🚀 go-pugleaf

--------------4B5079E99D458F1A75A91BC7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



no org wrote:

> In article <3E1DDB3B.C1078B3D@shaw.ca>, senseibrentxxx@shaw.ca says...
> >
> >
> > no org wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3E1DD75E.86DAA265@shaw.ca>, senseibrentxxx@shaw.ca says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Darin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sadly, I don't think the present laws could have prevented this
> > > > > > recent tragedy:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Boy, 6, dies after being shot by sister, 7
> > > > > > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/04/boy_shot030104
> > > > > >
> > > > > This is definitely a tragedy of the worst kind and unfortunately it could
> > > > > have been very easily prevented by locking the guns and ammo up and store
> > > > > them properly "unloaded". Registration would have made no difference in the
> > > > > out come of this, common sense would have.
> > > >
> > > > Part of the whole law includes the requirement for safe storage, if the gun had
> > > > been legally registered the police could have ascertained (beforehand) if the
> > > > owner met those requirements for safe storage of a handgun.  A big part of the
> > > > law is to license owners and in doing so make them aware of proper safety
> > > > procedures for storage and handling.
> > >
> > > You don't need a billion dollar gun registry to make it a legal
> > > requirement to store your firearms safely and to make gun owners aware
> > > of those requirements.
> >
> > I wouldn't dispute that it should not have cost $1billion.  The registry allows
> > police to know what kind of weapons you have and then to check to see if you do
> > store them appropriately.
>
> A wholly unjustified invasion of privacy. And it isn't the actual cost
> it is that a registry is unecessary in order to require proper storage.
> Once it is proven that you have improperly stored your firearm then you
> can be charged; however that is not a justification for pre-emptive
> inspections by the police... at least as long as a philosophy of
> innocent until prioven guilty prevails. By the same logic being applied
> here the local firedept should have the right to enter your home and
> make sure you are not storing solvents unsafely, that your chimney is
> clean, that etc. etc.; then the municipality should have the right to
> come inspect to make sure your wiring is safe etc. etc.

The government does have the right to inspect houses and businesses to ensure they are
safe, and for that matter vehicles, why not the safe storage of deadly weapons?  But the
law does allow for those inspections.  It has little to do with innocent until proven
guilty but to do with regulation.  People need regulation, particularly when dealing
with lethal things that can hurt others.  People have to get over the silly American
notion that gun ownership is a right, it is a privilege and to enjoy that privilege you
must obey certain restrictions.  The gvt has the right to demand a medical test to prove
you are fit to drive, fly or do other things why not prove you are storing guns
responsibly.  The point is to reverse the onus of proof initially.  I would say it is
reasonable to demand you show how you will store before you get an initial registration
(but only for the first one).

--------------4B5079E99D458F1A75A91BC7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>no org wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>In article &lt;3E1DDB3B.C1078B3D@shaw.ca>, senseibrentxxx@shaw.ca
says...
<br>>
<br>>
<br>> no org wrote:
<br>>
<br>> > In article &lt;3E1DD75E.86DAA265@shaw.ca>, senseibrentxxx@shaw.ca
says...
<br>> > >
<br>> > >
<br>> > > Darin wrote:
<br>> > >
<br>> > > >
<br>> > > > >
<br>> > > > > sadly, I don't think the present laws could have prevented
this
<br>> > > > > recent tragedy:
<br>> > > > >
<br>> > > > > Boy, 6, dies after being shot by sister, 7
<br>> > > > > <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/04/boy_shot030104">http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/04/boy_shot030104</a>
<br>> > > > >
<br>> > > > This is definitely a tragedy of the worst kind and unfortunately
it could
<br>> > > > have been very easily prevented by locking the guns and ammo
up and store
<br>> > > > them properly "unloaded". Registration would have made no difference
in the
<br>> > > > out come of this, common sense would have.
<br>> > >
<br>> > > Part of the whole law includes the requirement for safe storage,
if the gun had
<br>> > > been legally registered the police could have ascertained (beforehand)
if the
<br>> > > owner met those requirements for safe storage of a handgun.&nbsp;
A big part of the
<br>> > > law is to license owners and in doing so make them aware of proper
safety
<br>> > > procedures for storage and handling.
<br>> >
<br>> > You don't need a billion dollar gun registry to make it a legal
<br>> > requirement to store your firearms safely and to make gun owners
aware
<br>> > of those requirements.
<br>>
<br>> I wouldn't dispute that it should not have cost $1billion.&nbsp;
The registry allows
<br>> police to know what kind of weapons you have and then to check to
see if you do
<br>> store them appropriately.
<p>A wholly unjustified invasion of privacy. And it isn't the actual cost
<br>it is that a registry is unecessary in order to require proper storage.
<br>Once it is proven that you have improperly stored your firearm then
you
<br>can be charged; however that is not a justification for pre-emptive
<br>inspections by the police... at least as long as a philosophy of
<br>innocent until prioven guilty prevails. By the same logic being applied
<br>here the local firedept should have the right to enter your home and
<br>make sure you are not storing solvents unsafely, that your chimney
is
<br>clean, that etc. etc.; then the municipality should have the right
to
<br>come inspect to make sure your wiring is safe etc. etc.</blockquote>
The government does have the right to inspect houses and businesses to
ensure they are safe, and for that matter vehicles, why not the safe storage
of deadly weapons?&nbsp; But the law <i>does</i> allow for those inspections.&nbsp;
It has little to do with innocent until proven guilty but to do with regulation.&nbsp;
People need regulation, particularly when dealing with lethal things that
can hurt others.&nbsp; People have to get over the silly American notion
that gun ownership is a right, it is a privilege and to enjoy that privilege
you must obey certain restrictions.&nbsp; The gvt has the right to demand
a medical test to prove you are fit to drive, fly or do other things why
not prove you are storing guns responsibly.&nbsp; The point is to reverse
the onus of proof initially.&nbsp; I would say it is reasonable to demand
you show how you will store before you get an initial registration (but
only for the first one).</html>

--------------4B5079E99D458F1A75A91BC7--