I took my first CCW course from the sherif of Clermont County, Ohio. A lady in the class asked "Should I keep it unloaded or if loaded should I always keep an empty chamber for safety?"

His thought quietly and then responded "Just carry a pocket full of rocks instead and work on your throwing motion."

(03-29-2023 09:13 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 08:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 01:18 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  The majority opinion on Heller says specifically it isn’t a default ban on all gun control, and a wide range of gun control laws remain presumptively lawful including laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents.

I'm very interested in the bolded part of your post as I cannot find it in the majority opinion as filed. I can find items 1-5 (though not number and in that order) in a single paragraph on page 54. The following pages go on to list common restrictions that the court had not issue with, but "regulate firearm storage and to prevent accidents" is not one I can find in the text of the opinion. Can you share your source?

When Scalia discuss Breyer's dissenting opinion :

"Nothing about those fire-safety laws undermines our analysis; they do not remotely burden the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on handguns. Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents"

Scalia is judging storage laws based on the burden that they place on self defense. Having to have a gun unloaded with a trigger lock makes it useless for self defense, having a gun loaded in a steel quick access safe that is cabled to a wall stud prevents accidents via unauthorized access while still providing rapid access that doesn't burden self defense.

I'll have to go back and re-read that section. At first glance the word 'accidents' jumps out at me. I would be interested in the text of the laws he is referencing, as my first impression would be that those laws are geared towards protecting kids and not towards preventing theft as has commonly been discussed here. A desktop safe with a short combination or biometrics would certainly lessen the chance of a minor having access to the firearm, but does virtually nothing to prevent theft of the entire storage device and firearm inside it.

In the grand scheme of things, storage should be so far down the list of meaningful actions that can be taken to stop acts such as these it would hardly enter the discussion.

I mean criminals are all going to store their firearms locked and disassembled why shouldn't we?

(03-29-2023 10:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 09:13 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 08:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 01:18 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  The majority opinion on Heller says specifically it isn’t a default ban on all gun control, and a wide range of gun control laws remain presumptively lawful including laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents.

I'm very interested in the bolded part of your post as I cannot find it in the majority opinion as filed. I can find items 1-5 (though not number and in that order) in a single paragraph on page 54. The following pages go on to list common restrictions that the court had not issue with, but "regulate firearm storage and to prevent accidents" is not one I can find in the text of the opinion. Can you share your source?

When Scalia discuss Breyer's dissenting opinion :

"Nothing about those fire-safety laws undermines our analysis; they do not remotely burden the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on handguns. Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents"

Scalia is judging storage laws based on the burden that they place on self defense. Having to have a gun unloaded with a trigger lock makes it useless for self defense, having a gun loaded in a steel quick access safe that is cabled to a wall stud prevents accidents via unauthorized access while still providing rapid access that doesn't burden self defense.

I'll have to go back and re-read that section. At first glance the word 'accidents' jumps out at me. I would be interested in the text of the laws he is referencing, as my first impression would be that those laws are geared towards protecting kids and not towards preventing theft as has commonly been discussed here. A desktop safe with a short combination or biometrics would certainly lessen the chance of a minor having access to the firearm, but does virtually nothing to prevent theft of the entire storage device and firearm inside it.

In the grand scheme of things, storage should be so far down the list of meaningful actions that can be taken to stop acts such as these it would hardly enter the discussion.

100% spot on.

(03-28-2023 08:55 PM)maximus Wrote:  

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Thank you Sir. We all pretty much knew this but it is good to see them finally come out against these "Rainbow Terrorists".

(03-29-2023 11:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 08:55 PM)maximus Wrote:  

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Thank you Sir. We all pretty much knew this but it is good to see them finally come out against these "Rainbow Terrorists".

My cousin, who happens to also be one of, if not, my best friend, has the same stance as this guy and his group.





Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Is this Charlie Kirk the same one accused of being a right wing instigator?

Looks like he just posted factual information about a nut who was encouraging trans folk to shoot normals?

Tigergreen, I believe it was you who said no one was out there encouraging this?

Nah, just the governor of Arizona's staffer.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

(03-29-2023 11:56 AM)maximus Wrote:  Is this Charlie Kirk the same one accused of being a right wing instigator?

Looks like he just posted factual information about a nut who was encouraging trans folk to shoot normals?

Tigergreen, I believe it was you who said no one was out there encouraging this?

Nah, just the governor of Arizona's staffer.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

And this lovely leftist darling

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

(03-28-2023 09:49 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 07:47 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The truth means nothing to these people. A mentally ill person murdered 6 people and all the leftists want to talk about is "guns". Guns didn't kill those people. A sick deranged person committed an atrocity and guns were just the vehicle.

