<![CDATA[Gun Storage]]>

Minnesota sheriffs push back on gun storage bill

March 21, 2023 by Cam Edwards Leave a Comment

Minnesota’s Democrat-Farmer-Labor majority is rushing to enact a number of new gun control measures into law this session, with hearings scheduled on Thursday and Friday this week to consider “red flag” firearms confiscation, “universal background checks”, magazine bans, and more. Friday’s hearing will focus on Gov. Tim Walz’s omnibus public safety bill, which is chock-full of new restrictions on legal gun owners, while Thursday’s hearing (announced with short notice late on Monday) will feature several standalone anti-gun measures.

Second Amendment advocates, including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and its members, have been vociferously opposing these intended infringements throughout the session, but we’re also starting to see many county sheriffs share their own concerns about the legislation; most notably when it comes to a bill mandating how gun owners must store their firearms.

The gun storage requirement bill has provoked a particularly strong response from Greater Minnesota law enforcement and activists. If enacted, that bill would require gun owners to store their firearm locked away separately from ammunition.
Violation of the proposed law would constitute a misdemeanor at a minimum, with the potential for charges to be upgraded to a felony if an unsecured firearm were to be used in a violent crime, or fall into the hands of an individual barred from possessing a firearm.

Any requirement for gun owners to store their firearms in a way that renders them useless for home defense isn’t going to stand up in court. The Supreme Court rejected a similar storage requirement imposed by Washington, D.C. in the Heller decision, though the Minnesota bill attempts to get around SCOTUS precedent by “allowing” firearms to be loaded in the home as long as they’re being carried by a gun owner or “under the control” of the owner or an authorized user. Many sheriffs in the state say the measure would be almost impossible to enforce, while putting those in compliance in danger if they ever need to protect themselves in their home.

“Certain counties might only have one deputy working,” said Rice County Sheriff Jesse Thomas. “If you need help and they’re 30, 20 minutes out, whatever it might be. So, it kind of limits what you can do.”
In a letter to local state representatives, Sheriff Thomas, Steele County Sheriff Lon Thiele, Le Sueur County Sheriff Brett Mason, Waseca County Sheriff Jay Dulas, Goodhue County Sheriff Marty Kelly and other sheriffs from across southeast Minnesota further argued that the bill “infringes on the rights of lawful gun owners and is a clear overreach of government.”
“We’re not going into people’s homes to try to regulate what they’re doing with their firearms and infringe on their constitutional rights,” said Le Sueur County Sheriff Brett Mason. “That’s ridiculous.”
The sheriffs further noted that with regards to child safety specifically, current law already makes it a gross misdemeanor for a gun owner to leave their firearm in a place where they know, or should reasonably know, that a child could gain access to it.
While keeping loaded guns out of the hands of children may certainly be important, the sheriffs argued that law-abiding gun owners should be trusted with the responsibility of choosing the best option for storing their guns given their situation.
“This unnecessary bill, if passed, would make responsible, lawful gun owners criminals for not locking up their firearms,” the letter said.

Well, yes. That’s the point of the bill, or at least a feature and not a bug for its sponsors. It’s also far from the only threat that responsible gun owners in the state are facing, and I hope that these sheriffs will be just as vocal in their opposition to the other anti-2A measures that will be before committees this week, including the governor’s public safety bill, which includes billions of dollars in funding for local law enforcement but also contains a number of anti-gun provisions like banning magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, raising the age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21, universal background checks, and imposing an Extreme Risk Protection Order allowing for the “temporary” confiscation of firearms without a criminal conviction or an adjudication of mental illness.

In a video posted Monday evening, the MN Gun Owners Caucus’s Rob Doar says he’s concerned that the omnibus bill was written to provide cover to several rural Democrat lawmakers who’ve not taken a public position in support of any of the anti-gun bills currently under consideration.

SURPRISE GUN CONTROL HEARINGS #MNLEG https://t.co/cAe8RvO6hs
— MN Gun Owners Caucus (@mnguncaucus) March 21, 2023

It’s great to see sheriffs around the state speak up about the dangers inherent in the gun storage bill, but they need to be just as vocal when it comes to these other infringements introduced at the statehouse. Second Amendment activists and those who don’t believe that the state can ban its way to safety should be speaking out as well, and I’m hoping for a strong turnout at the state capitol on Saturday when the MNGOC hosts its Rally to Defend the Second Amendment. The outcome for these bills is still very much in question given the scant one-seat majority for the DFL in the state Senate, and the activism of gun owners can have a very real impact on the future of their Second Amendment rights.

