Replies

Well, I hear you - and I appreciate the time you took to respond. I'm even trying to force myself to agree with you.

But, I still have a LOT of trepidation about the Boxer/Kohl Amendment. Rather than protecting me, I feel its setting me up to be a criminal.

If a criminal forcibly enters my home and steals a gun, he has already broken two laws - breaking and entering and theft.

Then if he goes out and commits an armed robbery and kills somebody in the process, he's committed two more serious felonies.

Now, here's a thug that's committed 4 serious felonies, and they're gonna come get me as an accessory to murder because I didn't have my gun secured "properly" with some $6.95 Master Lock ?? To me, that's just insane.

The lock on my front door and my alarm system ought to be enough for a reasonable person to consider me "secure in my home" a la the 4th Amendment.

Another scenario. Guns have been stolen off the line at Camp Perry, doesn't happen often, but it has happened. My gun is stored in the box while scoring a target, and then somebody steals it. I'm subject to a frivilous suit because it wasn't locked while I was in the process of competing with it, actually using it ??

Third scenario, I'm lawfully carrying concealed, some thug hits me in the head, steals my piece. Am I protected from, or subject to, a frivilous Boxer/Kohl lawsuit because while in the act of lawfully carrying a firearm for self defense, I didn't have a lock on it ??

I'm not trying to be argumentative with you -- I just can't bring myself to your point of view.

Of course, the swimming pool is the classic attractive nuisance case. But, there was another one (I can't cite right this moment), about a motorcycle.

Guy had a tricked-out, customized, high-dollar gas wheel crotch-rocket, parked it in a public place, typical ignition key and handlebar lock. It was stolen, involved in a fatal wreck. They went after the motorcycle owner on the basis he hadn't properly secured his "attractive nuisance." Don't recall how it turned out.

I've got a big house on a big lot, some John Edwards-style trial lawyer could come after me claiming my whole house is an attractive nuisance, just sitting there, inviting someone to come in a rip me off.

Anyhow, I don't see how Boxer/Kohl is going to protect me from a frivilous lawsuit. "They" are gonna think I've got deep pockets, and if the gun doesn't have a lock on it when its used in the crime, or recovered, they still are gonna claim I didn't have it properly protected - I'll still have to defend myself and possibly still lose because I can't prove I was in compliance with Boxer/Kohl.

Seems to me, I'd have a better defense against a frivilous lawsuit without Boxer/Kohl.

I don't know - the whole thing is just confusing to me.

The fact Boxer wanted it, is a prima facie indication to me that I ought to oppose it from some visceral level :)

You make a lot of valid points, too.

I'm sure I would have preferred S.1805 without the Boxer/Kohl amendment, but now that it's attached, I'm just not sure that amendment alone is enough reason to kill all of S.1805.

Any Ammo ban amendment or AWB extension amendment would definitely be a deal killer.

I'm not so sure about the Boxer/Kohl gun locks amendment. I would have preferred to wait until there was an obvious need for the type of protection that this amendment provides to gun owners, and I'm not sure the tradeoff of requiring dealers to provide locks with handguns was necessary. On the other hand, now that this amendment is part of the Senate version of the bill, I'm not sure it's worth killing the whole deal to get rid of it.

Perhaps it would be best to wait and see on this issue until S.1805 either passes or fails, and if it passes with this amendment, work hard to keep it out of the House version and get it removed in the conference committee.

Mostly, I was pointing out that this particular amendment is quite complex and not completely "anti-gun" as it is often presented. And, like I said before, there has been a lot of misinformation about this particular amendment in the past few days, mostly aimed at inflaming emotions and trying to get pro-gun individuals to seriously harm their own credibility when they contact their Senators.

skip2myloo wrote:
Now, here's a thug that's committed 4 serious felonies, and they're gonna come get me as an accessory to murder because I didn't have my gun secured "properly" with some $6.95 Master Lock ?? To me, that's just insane.

Actually, "they" aren't going to come after you with criminal charges. What could potentially happen is that a victim or victim's survivor might come after you in a civil lawsuit.

skip2myloo wrote:
I'll still have to defend myself and possibly still lose because I can't prove I was in compliance with Boxer/Kohl.

Since it would be a civil case, and "they" would be the plaintiff, "they" should have to bear the burden of proof to prove that the gun was unlocked when it was stolen/used without your permission.