Jump to content

Why we need a safe gun storage ordinance


GarandCollector

Recommended Posts

I moved out of Illinois but still looking out for your 2A rrights. For those that do not know, Ray Heise wrote the original Oak Park handgun ban so this sentence is intellectually dishonest: We respect the Second Amendment Rights of law-abiding citizens to own and possess firearms.

 

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/9-25-2018/Why-we-need-a-safe-gun-storage-ordinance/

 

Why we need a safe gun storage ordinance

Opinion: Columns

Tuesday, September 25th, 2018 4:19 PM

 

Referendum:

Shall all firearms be required to be stored in a safe and secure manner that prevents access by unauthorized persons when such firearms are not under the direct personal control of the owner?

By Ray Heise

One View

 

The midterm election is less than two months away and for many of us it cannot come soon enough. So many important and fundamental issues hang in the balance. The challenge will be to not lose sight of any of these issues while remaining fully engaged in doing all we can to overcome the present challenges to our Democracy and to the Rule of Law.

 

The November midterm election will present an opportunity here in Oak Park to address a critical element of one of these important issues. The ballot will contain an advisory referendum question asking voters if they would support legislation requiring the safe storage of firearms within homes.

 

A citizens group, Gun Responsibility Advocates (GRA), initiated this referendum question. The GRA strongly believes that with rights come responsibilities. I am proud to call myself a member. We respect the Second Amendment Rights of law-abiding citizens to own and possess firearms, but we also understand that the ownership and possession of firearms requires reasonable regulation. On behalf of the GRA, I urge you to vote "Yes" in November in support of Safe Gun Storage legislation. This type of legislative action is not only reasonable, it is a critical component of any effective comprehensive plan to stem the tide of gun violence in the United States

 

The most important part of any comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence in our nation is taking whatever reasonable actions we can to reduce the access of criminals, the significantly mentally and emotionally disabled, and minors to firearms. The two most significant ways in which these people obtain access to firearms is purchasing them from gun dealers and taking them from homes in the case of criminals, stealing them from homes, in the case of significantly mentally or emotionally disabled persons and minors, having access to firearms in the homes where they reside.

 

There are three pieces of legislation, one at the federal level and two, most likely at the state level, which if enacted into law, would significantly reduce access of these three categories of people to firearms, thereby significantly impacting all aspects of the gun violence problem in the U.S. It would not be an overstatement to say that these three pieces of legislation would form the core of any comprehensive plan to significantly reduce gun violence in this country.

 

The most significant of these is federal Universal Background Check legislation and the second is its necessary state counterpart, Gun Dealers Licensing legislation. They represent two sides of the same coin. To be truly effective, one cannot operate without the other. The only way a prohibition of the sale of firearms to these three categories of people can be effective is to have it apply on a nationwide basis. Likewise, to make the national legislation enforceable, there must be complementary state legislation requiring gun dealers to keep detailed records of each gun sale transaction, which would be available for inspection.

 

Five years ago, just months after Sandy Hook, 53 U.S. senators voted to adopt Universal Background Check legislation. The measure failed because Senate filibuster rules required 60 votes. That significant piece of legislation has languished since that time in the face of NRA-inspired Republican opposition and in spite of the fact that more than 80% of the voting public and more than 60% of NRA members favor the adoption of Universal Background checks. None of this is easy and this kind of change is always more of a marathon than a sprint. Special interests with deep pockets like the NRA can stave off the will of the people for a while, but with perseverance, history has consistently shown that the will of the people will prevail. The cancer that is gun violence will continue to rear its ugly head, as it tragically did only seven months ago in Parkland, Florida, and in too many other places along the way to count.

 

Four years ago, 92.7% of Oak Park voters voted "Yes" on an advisory referendum question asking them if they favored federal Universal Background Check legislation. Over 85% of Cook County voters voted the same way on a similar question in the same election. Since that time, the Board of Trustees of the villages of Oak Park and River Forest have adopted Resolutions urging all of their state and federal legislators to do all within their power to see that Universal Background Check legislation is enacted.

 

In the spring of this year, a historic Gun Dealers Licensing Act, sponsored by Oak Park state Senator Don Harmon, was passed in a bipartisan effort in the Illinois Senate and House only to be vetoed by Gov. Rauner.

