before the 2014 measure, only those with state-issued handgun carry permits could legally keep loaded firearms in vehicles. Owners of long guns, including hunting rifles, who don't need a permit to carry those firearms in their vehicles, were not allowed to keep them loaded before the 2014 law.

In December, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings urged state lawmakers to act, saying the gun laws have led to the "unintended consequence" of an increase in weapons left in cars by their owners, then stolen — and a corresponding spike in violent crime. Rallings said he would like the laws repealed.

Firearm thefts from vehicles in Memphis have increased by 256 percent since 2013, according to the city's police.


Why should there not be some kind of punishment for people who are being irresponsible with their guns, leading to them being stolen and/or crimes being committed with them?
That in no way means that the criminals themselves should not be fully punished for both the theft AND any crimes committed.

Who draws that line? Does someone get in trouble if someone steals a gun from their home? So a criminal commits two crimes against two separate people and you want to punish the first victim? If your gun is on your property, whether it be your vehicle or your home, someone still has to commit a CRIME to take it.

I don't think this should extend to the home. I think out in public is where the line gets drawn.

This article specifically refers to vehicle thefts. If someone is going to choose to be careless enough to leave their gun in an unlocked (and in some cases according to the article, running??) car, then yes - I think they should have some consequences, whether it be a fine, suspending their gun permit for a period of time, etc.

What percentage of gun crime is committed with firearms stolen from vehicles?

I'v been trying to find that statistic, but it doesn't seem the ATF tracks the difference between stolen from a home or a vehicle.

This has come under the light because the Nashville musician that was killed by those kids was killed with a gun stolen from a car.

As a responsible gun owner, I do think there should be a fine if your weapon is stolen from your vehicle. I know that's what the left would call "victim shaming" but with I think it should be part of the responsibility of a gun owner to do everything they can to make sure their weapon isn't used for wrong.

There are of course circumstances where the judge can elect not to levy a fine. If you can't bring your CC in a location you are going you obviously have to leave it in the car and that shouldn't result in a punishment. A law like this should be directed at people leaving the guns in a car overnight parked unlocked in their driveway.

Are you in favor of other version of victim shaming? Like has been mentioned earlier when someone steals your car and kills someone in a wreck?

This is just the hoplophobe's version of "What do you expect when you dress slutty"

My great uncle would become a criminal because he keeps shotguns in each of his vehicles in order to protect his cows and goats from coyotes?

Until someone can show me some real statistics that this is a real problem and not yet another hoplophobe fantasy designed to create yet another burden upon people who wish to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms.

(02-18-2019 02:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 02:30 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 01:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 01:50 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 01:05 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Who draws that line? Does someone get in trouble if someone steals a gun from their home? So a criminal commits two crimes against two separate people and you want to punish the first victim? If your gun is on your property, whether it be your vehicle or your home, someone still has to commit a CRIME to take it.

I don't think this should extend to the home. I think out in public is where the line gets drawn.

This article specifically refers to vehicle thefts. If someone is going to choose to be careless enough to leave their gun in an unlocked (and in some cases according to the article, running??) car, then yes - I think they should have some consequences, whether it be a fine, suspending their gun permit for a period of time, etc.

What percentage of gun crime is committed with firearms stolen from vehicles?

I'v been trying to find that statistic, but it doesn't seem the ATF tracks the difference between stolen from a home or a vehicle.

This has come under the light because the Nashville musician that was killed by those kids was killed with a gun stolen from a car.

As a responsible gun owner, I do think there should be a fine if your weapon is stolen from your vehicle. I know that's what the left would call "victim shaming" but with I think it should be part of the responsibility of a gun owner to do everything they can to make sure their weapon isn't used for wrong.

There are of course circumstances where the judge can elect not to levy a fine. If you can't bring your CC in a location you are going you obviously have to leave it in the car and that shouldn't result in a punishment. A law like this should be directed at people leaving the guns in a car overnight parked unlocked in their driveway.

