Wash. state bill would make almost all gun owners criminals

[Wickabee]

It says, "no more than once a year". That doesn't mean they will be searching homes once a year. It's merely a limitation on how many times they can search. I highly doubt they would do anything more than a few random searches now and then or when they received tips from the public.

And with no definition of "safe and secure storage" what do they hope to find?

[mrveggieman]

This is the type of legislation that you need if you are serious about addressing the issue of gun violence in America.

Why don't you set the example for us Americans and volunteer to have your home searched by the police whenever they feel like it?

[tpeichel]

This is the type of legislation that you need if you are serious about addressing the issue of gun violence in America.

No, the issue is violence, not gun violence. In a previous thread I presented data, and Wickabee agreed, that showed more guns did not equal more violence. He never answered my follow up that fewer guns would not equal less violence, but logic dictates that would be true as well.

If you have evidence to prove that less guns means less violence, please present the data to back up that claim.

[Wickabee]

No, the issue is violence, not gun violence. In a previous thread I presented data, and Wickabee agreed, that showed more guns did not equal more violence. He never answered my follow up that fewer guns would not equal less violence, but logic dictates that would be true as well.

If you have evidence to prove that less guns means less violence, please present the data to back up that claim.

You slighlty misrepresent me. More guns does not necessarily mean more gun violence and less does not necessarily mean less. However, more means more potential and less means less potential. It goes back to "guns don't kill people, people kill people". The truth is people with guns kill people. Don't bring up stabbing and choking because we are talking about guns here.

However, most of the data presented was comparing the US to underdeveloped countries. When compared to the first world, your gun violence is ridiculous. But hey, you're better than half of Africa, most of South America and most of the former USSR. Good for you!

[habsheaven]

And with no definition of "safe and secure storage" what do they hope to find?

I can only assume they hope to find banned weapons and unbanned weapons that are not being safely stored. The law has this concept of "reasonability" that gets used quite often to decide on definitions and such.

[habsheaven]

Why don't you set the example for us Americans and volunteer to have your home searched by the police whenever they feel like it?

I have nothing to hide. They can search my home, my computer, my darn sock drawer if they want.

[Wickabee]

I can only assume they hope to find banned weapons and unbanned weapons that are not being safely stored. The law has this concept of "reasonability" that gets used quite often to decide on definitions and such.

And who is "the law" who decides what is reasonably safe and secure? Does that definition change from country to county because law enforcement has differing ideas? Does it change house to house?

What is "reasonable" to one might not be to another.

[habsheaven]

No, the issue is violence, not gun violence. In a previous thread I presented data, and Wickabee agreed, that showed more guns did not equal more violence. He never answered my follow up that fewer guns would not equal less violence, but logic dictates that would be true as well.

If you have evidence to prove that less guns means less violence, please present the data to back up that claim.

More guns equals more gun violence. End of story. NO ONE can refute that.

[habsheaven]

And who is "the law" who decides what is reasonably safe and secure? Does that definition change from country to county because law enforcement has differing ideas? Does it change house to house?

What is "reasonable" to one might not be to another.

I am going to make a big assumption here and assume that the officer on scene first determines what is reasonably safe, presents his evidence to the DA who then makes a determination and if that determination is in agreement with the arresting officer it is forwarded to a court for a judge or a jury of peers to make the final judgement. But I think you knew that already.

For example, if they walk in to a house full of kids and find an automatic weapon under a pillow or bed; in an unlocked cabinet; on top of the fridge. They are going to reasonably charge the person.

[Wickabee]

I am going to make a big assumption here and assume that the officer on scene first determines what is reasonably safe, presents his evidence to the DA who then makes a determination and if that determination is in agreement with the arresting officer it is forwarded to a court for a judge or a jury of peers to make the final judgement. But I think you knew that already.

For example, if they walk in to a house full of kids and find an automatic weapon under a pillow or bed; in an unlocked cabinet; on top of the fridge. They are going to reasonably charge the person.

So as long as the officer and DA agree. How is a person supposed to know what the two of them agree on?
How can a judge render a verdict with no real definition of the crime?

Thanks for the law lesson, chief.