🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3E1E070B.B2DE4B5C@shaw.ca>, senseibrentxxx@shaw.ca says...
> 
> 
> 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?

Governments have the right to inspect your building when it is being 
built or modified. THey don't have the right to simply walk up and 
demand entrance any time of the day or night for no good reason.

>  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

Not when I am on my own private property. If I want to I can drive my 
truck around the farm all day long without a license for me or the 
truck.

> 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).

That's the problem - you have a less free society everytime some new 
rule comes in that will "reverse the onus of proof" - first the 
government should have to show that there will in fact be a general 
benefit (something it has so far failed to do with long gun 
registration) and second it should have to show that that benefit far 
outweighs the loss of civil liberty implied.