Are you in favor of other version of victim shaming? Like has been mentioned earlier when someone steals your car and kills someone in a wreck?

This is just the hoplophobe's version of "What do you expect when you dress slutty"

My great uncle would become a criminal because he keeps shotguns in each of his vehicles in order to protect his cows and goats from coyotes?

Until someone can show me some real statistics that this is a real problem and not yet another hoplophobe fantasy designed to create yet another burden upon people who wish to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms.

It's all about context. If your locked car is stolen and used in a crime, you could say you did everything a responsible car owner could to prevent that circumstance. If your car is stolen and used in a crime because you left it running while you ran into the gas station, maybe you should be held responsible, not for the crime committed, but for failing to secure your property.

Context can be further extended to your uncle. He has a reason for keeping his guns in his vehicle and I'm going to wager where he lives is probably not a high probability of some thug breaking into his trucks and stealing his guns. He is taking all reasonable measures to ensure his property is secured. That circumstance is completely different than someone leaving their handgun in an unlocked car overnight parked on the street in East Nashville. That person is failing their responsibilities.

This happened to my neighbor. He with the knowledge that cars had been being rummaged through at night in our neighborhood, left his gun in his unlocked car overnight and it was stolen. Any reasonable person should be able to agree that is problem can't they? The question is how can you discourage that behavior without hindering the rights of responsible gun owners.

This argument that the gun owner should be punished if their gun is stolen and used in a crime kinda sounds like victim shaming, no? “Had she not been wearing that short dress in public...”

(02-18-2019 03:07 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 02:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 02:30 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 01:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 01:50 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  I don't think this should extend to the home. I think out in public is where the line gets drawn.

This article specifically refers to vehicle thefts. If someone is going to choose to be careless enough to leave their gun in an unlocked (and in some cases according to the article, running??) car, then yes - I think they should have some consequences, whether it be a fine, suspending their gun permit for a period of time, etc.

What percentage of gun crime is committed with firearms stolen from vehicles?

I'v been trying to find that statistic, but it doesn't seem the ATF tracks the difference between stolen from a home or a vehicle.

This has come under the light because the Nashville musician that was killed by those kids was killed with a gun stolen from a car.

As a responsible gun owner, I do think there should be a fine if your weapon is stolen from your vehicle. I know that's what the left would call "victim shaming" but with I think it should be part of the responsibility of a gun owner to do everything they can to make sure their weapon isn't used for wrong.

There are of course circumstances where the judge can elect not to levy a fine. If you can't bring your CC in a location you are going you obviously have to leave it in the car and that shouldn't result in a punishment. A law like this should be directed at people leaving the guns in a car overnight parked unlocked in their driveway.

Are you in favor of other version of victim shaming? Like has been mentioned earlier when someone steals your car and kills someone in a wreck?

This is just the hoplophobe's version of "What do you expect when you dress slutty"

My great uncle would become a criminal because he keeps shotguns in each of his vehicles in order to protect his cows and goats from coyotes?

Until someone can show me some real statistics that this is a real problem and not yet another hoplophobe fantasy designed to create yet another burden upon people who wish to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms.

It's all about context. If your locked car is stolen and used in a crime, you could say you did everything a responsible car owner could to prevent that circumstance. If your car is stolen and used in a crime because you left it running while you ran into the gas station, maybe you should be held responsible, not for the crime committed, but for failing to secure your property.

Context can be further extended to your uncle. He has a reason for keeping his guns in his vehicle and I'm going to wager where he lives is probably not a high probability of some thug breaking into his trucks and stealing his guns. He is taking all reasonable measures to ensure his property is secured. That circumstance is completely different than someone leaving their handgun in an unlocked car overnight parked on the street in East Nashville. That person is failing their responsibilities.

This happened to my neighbor. He with the knowledge that cars had been being rummaged through at night in our neighborhood, left his gun in his unlocked car overnight and it was stolen. Any reasonable person should be able to agree that is problem can't they? The question is how can you discourage that behavior without hindering the rights of responsible gun owners.

