14-year-old girl who opened fire at deputies referred to Grand Theft Auto: Sheriff

All the gun owners I know understand the value of their guns and keep them secured in a gun safe with the exception of the one we keep out for home defense.

 

The homeowner was living there with three daughters. He claimed to have left for the grocery store 15 minutes prior.

In one article the homeowner claimed the guns and ammo were "hidden". The police said:

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...0210602-segcvv6nzzb5niyxkpepdzmuqu-story.html

 

A psycho on itself is not a problem. The problem we got, are psycho's got not too shabby guns.
Maybe the cops trying to do their jobs don't like psycho's having access to those guns.
Have you considered that?


How about people not taking care of their own guns, in such a way that psychotic kids are able to get numerous of them,... should be having guns as well.
Where is their responsibility?

 

Depends.
If you're lazy, than you would indeed find it secured enough.
If a burglar uses it to shoot at you, then you "might" have a different view.

You aware that some people break the law and enter houses?

 

I know a toddler who thinks she is hiding when she pulls a blanket over her head.
Sounds like that's the level of "hidden" was used with them guns.

 

Thanks. I wonder if they are going to charge him with anything if those weapons weren't secure inside his home (dependent on the ages of his three girls).

 

FL law:
790.174 “Safe Storage of a Firearm Required” — the state's only law on firearm security — requires a gun owner to secure their weapon in a locked box, in a “secure” location, or with a trigger lock on the gun if a minor is likely to gain access to the weapon in the gun owner's home.

My guess is this would not get past Heller.
The need to have access to a firearm for self-defense within the home does not diminish when you have children; the exceptionally tiny number of children that shoot themselves or others with an unsecured firearm does not demonstrably override the need for access to said firearms.

 

But you don't get to decide what other people need. You know that, yes?

 

That's an opinion. If you do not have anyone else in your household your weapons can be anywhere you wish as long as the entrance doors are secure. "Irresponsible" is anyone who breaks into the home.

 

Feral children with guns.

 

Obviously there is more to it than that, though. People don't need RPGs and, surprise surprise, those aren't legal despite the 2nd Amendment.

 

It's not an either/or situation. And your opinion seems incorrect. If there is someone home, the guns need to be accessible. It's when the house is empty they need to be secured.

I never claimed they couldn't be anywhere he wanted. What I'm saying is they should have been secured.

 

Those are not arms. The 2A is about arms, not ordinance.

 

This is where we disagree. My responsibility is to secure the entrance points of the facility. Other peoples' responsibility is to not break into peoples homes which is innately irresponsible. As long as we all respect each others property there are zero problems.

 

You have no right to obfuscate where my rights stop and start, nor to measure what does not belong to you.

 

Neither RPGs nor AR-15s existed when it was written.

 

How do you know someone who wants to ban AR15s knows they lost the argument?
They start talking about RPGs, tanks, F16s and nukes.

 

If that were true, you should be able to leave your guns in the driveway.

It would be nice if children weren't discarded and abused from home to home. Sadly, that's not the case, and I don't see it changing any time soon. The point is, this didn't have to happen. If the guns were secure, using any number of ways to do so, the house would have still been burglarized, but the girl wouldn't be clinging to life. Those are just undeniable facts. Who's to blame is irrelevant.

 

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

So why not tanks and RPGs?

 

No, securing guns is not even close to a constitutional issue !!!!

 

Ordinance is indeed arms.

 

Probably for the same reasons you don't use a sledge hammer to do trim work.

 

If that were true then you wouldn't feel you need a gun to protect yourself at home in the first place.

 

Some people have bigger trim than you.