Congresswoman reintroduces gun ‘safe storage’ bill

February 26, 2023 by John Petrolino Leave a Comment

The phrase “safe storage” needs to be completely removed from our vocabulary. Something called “responsible storage” however is more appropriate. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution to firearm storage and dictating how any one individual shall store a firearm is not going to make anyone safer. That’s not stopping Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin from Michigan. On February 21, 2023, Slotkin reintroduced a so-called safe storage bill in Congress. H.R.1145 – To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the safe storage of firearms, and for other purposes.

U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (MI-07) today reintroduced her Safe Guns, Safe Kids Act, a bill requiring safe and proper storage of firearms in households to prevent children and others from illegally accessing the weapon. The bill was first introduced after the deadly mass shooting at Oxford High School in November 2021 and passed in the House in June 2022. Slotkin will also co-sponsor the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2023 and the Assault Weapons Ban of 2023.

Slotkin was recently the subject of another piece here at Bearing Arms that Tom wrote. Knighton pointed out in his piece that Slotkin is employing tactics that are less than truthful in trying to trump up alleged support for anti-gun measures. “Slotkin misrepresents concerns over these laws in the first place. The term ‘mentally ill,’ for example, doesn’t just include potential mass shooters, it also includes those who suffer from mild depression. Do we really want to lump everyone together? I hope that’s not what Slotkin is calling for, but she is less than clear,” Knighton wrote.

Continuing on her trek of being less than genuine, the Congresswoman put some interesting information in her release, “Gun violence is now the leading cause of death among Americans under 21.” The statistic actually comes from a study, and that cited study notes the age range to be “children” up until the age of 19.

These studies and “statistics” are grossly inauthentic in that known gang violence is not separated. Death by suicide by firearm is also given its own sub-catagory, but that, along with accidental death by firearms, are all included under the same umbrella of violence when being reported on. The phrasing and age range is manipulated due to political bias, and we’re rapidly marching towards a time where many of these studies and or the reporting on them cannot be trusted.

Slotkin’s bill is a storage bill though. What’s its aim?

The Safe Guns, Safe Kids Act would:
Require gun owners to safely secure their firearm when a child could reasonably access the firearm.
Impose a penalty of up to 5 years of prison time if a child does indeed access the gun, which they reasonably had access to, and uses the gun to injure themselves or others or uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.

A final explanation of the bill discusses suicide.

Slotkin leaves a lot to be unpacked. The entire crux of her announcement was about gun violence. The Congresswoman talked about several high-profile shootings that have occurred. None of what’s being proposed will mitigate violence committed by firearms. Beyond that, all the studies that are cited need to have have their own statistical analysis looked at, knowing that not all death by firearms is caused by violent attacks, and conflating those numbers with death by suicide by firearm is purposely misleading.

Whether or not Slotkin believes her own rhetoric or not is of little consequence. She’s pushing an agenda that’s paired with and connected to many complex and different things. Members of the anti-freedom caucus may keep coming up with that one last gun control measure that’ll rule them all, but the liberty loving Americans know better.

We’ve been given a new playbook. Any politician is going to be knowingly introducing a bill that’s unconstitutional if they cannot prove at the time of introduction that their proposal has a historical analogue. Not only is that a waste of time, money, and resources; but it’s also directly in opposition to a Supreme Court order. H.R.1145 – To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the safe storage of firearms, and for other purposes does not seem to be constitutional under Heller, McDonald, or NYSRPA v. Bruen. We’ll be watching the progress of this legislation as well as what other inauthentic rhetoric the public masters will come up with to feed us.

Oregon group warns of potential hidden pitfalls in bill

February 21, 2023 by John Petrolino Leave a Comment

The Beaver State, like other progressive strong-holds, has a tendency to dominate the news concerning Second Amendment issues. We all know that’s not because they have a reputation for being awesome about coming up with new freedom enhancing laws. They’re talked about often because they work on strengthening their death-grip to squeeze out what liberty is left in Oregon. A week ago we covered a rare occasion, a bill introduced that would do actual good in Oregon. Today we’ll avert our attention to a notice from our friends at the Oregon Firearms Federation. OFF warns of Senate Bill 551 and potential pitfalls due to ambiguity in the language.