Precisely. If you take on the responsibility of being a gun owner, you should also take on the responsibility of storing it properly.

(02-18-2019 03:07 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  It's all about context. If your locked car is stolen and used in a crime, you could say you did everything a responsible car owner could to prevent that circumstance. If your car is stolen and used in a crime because you left it running while you ran into the gas station, maybe you should be held responsible, not for the crime committed, but for failing to secure your property.

Who determines context? Our legal system?

Quote:Context can be further extended to your uncle. He has a reason for keeping his guns in his vehicle and I'm going to wager where he lives is probably not a high probability of some thug breaking into his trucks and stealing his guns. He is taking all reasonable measures to ensure his property is secured. That circumstance is completely different than someone leaving their handgun in an unlocked car overnight parked on the street in East Nashville. That person is failing their responsibilities.

If the situations are so much different then perhaps the focus is on the wrong thing. Maybe instead of making criminals out of law abiding gun owners we should do something about the criminals breaking in cars.

But we both know that this isn't about criminals...it;s about persecuting gun owners because hoplophobes hate guns.

Quote:This happened to my neighbor. He with the knowledge that cars had been being rummaged through at night in our neighborhood, left his gun in his unlocked car overnight and it was stolen. Any reasonable person should be able to agree that is problem can't they? The question is how can you discourage that behavior without hindering the rights of responsible gun owners.

Sad state of affairs where a property owner has to worry about securing their own property on their own property, but let's persecute and prosecute the person who didn't violate the law. "Shouldn't have dressed like a slut"

Leftist logic.

(02-18-2019 03:18 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  This argument that the gun owner should be punished if their gun is stolen and used in a crime kinda sounds like victim shaming, no? “Had she not been wearing that short dress in public...”

Apples and oranges. Last I checked, a short dress was not a lethal weapon.

Irresponsible gun owners who leave their guns vulnerable to theft like this are directly contributing to the gun violence problems that they claim they need their guns for in the first place. There should be some accountability, IN ADDITION to holding the criminals accountable as well. With the huge uptick in thefts in TN alone, it's cause for alarm.

(02-18-2019 03:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 03:07 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  It's all about context. If your locked car is stolen and used in a crime, you could say you did everything a responsible car owner could to prevent that circumstance. If your car is stolen and used in a crime because you left it running while you ran into the gas station, maybe you should be held responsible, not for the crime committed, but for failing to secure your property.

Who determines context? Our legal system?

Quote:Context can be further extended to your uncle. He has a reason for keeping his guns in his vehicle and I'm going to wager where he lives is probably not a high probability of some thug breaking into his trucks and stealing his guns. He is taking all reasonable measures to ensure his property is secured. That circumstance is completely different than someone leaving their handgun in an unlocked car overnight parked on the street in East Nashville. That person is failing their responsibilities.

If the situations are so much different then perhaps the focus is on the wrong thing. Maybe instead of making criminals out of law abiding gun owners we should do something about the criminals breaking in cars.

But we both know that this isn't about criminals...it;s about persecuting gun owners because hoplophobes hate guns.

Quote:This happened to my neighbor. He with the knowledge that cars had been being rummaged through at night in our neighborhood, left his gun in his unlocked car overnight and it was stolen. Any reasonable person should be able to agree that is problem can't they? The question is how can you discourage that behavior without hindering the rights of responsible gun owners.

Sad state of affairs where a property owner has to worry about securing their own property on their own property, but let's persecute and prosecute the person who didn't violate the law. "Shouldn't have dressed like a slut"

Leftist logic.

Not a leftist.

There are already laws that prosecute people that commit crimes with guns and I am all for making those punishments more severe. It is a tremendously sad state of affairs, but I think you and I both know that is unlikely to change. So we can keep up the charade that asking gun owners to not leave their guns in unlocked vehicles is somehow persecuting them or we can come up with a solution that doesn't make it so damn easy for a teenager to open a car door and get a handgun.

