Of course keeping firearms secured is the responsible and essential thing to do. But in terms of home defense keeping a loaded and unlocked firearm nearby is essential, just a long as there is no chance of a child gaining access. In a life threatening situation it may take too long time to access a locked gun....finding the key (which also has to be secured to prevent unauthorized access), entering the combination, biometric access, what have you, it all gets in the way when someone has broken into your home and seconds count. It's not an good option. It's particularly concerning that Eureka Police Chief Mills has singled out Pacific Outfitters as justification for this intrusive regulation. Talk about blaming the victim! Maybe if Chief Mills were more focused on preventing crime in Eureka this wouldn't be such a problem. That's why I opted for other solution(s) in the poll. The other solution would be to get a new police chief who supported his police officers and the community and a new city council who cared more for the well being of honest citizens then they do for vagrants and drug addicts.
Shak - 8 years ago
I voted "other solutions". No, there should not be a law created which criminalises innocent citizens for not locking up the tool they were repairing while they stepped out to talk to a distracter while the distractor's partner burglarized the now empty home. There are too many scenarios that could happen, and criminalizing the victim of a scenario is, unconstitutional and uncalled for.
However, I do believe, as do most people, that yes, they should be locked up when not at home.
Solution I offer, is one you've already hit on. Announcements reminding people of common sense steps to take in order to avoid theft of their tool used for self defense. Friendly reminders work.
The question poll is misleading. I would like to see a new poll that doesn't steer people towards quick responses and false tallies.
Lock the self defense weapons up when not at home, service reminder announcements.
Lock the self defense weapons up when not at home law which criminalises the victim of theft.
Dan Nichols - 8 years ago
I support educating new gun owners on the responsibility of locking up weapons. However ordinances, bans and mandates like this only complicate the lives of citizens who already have enough intelligence and responsibility to act on their own without governmental edict. Ignorance is not curable by mandate, and it's both lazy and unrealistic to follow this path. There are better solutions - I'm ashamed that the sheriff would propose such an ordinance. As an option, how about if those wishing to purchase a gun provide proof of a safe on premises or appropriate locks? Forcing people to lock up guns in their own homes means that they not be readily accessible in a threat situation. Will the Sheriff be at my home quickly enough to stop violence on my person? This is a slippery slope - one that begins with what seems like a simple request and ends with good-cause CCW laws, band on ammunition, and of course exemptions for law enforcement.
JoAnn Bonner - 8 years ago
Any firarem should never be left unattended. There are many ways to secure your firearms from gun safes, lock boxes, trigger locks, secuity systems and hidden safe places. It should not be the responsibly of any government agent to dictate what practice the indivual uses to secure her firearms. I think the police agencies can assist responsibly armed citizens with education and forums that help her to identify what is the best method of securing her guns. I do not agree with individuals who identify that they have weapons in their homes, as then they may become targets for those wishing to steal firearms. On the other hand knowing a house has responsibly armed home owners can deter the stealing of other items.
Thanks for the oppratunity to voice my thoughts.
Of course keeping firearms secured is the responsible and essential thing to do. But in terms of home defense keeping a loaded and unlocked firearm nearby is essential, just a long as there is no chance of a child gaining access. In a life threatening situation it may take too long time to access a locked gun....finding the key (which also has to be secured to prevent unauthorized access), entering the combination, biometric access, what have you, it all gets in the way when someone has broken into your home and seconds count. It's not an good option. It's particularly concerning that Eureka Police Chief Mills has singled out Pacific Outfitters as justification for this intrusive regulation. Talk about blaming the victim! Maybe if Chief Mills were more focused on preventing crime in Eureka this wouldn't be such a problem. That's why I opted for other solution(s) in the poll. The other solution would be to get a new police chief who supported his police officers and the community and a new city council who cared more for the well being of honest citizens then they do for vagrants and drug addicts.
I voted "other solutions". No, there should not be a law created which criminalises innocent citizens for not locking up the tool they were repairing while they stepped out to talk to a distracter while the distractor's partner burglarized the now empty home. There are too many scenarios that could happen, and criminalizing the victim of a scenario is, unconstitutional and uncalled for.
However, I do believe, as do most people, that yes, they should be locked up when not at home.
Solution I offer, is one you've already hit on. Announcements reminding people of common sense steps to take in order to avoid theft of their tool used for self defense. Friendly reminders work.
The question poll is misleading. I would like to see a new poll that doesn't steer people towards quick responses and false tallies.
Lock the self defense weapons up when not at home, service reminder announcements.
Lock the self defense weapons up when not at home law which criminalises the victim of theft.
I support educating new gun owners on the responsibility of locking up weapons. However ordinances, bans and mandates like this only complicate the lives of citizens who already have enough intelligence and responsibility to act on their own without governmental edict. Ignorance is not curable by mandate, and it's both lazy and unrealistic to follow this path. There are better solutions - I'm ashamed that the sheriff would propose such an ordinance. As an option, how about if those wishing to purchase a gun provide proof of a safe on premises or appropriate locks? Forcing people to lock up guns in their own homes means that they not be readily accessible in a threat situation. Will the Sheriff be at my home quickly enough to stop violence on my person? This is a slippery slope - one that begins with what seems like a simple request and ends with good-cause CCW laws, band on ammunition, and of course exemptions for law enforcement.
Any firarem should never be left unattended. There are many ways to secure your firearms from gun safes, lock boxes, trigger locks, secuity systems and hidden safe places. It should not be the responsibly of any government agent to dictate what practice the indivual uses to secure her firearms. I think the police agencies can assist responsibly armed citizens with education and forums that help her to identify what is the best method of securing her guns. I do not agree with individuals who identify that they have weapons in their homes, as then they may become targets for those wishing to steal firearms. On the other hand knowing a house has responsibly armed home owners can deter the stealing of other items.
Thanks for the oppratunity to voice my thoughts.