Twisted pieces of chit just like her.

Incited by idiots like this leftist commie and her merry band of morons on national TV

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

(03-29-2023 10:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 09:13 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 08:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 01:18 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  The majority opinion on Heller says specifically it isn’t a default ban on all gun control, and a wide range of gun control laws remain presumptively lawful including laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents.

I'm very interested in the bolded part of your post as I cannot find it in the majority opinion as filed. I can find items 1-5 (though not number and in that order) in a single paragraph on page 54. The following pages go on to list common restrictions that the court had not issue with, but "regulate firearm storage and to prevent accidents" is not one I can find in the text of the opinion. Can you share your source?

When Scalia discuss Breyer's dissenting opinion :

"Nothing about those fire-safety laws undermines our analysis; they do not remotely burden the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on handguns. Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents"

Scalia is judging storage laws based on the burden that they place on self defense. Having to have a gun unloaded with a trigger lock makes it useless for self defense, having a gun loaded in a steel quick access safe that is cabled to a wall stud prevents accidents via unauthorized access while still providing rapid access that doesn't burden self defense.

I'll have to go back and re-read that section. At first glance the word 'accidents' jumps out at me. I would be interested in the text of the laws he is referencing, as my first impression would be that those laws are geared towards protecting kids and not towards preventing theft as has commonly been discussed here. A desktop safe with a short combination or biometrics would certainly lessen the chance of a minor having access to the firearm, but does virtually nothing to prevent theft of the entire storage device and firearm inside it.

In the grand scheme of things, storage should be so far down the list of meaningful actions that can be taken to stop acts such as these it would hardly enter the discussion.

Steel cable the steel box to a stud with a security screw, or bolt it down.

Not trying to stop oceans 11 from breaking in, but make a teen or meth head have to take enough time that it isn’t worth finding tools. They know they have a limited time in the house and have to keep moving.

(03-29-2023 12:06 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 10:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 09:13 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 08:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 01:18 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  The majority opinion on Heller says specifically it isn’t a default ban on all gun control, and a wide range of gun control laws remain presumptively lawful including laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents.

I'm very interested in the bolded part of your post as I cannot find it in the majority opinion as filed. I can find items 1-5 (though not number and in that order) in a single paragraph on page 54. The following pages go on to list common restrictions that the court had not issue with, but "regulate firearm storage and to prevent accidents" is not one I can find in the text of the opinion. Can you share your source?

When Scalia discuss Breyer's dissenting opinion :

"Nothing about those fire-safety laws undermines our analysis; they do not remotely burden the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on handguns. Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents"

Scalia is judging storage laws based on the burden that they place on self defense. Having to have a gun unloaded with a trigger lock makes it useless for self defense, having a gun loaded in a steel quick access safe that is cabled to a wall stud prevents accidents via unauthorized access while still providing rapid access that doesn't burden self defense.

I'll have to go back and re-read that section. At first glance the word 'accidents' jumps out at me. I would be interested in the text of the laws he is referencing, as my first impression would be that those laws are geared towards protecting kids and not towards preventing theft as has commonly been discussed here. A desktop safe with a short combination or biometrics would certainly lessen the chance of a minor having access to the firearm, but does virtually nothing to prevent theft of the entire storage device and firearm inside it.

In the grand scheme of things, storage should be so far down the list of meaningful actions that can be taken to stop acts such as these it would hardly enter the discussion.

Steel cable the steel box to a stud with a security screw, or bolt it down.

Not trying to stop oceans 11 from breaking in, but make a teen or meth head have to take enough time that it isn’t worth finding tools. They know they have a limited time in the house and have to keep moving.

As someone who has had to grab a firearm as someone was breaking into my bedroom window in the middle of the night, count me as firmly in the camp that believes any type of security device or lock infringes on my second amendment right, specifically for self defense.

(03-29-2023 12:14 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:06 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 10:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 09:13 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 08:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'm very interested in the bolded part of your post as I cannot find it in the majority opinion as filed. I can find items 1-5 (though not number and in that order) in a single paragraph on page 54. The following pages go on to list common restrictions that the court had not issue with, but "regulate firearm storage and to prevent accidents" is not one I can find in the text of the opinion. Can you share your source?

When Scalia discuss Breyer's dissenting opinion :

"Nothing about those fire-safety laws undermines our analysis; they do not remotely burden the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on handguns. Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents"

Scalia is judging storage laws based on the burden that they place on self defense. Having to have a gun unloaded with a trigger lock makes it useless for self defense, having a gun loaded in a steel quick access safe that is cabled to a wall stud prevents accidents via unauthorized access while still providing rapid access that doesn't burden self defense.