Would you leave your gun in an unlocked car in an area known to have a high amount of car break-ins?

(02-18-2019 03:45 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 03:18 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  This argument that the gun owner should be punished if their gun is stolen and used in a crime kinda sounds like victim shaming, no? “Had she not been wearing that short dress in public...”

Apples and oranges. Last I checked, a short dress was not a lethal weapon.

Irresponsible gun owners who leave their guns vulnerable to theft like this are directly contributing to the gun violence problems that they claim they need their guns for in the first place. There should be some accountability, IN ADDITION to holding the criminals accountable as well. With the huge uptick in thefts in TN alone, it's cause for alarm.

I hate to sound like a broken record but.......stats?

(02-18-2019 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 11:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 09:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  THIS is why the right calls for stricter enforcement

They knew he'd purchased a gun and revoked his CCW, but didn't try and retrieve his gun?

THIS is an area the right should agree... If someone fraudulently or by mistake gets a license and then buys a gun... they should lose the gun and license. They should be refunded for the gun as essentially a penalty to the state for poor maintenance of the database

He never received his CCW. His FOID card (unique to Illinois) is what was revoked.

I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

From what I read, IL officials are unsure why he failed to hand in his gun once his FOID card was revoked.

I understand why he didn't turn his gun in, but IL officials are still trying to figure it out.

(02-18-2019 11:57 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  So once again we have a failure of the system to enforce the laws we have on the books. Shocking.

Of course the left's solution for this will be adding more laws that we will also not enforce.


We don't need laws, we need enforcement.

They keep adding laws until they're able to add one that says "confiscate all guns."

That's the one they'll finally enforce.

(02-18-2019 04:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 03:45 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 03:18 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  This argument that the gun owner should be punished if their gun is stolen and used in a crime kinda sounds like victim shaming, no? “Had she not been wearing that short dress in public...”

Apples and oranges. Last I checked, a short dress was not a lethal weapon.

Irresponsible gun owners who leave their guns vulnerable to theft like this are directly contributing to the gun violence problems that they claim they need their guns for in the first place. There should be some accountability, IN ADDITION to holding the criminals accountable as well. With the huge uptick in thefts in TN alone, it's cause for alarm.

I hate to sound like a broken record but.......stats?

I'm finding stats in regards to homes AND cars, not just cars, like bobdizole.
However, are we really being that naive to assume that some of the guns that are stolen by CRIMINALS will not be used in.......crimes?

This is even from a right-leaning publication:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201...ed-in-vio/

Police say stolen and illegal guns are at the root of violence across the country.

In San Francisco, the gun used to kill Kathryn Steinle, who was fatally shot in July as she walked with her father along a scenic pier, was stolen. Chicago has already seized nearly 4,700 guns - nearly all of them stolen - this year. Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said that’s seven times more guns seized than New York City, and three times the number in Los Angeles.

“They’re the engine of violence in Chicago,” Guglielmi said. “These are guns that are on the streets used to fuel the violence in Chicago.”

Another, more left than the Washington Times:
https://www.thetrace.org/features/stolen...e-america/

A yearlong investigation by The Trace and more than a dozen NBC TV stations identified more than 23,000 stolen firearms recovered by police between 2010 and 2016 — the vast majority connected with crimes. That tally, based on an analysis of police records from hundreds of jurisdictions, includes more than 1,500 carjackings and kidnappings, armed robberies at stores and banks, sexual assaults and murders, and other violent acts committed in cities from coast to coast.

“The impact of gun theft is quite clear,” said Frank Occhipinti, deputy chief of the firearms operations division for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “It is devastating our communities.”

(02-18-2019 12:49 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 11:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 09:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  THIS is why the right calls for stricter enforcement

They knew he'd purchased a gun and revoked his CCW, but didn't try and retrieve his gun?