 

Sen. Harmon responded with an amended bill that responded to minor concerns raised by the Governor and some legislators, but which remained true to the intended purpose of the original bill. This bill (SB0337) also passed the Senate and appears to have been passed, with amendment, in the House and sent back to the Senate where it currently resides. It may not come to fruition, but we could be ever so close to having a major part of a rational and effective comprehensive plan to curb the epidemic of gun violence in place.

 

This brings us to what must be the third critical part of any effective comprehensive plan to curb gun violence safe gun storage. You may be surprised to learn that not much has been done at the local, state or federal level to address the issue of safe gun storage in the home. In fact, there really hasn't been much discussion about it either.

 

Safe gun storage legislation not only can play a significant role in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, the significantly mentally and emotionally disabled, and minors, but it also can play a significant role in reducing gun-related suicides, the accidental death of children, and deaths related to domestic violence. If regulations can be put in place that effectively limit access to firearms in the home to the individuals who actually own them, not only will there be a greatly reduced opportunity for thieves to steal firearms, there will also be greatly reduced opportunities for emotionally or mentally unstable members of the household to obtain access to such firearms to do harm to themselves or others. If firearms are properly stored and secured, the many tragedies that occur every year as a result of children playing with firearms can also be averted.

 

It is time to heighten public awareness of the need for safe gun storage as another critical part of the comprehensive plan to reduce access to guns by criminals, those with significant mental and emotional disabilities, and minors. The safe gun storage advisory referendum question you will find on the Nov. 6 ballot will get that public discussion started. Please vote "Yes" for this common-sense proposal to save lives by requiring the safe storage of firearms.

 

Ray Heise is the retired village attorney of Oak Park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't we already have one?

720 ILCS 5/24-9. Firearms; Child Protection.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), it is unlawful for any person to store or leave, within premises under his or her control, a firearm if the person knows or has reason to believe that a minor under the age of 14 years who does not have a Firearm Owners Identification Card is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor's parent, guardian, or person having charge of the minor, and the minor causes death or great bodily harm with the firearm, unless the firearm is:

(1) secured by a device or mechanism, other than the firearm safety, designed to render a firearm temporarily inoperable; or

(2) placed in a securely locked box or container; or

(3) placed in some other location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from a minor under the age of 14 years.

(b) Sentence. A person who violates this Section is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $1,000. A second or subsequent violation of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) Subsection (a) does not apply:

(1) if the minor under 14 years of age gains access to a firearm and uses it in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another; or

(2) to any firearm obtained by a minor under the age of 14 because of an unlawful entry of the premises by the minor or another person.

(d) For the purposes of this Section, "firearm" has the meaning ascribed to it in Section 1.1 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that every time a new gun law is proposed, there should be a cost to the ones proposing it. For example, if they pass a law for safe gun storage, then our side should pass a law taxing those people without FOID cards to pay for new Liberty safes for the people who do have FOID cards. After all, it's for safety of the children don't you know? Who wouldn't want to keep the children safe?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does he plan to enforce a safe storage law, no-knock warrants?

Ah but that is what this id for:

"The only way a prohibition of the sale of firearms to these three categories of people can be effective is to have it apply on a nationwide basis. Likewise, to make the national legislation enforceable, there must be complementary state legislation requiring gun dealers to keep detailed records of each gun sale transaction, which would be available for inspection.

"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their formatting isn't conducive to a point-by-point refutation, but I think it would suffice to say that their version of "common sense" would include limiting ownership to a single-shot rifle or shotgun, to be stored at the local PD, with a permission slip to be filed 72 hours before you intend to use it requesting access to your own property, and no sales to anyone under the age of 35 who has ever received any ticket, summons or field interview with law enforcement, purchased alcohol or been prescribed any medicine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their formatting isn't conducive to a point-by-point refutation, but I think it would suffice to say that their version of "common sense" would include limiting ownership to a single-shot rifle or shotgun, to be stored at the local PD, with a permission slip to be filed 72 hours before you intend to use it requesting access to your own property, and no sales to anyone under the age of 35 who has ever received any ticket, summons or field interview with law enforcement, purchased alcohol or been prescribed any medicine.

Actually crap like that would be better. Hear me out. THAT is definately contrary to Heller and other decisions.One can't defend themselves under that, which runs contrary to those decisions. Ergo, easily thrown out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that every time a new gun law is proposed, there should be a cost to the ones proposing it. For example, if they pass a law for safe gun storage, then our side should pass a law taxing those people without FOID cards to pay for new Liberty safes for the people who do have FOID cards. After all, it's for safety of the children don't you know? Who wouldn't want to keep the children safe?