Senate Bill 551, in its original, unamended form “Requires school districts to provide specified information related to secure storage of medications and firearms. Directs Oregon Health Authority to make information available to school districts.”
The bill makes no mention of what that “specified information” is.
It makes no mention of who determines what “specified information” will be provided.
There is no indication that anyone with professional knowledge of firearms and their proper storage will be consulted in the creation or distribution of the “specified information.”

The concerns of the group come well received as Oregon has been trampling on the rights of gun owners for quite some time now. Once a more liberty embracing state, with live and let live attitudes. Now, the party of “acceptance” and “inclusion,” of course wants to subvert civil-liberties of people they don’t see eye to eye with, forgetting the let live portion of being somewhat of a Bohemian haven.

The recent ram-rodding of gun-control measures through a ballot initiative last year did not really rally the anti-gun base entirely. Yes, measure 114, which added all kinds of new restrictions to the process of being and becoming a gun owner, did pass. However, people would be remiss to not point out that the passage was not by a very large majority. The people are divided on the issues and there is still hope in the state.

The notice further discusses the unconstitutional and dangerous policies that were implemented in 2021 concerning so-called safe storage.

In 2021 Oregon Democrats rammed through SB 554 which mandated that self defense firearms be locked up and useless. It required the use of dangerous trigger locks and it prohibited persons under 18 from having access to family firearms to protect themselves in their own home, no matter how well trained and responsible they were.
This ignorant one-size-fits-all policy has placed people in danger of both criminal attack and criminal penalties.
Now the same people who enacted this dangerous legislation want to use schools to promote an anti-gun, anti-self defense agenda.

Alleged root causes are pointed out in the legislation, with one section touting, “the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic have exacerbated troubling trends with children and firearms.” Without going into the weeds too far here, pandemic related “challenges” have everything to do with progressive governments’ irrational responses in handling the situation.

Other challenges probably included gun owning Oregonians getting more opportunities to take their kids out shooting because of all the free time. These pinko strong-holds can’t have a population of people passing on the tradition of the shooting sports to their children, now can they? That whole culture is challenged by the disarmament party.

Responsible firearms owners store their firearms in a manner that makes the most sense for their personal circumstances. Democrats in Oregon have interfered with their ability to do so and put them at risk.
We believe that amendments may be added to this bill but in a Democrat controlled legislature we do not anticipate that amendments will improve it.
If the state is going to mandate that schools provide information on the storage of firearms, the state should also mandate that schools provide students with non-biased and professional information on the safe handling of firearms, a suggestion Oregon Democrats regularly resist.

The citizens of Oregon have a rough road ahead. The continual assaults to their civil liberties is not likely to end. While governmental entities aren’t held accountable for knowingly creating unconstitutional policy, many are left with turning to the courts to stave off each and every infringement, one by one. Naturally it’s a double whammy for proponents of freedom because their tax dollars end up funding the opposition in thier lawsuits.

The Oregon Firearms Federation urges citizens to reach out to the Senate Education Committee to voice their opinion on the matter. They are scheduled to take up the topic on March 7, 2023 at 3 p.m. They also invite Oregonians to sign up to testify HERE or submit written testimony HERE.

3-year-old kills himself with gun found in nightstand

February 20, 2023 by Tom Knighton Leave a Comment

I am vehemently opposed to mandatory storage laws. I don’t think that mandating how people secure their guns is particularly smart, as most people know better than the government as to what their needs are.

However, I also think that if a gun isn’t in your control, it should be locked up. Curious hands are, well, curious, and small children are often too young to understand the danger presented by a firearm.

Unfortunately, an example of this occurred in Florida recently.

A 3-year-old boy fatally shot himself when he found a 9 mm handgun in a nightstand in his Florida home, according to authorities.
The tragedy unfolded Wednesday evening at a home in DeLand, about 40 miles north of Orlando.
The Volusia County Sheriff’s Office called it “one of the worst calls imaginable” to respond to.
The shooting occurred as the 3-year-old and a 7-year-old were being watched by their 16-year-old sister while the parents were grocery shopping, Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood said at a news conference Thursday.

Chitwood referred to the 16-year-old’s call as “heartbreaking.”