THIS is an area the right should agree... If someone fraudulently or by mistake gets a license and then buys a gun... they should lose the gun and license. They should be refunded for the gun as essentially a penalty to the state for poor maintenance of the database

He never received his CCW. His FOID card (unique to Illinois) is what was revoked.

I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

Constitutional rights exist without due process. Someone convicted later has received due process and lost his rights. There should be a means to 'store' them, but they have received due process.

He could lie certainly... just like any other criminal... and they could do a search etc etc etc and if they don't find it, they've at least tried. Nothing is 100%. I just want our efforts to reduce gun crimes to focus on criminals rather than turning law abiding citizens INTO criminals.

If we banned guns, how many otherwise law abiding citizens do you think would 'lie' and keep their guns? I'm betting tens of millions. Some violently

I certainly fully support better enforcement of existing gun laws - I can't imagine anyone would argue that point.
However, that does not negate the need for some additional regulation (and effective enforcement of that as well).

For example - this article from the Tennessean/Commercial Appeal/whatever you want to call the hot mess Gannett conglomerate:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...871666002/

In case you are locked out of it, the gist:

Nashville saw a 70 percent increase in firearms stolen from vehicles between 2016 and 2018, when there were 659 reported thefts of one or more guns from cars and trucks, according to Metro police.

Statewide, there was an 85 percent increase in guns stolen from cars and trucks in a two-year period from 2016 to 2017, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

******

In 2013, the Tennessee legislature approved what is called the "guns in trunks" law, which made it legal for valid permit holders to keep handguns in cars and trucks parked in public and at private employer-owned parking lots.

In 2014, lawmakers went further, enacting a law that allows legal gun owners to keep loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles in their cars without a state handgun carry permit.

Before the 2014 measure, only those with state-issued handgun carry permits could legally keep loaded firearms in vehicles. Owners of long guns, including hunting rifles, who don't need a permit to carry those firearms in their vehicles, were not allowed to keep them loaded before the 2014 law.

In December, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings urged state lawmakers to act, saying the gun laws have led to the "unintended consequence" of an increase in weapons left in cars by their owners, then stolen — and a corresponding spike in violent crime. Rallings said he would like the laws repealed.

Firearm thefts from vehicles in Memphis have increased by 256 percent since 2013, according to the city's police.


Why should there not be some kind of punishment for people who are being irresponsible with their guns, leading to them being stolen and/or crimes being committed with them?
That in no way means that the criminals themselves should not be fully punished for both the theft AND any crimes committed.

I let my stuff get stolen all the time. It's a hobby of mine.

I take a bunch of stuff and put it in a pile out in the middle of East Gate Shopping Center's parking lot.

I go back the next day to see how much stuff I lost.

It's a blast.



Seriously, we're talking about a law that penalizes the victim.

Somebody breaks into my car (which is illegal) and steals a weapon (which is illegal) which I have a legal right to carry and I'm the one who gets charged with a crime.

Seriously? That's OK with you?


Let's say I'm out running errands. One of those includes stopping by the post office. It's a federal crime to carry a weapon into a post office so I leave it in the car.

Somebody breaks in to my car. I'm guilty of a crime?

OK, now that somebody stole my gun I head home to pick up one of my other guns. I continue my errands. Next stop -- the bank.

It's a crime to carry a weapon into a bank so I leave it in the car.

This time somebody steals my car with the gun still inside. Again, I'm guilty of a crime?


By the TN law that is cited, vehicles are now considered an extension of your home. I have the legal right to own and possess a weapon in my home and in my care.

I also have the reasonable expectation to not have crimes committed against me.

To criminalize the law-abiding citizen is an attempt to circumvent the constitution.

(02-18-2019 04:57 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 12:49 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 11:16 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  He never received his CCW. His FOID card (unique to Illinois) is what was revoked.

I agree in this case he should have lost the gun. But what if he said he didn't have it anymore?