 

That's a GREAT idea! Put the children in a safe instead of your guns! Keep them safe, and your guns accessible at the same time! :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they pass a law for safe gun storage, then our side should pass a law taxing those people without FOID cards to pay for new Liberty safes for the people who do have FOID cards. After all, it's for safety of the children don't you know?

Look up "Project ChildSafe".

 

And since 2008, the VA has been handing out free trigger locks to veterans -- ostensibly to inhibit suicides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How does he plan to enforce a safe storage law, no-knock warrants?

Ah but that is what this id for:

"The only way a prohibition of the sale of firearms to these three categories of people can be effective is to have it apply on a nationwide basis. Likewise, to make the national legislation enforceable, there must be complementary state legislation requiring gun dealers to keep detailed records of each gun sale transaction, which would be available for inspection.

"

 

So how does making gun sale transaction records available for inspection insure I lock up my guns? It seems to me the only way to verify my guns are properly locked up is to raid my house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

How does he plan to enforce a safe storage law, no-knock warrants?

Ah but that is what this id for:

"The only way a prohibition of the sale of firearms to these three categories of people can be effective is to have it apply on a nationwide basis. Likewise, to make the national legislation enforceable, there must be complementary state legislation requiring gun dealers to keep detailed records of each gun sale transaction, which would be available for inspection.

"

 

So how does making gun sale transaction records available for inspection insure I lock up my guns? It seems to me the only way to verify my guns are properly locked up is to raid my house.

 

So they know what to search for when the kick down your door of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't we already have one?

720 ILCS 5/24-9. Firearms; Child Protection.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), it is unlawful for any person to store or leave, within premises under his or her control, a firearm if the person knows or has reason to believe that a minor under the age of 14 years who does not have a Firearm Owners Identification Card is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor's parent, guardian, or person having charge of the minor, and the minor causes death or great bodily harm with the firearm, unless the firearm is:

(1) secured by a device or mechanism, other than the firearm safety, designed to render a firearm temporarily inoperable; or

(2) placed in a securely locked box or container; or

(3) placed in some other location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from a minor under the age of 14 years.

(b) Sentence. A person who violates this Section is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $1,000. A second or subsequent violation of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) Subsection (a) does not apply:

(1) if the minor under 14 years of age gains access to a firearm and uses it in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another; or

(2) to any firearm obtained by a minor under the age of 14 because of an unlawful entry of the premises by the minor or another person.

(d) For the purposes of this Section, "firearm" has the meaning ascribed to it in Section 1.1 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.

 

 

Come on, they do not need to campaign with facts, look at Madigan. He is campaigning on universal background checks...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

We already have one law on the books that covers this issue. Let's enact 256 more laws exactly the same as this. Remember, this will be enforced by the Department of Redundant Redundancies, Rockford Office. (They already have offices in Chicago, Oak Park, Highland Park, and fifty other leftist dominated locations)

 

Remember, don't oppose this. Those cronies are not going to employ themselves, you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full court press is on.

 

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/10-23-2018/Vote-Yes-for-safe-gun-storage/

 

Vote Yes for safe gun storage

Opinion: Letters To The Editor

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2018 4:29 PM

 

On Nov. 6, there will be an advisory referendum on safe gun storage on the last page of the ballot. I hope you'll vote Yes.

 

Because gun owners contend that they keep guns in their homes as a safety measure for themselves and their families, I ask that you carefully consider the cost/benefit ratio of gun ownership when they are not safely stored. Relevant facts are that, every day, 78 children, teens and young adults are injured or killed by guns in the United States. About one-third of homes with children in the U.S. have a gun. Many are stored loaded and/or unlocked.

 

Obviously this risk extends to playmates, friends, grandchildren, et al visiting the home. I refer you to numerous news accounts of tragic events such as the toddler who found his mother's gun and fatally shot his 2-year-old brother in Colorado; the Seattle third-grader who brought his parent's gun to school in his backpack and a classmate was shot when the backpack fell to the floor; the mother killed when her toddler in the back seat of her boyfriend's car found and fired a gun in Milwaukee and other incidents too numerous to recount.

 

The risk of dying by suicide is 4 to 10 times higher in homes with guns. For this reason the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that the safest home for children and teens is one without guns. If you have a teen who is at risk, AAP recommends you remove guns and ammunition from your home.

 

If your ethic extends beyond consideration of the safety of your own family, consider that stolen handguns from homes is an important source of firearms to those not authorized to own them. Those guns are frequently involved in subsequent crime.