I'll have to go back and re-read that section. At first glance the word 'accidents' jumps out at me. I would be interested in the text of the laws he is referencing, as my first impression would be that those laws are geared towards protecting kids and not towards preventing theft as has commonly been discussed here. A desktop safe with a short combination or biometrics would certainly lessen the chance of a minor having access to the firearm, but does virtually nothing to prevent theft of the entire storage device and firearm inside it.

In the grand scheme of things, storage should be so far down the list of meaningful actions that can be taken to stop acts such as these it would hardly enter the discussion.

Steel cable the steel box to a stud with a security screw, or bolt it down.

Not trying to stop oceans 11 from breaking in, but make a teen or meth head have to take enough time that it isn’t worth finding tools. They know they have a limited time in the house and have to keep moving.

As someone who has had to grab a firearm as someone was breaking into my bedroom window in the middle of the night, count me as firmly in the camp that believes any type of security device or lock infringes on my second amendment right, specifically for self defense.

Mine is on my night stand at night chambered and ready. I safe it along with my long guns when I'm gone. I have a carry piece when out and about. I have a locked compartment in my truck if I ever have to leave the weapon in truck.



Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

(03-28-2023 08:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  President FuckNut* jokes about the school shooting.

(03-29-2023 12:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:14 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:06 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 10:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 09:13 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  When Scalia discuss Breyer's dissenting opinion :

"Nothing about those fire-safety laws undermines our analysis; they do not remotely burden the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on handguns. Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents"

Scalia is judging storage laws based on the burden that they place on self defense. Having to have a gun unloaded with a trigger lock makes it useless for self defense, having a gun loaded in a steel quick access safe that is cabled to a wall stud prevents accidents via unauthorized access while still providing rapid access that doesn't burden self defense.

I'll have to go back and re-read that section. At first glance the word 'accidents' jumps out at me. I would be interested in the text of the laws he is referencing, as my first impression would be that those laws are geared towards protecting kids and not towards preventing theft as has commonly been discussed here. A desktop safe with a short combination or biometrics would certainly lessen the chance of a minor having access to the firearm, but does virtually nothing to prevent theft of the entire storage device and firearm inside it.

In the grand scheme of things, storage should be so far down the list of meaningful actions that can be taken to stop acts such as these it would hardly enter the discussion.

Steel cable the steel box to a stud with a security screw, or bolt it down.

Not trying to stop oceans 11 from breaking in, but make a teen or meth head have to take enough time that it isn’t worth finding tools. They know they have a limited time in the house and have to keep moving.

As someone who has had to grab a firearm as someone was breaking into my bedroom window in the middle of the night, count me as firmly in the camp that believes any type of security device or lock infringes on my second amendment right, specifically for self defense.

Mine is on my night stand at night chambered and ready. I safe it along with my long guns when I'm gone. I have a carry piece when out and about. I have a locked compartment in my truck if I ever have to leave the weapon in truck.



Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

That sounds like a very responsible approach to firearms storage. Mine is similar, but I have a bump in the night quick access safe next to the bed bolted to the floor for night access.

(03-29-2023 01:10 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:14 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:06 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 10:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll have to go back and re-read that section. At first glance the word 'accidents' jumps out at me. I would be interested in the text of the laws he is referencing, as my first impression would be that those laws are geared towards protecting kids and not towards preventing theft as has commonly been discussed here. A desktop safe with a short combination or biometrics would certainly lessen the chance of a minor having access to the firearm, but does virtually nothing to prevent theft of the entire storage device and firearm inside it.

In the grand scheme of things, storage should be so far down the list of meaningful actions that can be taken to stop acts such as these it would hardly enter the discussion.

Steel cable the steel box to a stud with a security screw, or bolt it down.

Not trying to stop oceans 11 from breaking in, but make a teen or meth head have to take enough time that it isn’t worth finding tools. They know they have a limited time in the house and have to keep moving.

As someone who has had to grab a firearm as someone was breaking into my bedroom window in the middle of the night, count me as firmly in the camp that believes any type of security device or lock infringes on my second amendment right, specifically for self defense.

Mine is on my night stand at night chambered and ready. I safe it along with my long guns when I'm gone. I have a carry piece when out and about. I have a locked compartment in my truck if I ever have to leave the weapon in truck.



Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

That sounds like a very responsible approach to firearms storage. Mine is similar, but I have a bump in the night quick access safe next to the bed bolted to the floor for night access.