I can only imagine.

There’s so much wrong with what happened here that I don’t even know where to begin. Instead, I’ll focus on the unsecured firearm in the nightstand because that shouldn’t have happened.

Look, it’s one thing if the gun is in that nightstand while you’re laying in bed reading and the kids are in their own beds asleep. At that point, I’d say the gun is in your control.

It’s quite another when all the adults head to the grocery store and leave the kids at home.

Now, I don’t know what the household rules are. Perhaps it was believed that the kids wouldn’t go into the bedroom or that the sister was supposed to keep them from doing so. If so, that’s not really a wise decision, now was it?

Sure, I’m writing about this with the benefit of hindsight, but I know from my own experiences as a kid that just because I was supposed to do something, it didn’t mean I would. That would likely include making sure the toddlers stay out of the bedroom.

So yeah, I’d say the parents screwed up.

But for many, this would be grounds for a mandatory storage law. They’d want to mandate that guns be locked up and want punishment for those who failed to do so.

Yet for them, I just have one question: Why would you believe for one moment that any punishment dished out to these parents would have more significance than the punishment they’re already receiving?

These people lost their baby, their youngest. They’re punishing themselves more than any law ever would. One could probably argue that arresting and fining them would make them feel a bit better because at least they’re being punished by an outside entity.

Mandatory storage laws would turn these people – people who are suffering already – into criminals. Would that actually do any good?

No, it wouldn’t.

As it stands, my heart goes out to these people, and I pray we eventually stop seeing these news stories entirely.

When it comes to stolen guns, punish the thief, not the victim

February 11, 2023 by Cam Edwards Leave a Comment

The vast majority of armed criminals out there have illegally gotten ahold of a gun, and one of the most common ways they’re able to get their hands on one is through theft. According to the ATF, more than 1-million firearms were stolen from private citizens between 2017 and 2021, and while the numbers aren’t really in dispute how to address the problem is very much up for debate. According to gun control activists, the answer is to impose new burdens on gun owners; storage requirements that make it difficult if not impossible to access a firearm for self-defense, requiring gun owners to report the theft of any firearms with 24 or 48 hours or risk criminal charges themselves, and other measures that amount to legislative victim-blaming that point the finger at legal gun owners while ignoring those who are actually stealing guns.

In Oklahoma, however, they’re going in a different direction and putting the onus for these crimes where it truly belongs.

On Thursday, the Senate Public Safety Committee approved Senate Bill 859, which was authored by Sen. Darrell Weaver, R-Moore.
The measure would increase the maximum prison term from two years to five years and increase the maximum fine from $1,000 to $2,500 for the theft of a firearm.
“I will always fight for the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms to protect themselves and their families. We’re not talking about law-abiding citizens here – we’re talking about criminals who will use these stolen firearms to commit even more crimes,” Weaver said. “It’s a serious crime, and it should carry tougher penalties.”

SB 859 won’t stop gun thefts completely, because there’s always going to be a ready supply of idiots ready and willing to break the law. But if the bill is implemented, perhaps with a public service campaign alerting potential thieves that they’ll be doing hard time if they’re convicted of stealing a gun, I suspect there will be a deterrent effect.

At the very least, this bill does no harm to law-abiding gun owners who are the victims of burglars or thieves, which already makes it better than “lost or stolen” laws or storage mandates that punish gun owners with misdemeanor charges if their firearms are stolen from their vehicle. I think it’s a bad idea to leave your gun in your car overnight, even if it’s parked in your driveway, but that doesn’t mean that it should be a criminal offense.

Given the Republican majorities in the Oklahoma state legislature, anti-gun efforts that target gun owners instead of gun thieves probably wouldn’t get far anyway, but in blue states around the country and on Capitol Hill legislators are busy crafting one-size-fits-all policies that can easily turn legal gun owners into criminals if they don’t keep their firearms under lock and key when they’re not being carried around in a holster.

The legislation being advanced in Oklahoma is a much more appropriate way to address gun thefts. Another approach would be to encourage the use of gun safes without mandating how firearms must be stored, and a bill to that effect by offering residents a $300 tax credit managed to garner the approval of both Democrats and Republicans in the Virginia House of Delegates this week. There are some policies out there that can attract broad bipartisan support, but none of them should involve turning crime victims into criminals themselves.