Going through it a little further - what if he already had the gun and then had the conviction which would prevent him from getting a gun. Would they take the gun away? Or is he grandfathered in?

Constitutional rights exist without due process. Someone convicted later has received due process and lost his rights. There should be a means to 'store' them, but they have received due process.

He could lie certainly... just like any other criminal... and they could do a search etc etc etc and if they don't find it, they've at least tried. Nothing is 100%. I just want our efforts to reduce gun crimes to focus on criminals rather than turning law abiding citizens INTO criminals.

If we banned guns, how many otherwise law abiding citizens do you think would 'lie' and keep their guns? I'm betting tens of millions. Some violently

I certainly fully support better enforcement of existing gun laws - I can't imagine anyone would argue that point.
However, that does not negate the need for some additional regulation (and effective enforcement of that as well).

For example - this article from the Tennessean/Commercial Appeal/whatever you want to call the hot mess Gannett conglomerate:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/n...871666002/

In case you are locked out of it, the gist:

Nashville saw a 70 percent increase in firearms stolen from vehicles between 2016 and 2018, when there were 659 reported thefts of one or more guns from cars and trucks, according to Metro police.

Statewide, there was an 85 percent increase in guns stolen from cars and trucks in a two-year period from 2016 to 2017, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

******

In 2013, the Tennessee legislature approved what is called the "guns in trunks" law, which made it legal for valid permit holders to keep handguns in cars and trucks parked in public and at private employer-owned parking lots.

In 2014, lawmakers went further, enacting a law that allows legal gun owners to keep loaded handguns, shotguns and rifles in their cars without a state handgun carry permit.

Before the 2014 measure, only those with state-issued handgun carry permits could legally keep loaded firearms in vehicles. Owners of long guns, including hunting rifles, who don't need a permit to carry those firearms in their vehicles, were not allowed to keep them loaded before the 2014 law.

In December, Memphis Police Director Mike Rallings urged state lawmakers to act, saying the gun laws have led to the "unintended consequence" of an increase in weapons left in cars by their owners, then stolen — and a corresponding spike in violent crime. Rallings said he would like the laws repealed.

Firearm thefts from vehicles in Memphis have increased by 256 percent since 2013, according to the city's police.


Why should there not be some kind of punishment for people who are being irresponsible with their guns, leading to them being stolen and/or crimes being committed with them?
That in no way means that the criminals themselves should not be fully punished for both the theft AND any crimes committed.

I let my stuff get stolen all the time. It's a hobby of mine.

I take a bunch of stuff and put it in a pile out in the middle of East Gate Shopping Center's parking lot.

I go back the next day to see how much stuff I lost.

It's a blast.



Seriously, we're talking about a law that penalizes the victim.

Somebody breaks into my car (which is illegal) and steals a weapon (which is illegal) which I have a legal right to carry and I'm the one who gets charged with a crime.

Seriously? That's OK with you?


Let's say I'm out running errands. One of those includes stopping by the post office. It's a federal crime to carry a weapon into a post office so I leave it in the car.

Somebody breaks in to my car. I'm guilty of a crime?

OK, now that somebody stole my gun I head home to pick up one of my other guns. I continue my errands. Next stop -- the bank.

It's a crime to carry a weapon into a bank so I leave it in the car.

This time somebody steals my car with the gun still inside. Again, I'm guilty of a crime?


By the TN law that is cited, vehicles are now considered an extension of your home. I have the legal right to own and possess a weapon in my home and in my care.

I also have the reasonable expectation to not have crimes committed against me.

To criminalize the law-abiding citizen is an attempt to circumvent the constitution.

You also as a gun owner have the reasonable responsibility to protect your weapon from being stolen. Again, an unlocked car and/or leaving a gun laying out in plain sight is not being responsible.

Again, IMO, if you have to leave your gun in your car and you hide it or lock it in a glove compartment/place it in the console, AND you lock your vehicle, you made a reasonable effort to protect it.