That's the goofiest thing I have ever heard. What do you think, someone is going to go into your room while you are sleeping and use your gun irresponsibly? Keep it chambered on top of your safe and put it in there when you leave.

(03-29-2023 12:06 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 10:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 09:13 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 08:21 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 01:18 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  The majority opinion on Heller says specifically it isn’t a default ban on all gun control, and a wide range of gun control laws remain presumptively lawful including laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents.

I'm very interested in the bolded part of your post as I cannot find it in the majority opinion as filed. I can find items 1-5 (though not number and in that order) in a single paragraph on page 54. The following pages go on to list common restrictions that the court had not issue with, but "regulate firearm storage and to prevent accidents" is not one I can find in the text of the opinion. Can you share your source?

When Scalia discuss Breyer's dissenting opinion :

"Nothing about those fire-safety laws undermines our analysis; they do not remotely burden the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on handguns. Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents"

Scalia is judging storage laws based on the burden that they place on self defense. Having to have a gun unloaded with a trigger lock makes it useless for self defense, having a gun loaded in a steel quick access safe that is cabled to a wall stud prevents accidents via unauthorized access while still providing rapid access that doesn't burden self defense.

I'll have to go back and re-read that section. At first glance the word 'accidents' jumps out at me. I would be interested in the text of the laws he is referencing, as my first impression would be that those laws are geared towards protecting kids and not towards preventing theft as has commonly been discussed here. A desktop safe with a short combination or biometrics would certainly lessen the chance of a minor having access to the firearm, but does virtually nothing to prevent theft of the entire storage device and firearm inside it.

In the grand scheme of things, storage should be so far down the list of meaningful actions that can be taken to stop acts such as these it would hardly enter the discussion.

Steel cable the steel box to a stud with a security screw, or bolt it down.

Not trying to stop oceans 11 from breaking in, but make a teen or meth head have to take enough time that it isn’t worth finding tools. They know they have a limited time in the house and have to keep moving.

If someone has broken into my house looking for my gun they'll either:
1. Find me pointing it at them, if I'm home, or
2. Won't find it because I'm not at home and thus I have it on my person.

(03-29-2023 01:10 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:14 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:06 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 10:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll have to go back and re-read that section. At first glance the word 'accidents' jumps out at me. I would be interested in the text of the laws he is referencing, as my first impression would be that those laws are geared towards protecting kids and not towards preventing theft as has commonly been discussed here. A desktop safe with a short combination or biometrics would certainly lessen the chance of a minor having access to the firearm, but does virtually nothing to prevent theft of the entire storage device and firearm inside it.

In the grand scheme of things, storage should be so far down the list of meaningful actions that can be taken to stop acts such as these it would hardly enter the discussion.

Steel cable the steel box to a stud with a security screw, or bolt it down.

Not trying to stop oceans 11 from breaking in, but make a teen or meth head have to take enough time that it isn’t worth finding tools. They know they have a limited time in the house and have to keep moving.

As someone who has had to grab a firearm as someone was breaking into my bedroom window in the middle of the night, count me as firmly in the camp that believes any type of security device or lock infringes on my second amendment right, specifically for self defense.

Mine is on my night stand at night chambered and ready. I safe it along with my long guns when I'm gone. I have a carry piece when out and about. I have a locked compartment in my truck if I ever have to leave the weapon in truck.



Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

That sounds like a very responsible approach to firearms storage. Mine is similar, but I have a bump in the night quick access safe next to the bed bolted to the floor for night access.

I do have a small biometric safe in my nightstand drawer but have found it cumbersome for quick access.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

(03-29-2023 01:22 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 01:10 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:14 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:06 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Steel cable the steel box to a stud with a security screw, or bolt it down.

Not trying to stop oceans 11 from breaking in, but make a teen or meth head have to take enough time that it isn’t worth finding tools. They know they have a limited time in the house and have to keep moving.

As someone who has had to grab a firearm as someone was breaking into my bedroom window in the middle of the night, count me as firmly in the camp that believes any type of security device or lock infringes on my second amendment right, specifically for self defense.

Mine is on my night stand at night chambered and ready. I safe it along with my long guns when I'm gone. I have a carry piece when out and about. I have a locked compartment in my truck if I ever have to leave the weapon in truck.



Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

That sounds like a very responsible approach to firearms storage. Mine is similar, but I have a bump in the night quick access safe next to the bed bolted to the floor for night access.

That's the goofiest thing I have ever heard. What do you think, someone is going to go into your room while you are sleeping and use your gun irresponsibly? Keep it chambered on top of your safe and put it in there when you leave.

No, I don't want to leave a loaded weapon out and accessible in a home with children. Pretty basic common sense there.