 

So the issue is: does owning a gun/keeping a gun in your home make you and your family safe? Is it possible that the safest decision is, if not to eliminate the gun, at the very least, to store it safely?

 

Sandra Shimon

 

A member of Gun Responsibility Advocates, Oak Park

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/10-23-2018/Safe-gun-storage%3F-No_brainer.-Blue-Wave%3F-We'll-see/

 

Safe gun storage? No-brainer. Blue Wave? We'll see

Opinion: Ken Trainor

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2018 4:11 PM

 

 

Saturday morning just beyond the Farmers Market, under sunny skies with powerful gusting winds, hopefully at our backs, Judy Gaetto-Grace and I, members of the citizens group Gun Responsibility Advocates, spent a couple of hours asking shoppers and other passersby to vote for the first referendum you'll find on the Nov. 6 ballot:

 

Shall firearms be required to be stored in a safe and secure manner that prevents access by unauthorized persons when such firearms are not under the direct personal control of the owner?

 

We're asking citizens to vote Yes.

 

And once they vote Yes, we'll take those numbers to the Oak Park Village Board and ask them to pass a safe gun storage ordinance applicable to all gun owners in Oak Park.

 

We did something similar four years ago, asking citizens if they would support a federal (i.e. nationwide) universal background check system (no loopholes). Just under 93% said Yes. We took those numbers to the Oak Park and River Forest village boards, respectively, and both responded by adopting resolutions of support for such legislation.

 

Four years later, we still don't have a nationwide universal background check system — in spite of Newtown, Las Vegas, Parkland, and so many other preventable mass murders — but we knew that would be the case going in. The Republicans, snoring comfortably and corruptly in the deep pockets of the NRA, are holding the federal government hostage, and until voters break that stranglehold, either this November or in 2020, nothing will get done.

 

In the meantime, we're trying to be part of a groundswell that will turn into a tsunami, which will shatter that stranglehold, eventually, however long it takes.

 

A safe gun storage ordinance is another step in building that groundswell.

 

On Saturday, it was a pretty easy sell — as it should be. You might even call it a no-brainer. Many were surprised Oak Park didn't already have such an ordinance. And as one of the passersby noted, "It's not a no-brainer until we actually get it passed."

 

Why pass a law that seems so obvious? Laws articulate societal expectations. It gives parents greater comfort to ask other parents who have just invited their child over to play, "Do you have a gun in the house and is it securely stored?" Statistics amply demonstrate that having a gun in your home dramatically raises the odds of your child, not to mention other children, being harmed. An ordinance would also have an impact on suicide since it tends to be an impulsive act, made more likely by the presence of an unsecured gun.

 

Even more pertinent, it has been estimated that up to 40% of guns used in crimes were stolen from lawful gun owners whose homes were broken into — when the owners were not at home and guns were left around for the taking.

 

Gun owners claim they need a gun at home to protect themselves and their loved ones. But home invasions, i.e. when owners are present to defend themselves, are extremely rare. Burglars aren't that dumb. They strike when no one is around. Gun owners, however, use self-defense as an excuse to secure the right to keep guns at home, then criminals steal their unsecured guns and commit crimes with them, and then gun rights advocates complain that "law-abiding" gun owners are not the problem and shouldn't be subjected to such onerous laws.

 

They also claim they need ready access in the event of an intruder, but gun safes with fingerprint ID technology now provide that ready access.

 

A safe gun storage ordinance is a way to remind gun owners, who are very loud proponents of gun rights but deafeningly silent about gun responsibility, that their "inalienable" right to own and bear arms comes with an "inalienable" responsibility to actively help the rest of us reduce gun violence. And that means supporting common-sense legislation that will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids and those suffering from mental illness.

 

Voting Yes on the need for a safe gun storage ordinance, even though the referendum is non-binding (i.e. advisory), sends a clear message: It is the overwhelming consensus of Oak Park citizens to do more to reduce gun violence partly by passing laws that keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. A referendum gives us numbers to underscore the full extent of the will of the people.

 

In other words, a no-brainer.

