One of these days Paul Helmke is going to tell Joan Peterson to shut up. Once again, in the comments, japete is giving the game away. The gun banners have been told that an outright ban on guns is impossible, not just practically, but legally as well. Therefore, the only real option left to them is to make gun ownership as expensive and as legally risky as possible. One of the most efficient ways to make guns expensive and legally risky as possible is so called “Safe Storage” laws. Here’s what Joan had to say
Safe Storage laws rest on the false idea that a gun is a device unlike any other. Since a gun is “designed to kill,” it is somehow believed that the State has a role to play in deciding how and where that gun is stored inside your house. Let’s play a little thought game.
Let’s imagine you own a car. You park that car in your driveway and you leave it locked. Then you drop your keys inside, next to your door. Your 15 year old son takes the keys and uses your car to mow down pedestrians in front of the local school. Are you responsible for the tragedy because you failed to secure your car properly?
Almost no one would blame the parent in this case. Yet make the object a gun instead of a car, and the parent is instantly a villain. That’s because guns “are designed to kill!!!!1111eleventy”
Trigger locks make your gun inoperative in an emergency. In fact, that was one of the key findings in Heller, that DC could not force gun owners to lock their guns up in such a way as to prevent them from being used in an emergency.
With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment—a purpose not previously articulated by the Court—and the “in common use at the time” prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.
The only option I have found that allows me to lock the gun up while simultaneously offering me immediate access in an emergency is the GunVault.
I recommend the thing wholeheartedly. But I won’t mandate that a person spend ANOTHER $100 just to satisfy some government regulator.
How much money is too much money for a poor person to pay in order to exercise his Constitutional rights? Will that $100 push him over the edge into “too expensive?” When you add safe storage to the list of “safety” devices that the gun grabbers want your gun to have, it makes the proposition of owning a gun too expensive for some people to afford. God help you if you want to carry the gun. Training and regulatory compliance costs are fierce. North Carolina wants $60-120 for training, $10 for fingerprints, and $80 for the license itself. Add on top of that a $500-600 Glock, $100 at least for a decent holster, and a few hundred dollars for ammo, and you can easily spend over $1,000. There are people counting on that expense to stop people from trying. They are actively adding requirements, both equipment and training, to make it more expensive. For them, the expense is not a bug, it’s a feature.