Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bizarre_pencil t1_j5vvjf6 wrote

Reply to comment by Generic_Commenter-X in self-defense effectively being banned in Vermont. by Northwoods01

I beg to differ - this wouldn’t be a case of “the defendant had significant wealth to be gained from the murder of Jane doe” because hate isn’t a rational motivation it can’t be explained or determined rationally. It’s just begging to be abused by those seeking to strip guns from people.

Also, in context an honest reading of the 2nd amendment intends “well regulated” to mean strong functioning, well maintained. Why would they write an amendment saying the right to own guns will not be infringed, but then give govt tons of power to regulate? Doesn’t make logical sense especially given the context of the time.

8

Generic_Commenter-X t1_j5yuh74 wrote

Motive is motive. Courts deal with it every day.

Second, the bill doesn't infringe on your right to procure or own guns in any way. It proposers that gun owners store their weapons responsibly. If you want to whine about that, then whine, but it's no different than any other government safety requirements. Get over it.

0

bizarre_pencil t1_j5yybm0 wrote

Again, anti common sense. One of the main reasons to have a gun is for home defense. If an intruder breaks in, I’m supposed to have to basically unlock and re-assemble my gun and then go to the separate place the ammo is kept? Absolute foolishness.

4

Generic_Commenter-X t1_j5z3ch9 wrote

Where does the bill say you can't keep a handgun under your pillow? The actual language of the bill is:

" when a firearm is not in a person’s immediate possession or control, the firearm must be properly secured in such a way to render it inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user and stored separately from ammunition..."

"Immediate control" means you can still keep your firearm under your mattress or pillow.

0

bizarre_pencil t1_j5z4ap9 wrote

The vague language means you’re inferring that, and not everyone will share that interpretation. Also it’s just absurd levels of micro managing the populace. So under a pillow is ok, what about on/in a bedside table? How is any of this preventing gun violence?

2

Generic_Commenter-X t1_j5z5vvl wrote

FYI, this is in relation to an "arrestee", but the takeaway is that "immediate control" refers to the area "within an individual's reach" : "In criminal law, immediate control refers to an area within an arrestee’s reach. A police officer may conduct a warrant less search of the area to ensure the safety of the officer and also to prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence. The term also includes the arrestee’s person and the area from within which s/he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. [United States v. Beltran-Palafox, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54541 (D. Kan. June 3, 2010)]."

2

Generic_Commenter-X t1_j5z56s4 wrote

If you look up the meaning of "immediate control", in its legal sense, it means pillows and bedside tables are okay. Objecting to the Bill because you think it's "micromanaging" is legitimate, but objecting because you think it means nobody can have a gun for self-protection is just a straw man fever dream. I doubt it would survive the second amendment were that the intent. If that is the intent, then the law should be struck down.

1

bizarre_pencil t1_j5ztjb9 wrote

That’s all well and good for clarifying the language, but that doesn’t answer how any of these rules are going to reduce gun violence.

3

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j61j9ui wrote

I never understand the storing ammo separately. An unloaded gun is a pretty useless tool and defeats the whole point of having a gun to start with.

2