 

Of course, it's also a no-brainer that citizens should vote into political exile the party that wants to take away health care from millions of Americans, including people with pre-existing conditions; who haven't done anything to change the system that saddles our college grads with unbearable student debt; who cut taxes for the wealthy, which increases the national debt and deficit in a time of already severe economic inequality; who steal a Supreme Court seat and then confirm an individual who proved himself unfit, by temperament, to be a Supreme Court justice; who refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty to serve as a check on a dangerously erratic and corrupt White House; who think the solution to immigration lies in separating children from their parents at the border; who turn a blind eye to a president who alienates allies and is best buddies with murderous, despotic rulers from North Korea, Russia and Saudi Arabia; who accuse the other party of "mob rule" when the only mob mentality in evidence can be found at the president's own Make Me Great Again campaign rallies and the white supremacist marches he praises; and who won't pass legislation to counteract climate change even though the scientific warnings are growing louder and more urgent as we rapidly approach the point of no return.

 

A Blue Wave should be a no-brainer — if only the millennials and Latinos turn out in force to vote on Nov. 6.

 

Even though they never have before.

 

As that passerby pointed out, none of this is a no-brainer until it actually happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree with one small sentence, that there should be a heightened awareness of safe gun storage. Forcing that awareness thru laws and restrictions on me won't help though.

I was driving thru Missouri the other day listening to the radio and a commercial endorsing Claire McCaskill or some lib candidate came on. They threw out a poll that claimed that "Over 80% of all business owners (Not sure if local or nationwide) favored an increase in the minimum wage."

My first thought was, why do 80% of the business owners need a law raising the wage? They are already for it, so pay it. Now, the majority of firearm owners are for safe storage; a law won't make any difference, and the ones that prefer a night stand gun or a couch/under the bed/behind the door gun are still gonna do what they want to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My city already requires deadbolt locks on all exterior doors. Anything in my house is secured safe storage. The integrity of that security all depends on the level of force applied.

 

A rock for glass, a pry bar for patio doors, a hammer and pry for most residential safes, what is “safe gun storage”?

 

Do I need a UL TRTL60x6 to protect my pistol? Safe storage laws only add one more law to break before you get to the gun. One more law that will not be enforced or enforceable. The only situation I can see this ever being enforced is where a child is injured with a firearm not stored in compliance with the ordinance. This ordinance targets the victim of a crime and not the criminal.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full story at the link - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/seattle-gun-storage-law-eminently-reasonable-judge-says-in-tossing-nra-gun-groups-lawsuit.amp

 

A Seattle judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association and a local gun rights group against a law that will require gun owners to lock up their firearms when not carrying or using them.

King County Superior Court Judge Barbara Linde tossed the suit after the city argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the group could encourage its members to practice safe storage and that the law hadn't even taken effect yet, the Seattle Times reported.

“It seems the NRA jumped the gun in filing their lawsuit against this eminently reasonable legislation meant to protect children and the vulnerable,” Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes said in a statement.

Alan Gottlieb, president of the Bellvue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation, who filed the suit with the NRA, suggested they would appeal the decision.

“It is frustrating when judges refuse to address the merits of a case and duck by saying the law is not yet in effect and plaintiffs have not proven that they will be arrested if they violate the law,” Gottlieb said in an email. “We will continue this litigation and force a judge to rule that the law is illegal.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

a law that will require gun owners to lock up their firearms when not carrying or using them.

Even when sitting in my nightstand or under my coffee table my gun is in use. It's making itself readily available to defend my family in the event of an intruder entering my house intent on doing us harm. Is this really different than sitting in a holster on my belt? In both cases my gun is performing the same task and doing it in a passive manor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full story at the link - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/seattle-gun-storage-law-eminently-reasonable-judge-says-in-tossing-nra-gun-groups-lawsuit.amp

 

A Seattle judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association and a local gun rights group against a law that will require gun owners to lock up their firearms when not carrying or using them.

King County Superior Court Judge Barbara Linde tossed the suit after the city argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the group could encourage its members to practice safe storage and that the law hadn't even taken effect yet, the Seattle Times reported.

“It seems the NRA jumped the gun in filing their lawsuit against this eminently reasonable legislation meant to protect children and the vulnerable,” Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes said in a statement.

Alan Gottlieb, president of the Bellvue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation, who filed the suit with the NRA, suggested they would appeal the decision.

“It is frustrating when judges refuse to address the merits of a case and duck by saying the law is not yet in effect and plaintiffs have not proven that they will be arrested if they violate the law,” Gottlieb said in an email. “We will continue this litigation and force a judge to rule that the law is illegal.”

 

 

That's a ridiculous argument for throwing out the suit. The law passed. It's unlawful. The judge should have ruled to throw the law out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...