Delaware Concealed Carry Forum

State News & Gun News => Delaware News => Topic started by: Cbmarine on March 11, 2019, 11:30:33 PM

Title: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Cbmarine on March 11, 2019, 11:30:33 PM
On Wednesday, at 1:00pm in the House Majority Hearing Room, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider gun control legislation HB63 (http://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=47156) as alerted by NRA-ILA.   (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190311/delaware-gun-control-legislation-scheduled-for-house-committee-hearing-on-wednesday)

This bill makes it a misdemeanor to “unsafe[ly] storage of a firearm when the person intentionally or recklessly stores or leaves a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a an unauthorized person and where the unauthorized person obtains the firearm.” Currently the law is limited to “a minor”.

Affirmative defenses:
”The firearm was stored in a locked box or container, disabled with a tamper-resistant trigger lock which was properly engaged so as to render the firearm inoperable by a person other than the owner or other lawfully-authorized user, or stored in a location which a reasonable person would have believed to be secure from access by an unauthorized person.
(2) The unauthorized person obtained the firearm as the result of an unlawful entry by any person.


Personally I feel that this unnecessarily enforces what should be a standard practice.


Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: SturmRugerSR9 on March 12, 2019, 10:56:42 AM
But there are so many people that have firearms setting behind a door or laying in a drawer, or on a table where they can be easily accessed, just because they are too lazy to secure them.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Just Bill on March 12, 2019, 11:07:28 AM
and so it begins.  It matters not if this will save lives, their favorite phrase.."if it saves one life it is needed".  It will likely make criminals of those of us that never were.  If I know leftist politicians, it will be worded in such a way that too much is left to interpretation.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Just Bill on March 14, 2019, 08:09:10 AM
What good is a self defense gun(not allowed to use the "W" word, ask Radnor) that is locked up with a trigger lock??  I am one of those you described, with loaded guns all over the house.  But there are no people younger than 65 in the house.  Where kids, with the curiosity of cats are around, those things should be safely secured.

Any one with news of the legislature goings on.  Since the dems are in control, I assume they all agreed this is absolutely necessary.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Radnor on March 14, 2019, 10:39:14 AM
That's right the "W" will cost you $10.00.


Rep Bill Bush was with us today and DID NOT vote to release HB 63 safe storage from committee.
It did come out of committee.


IMHO, this is just the start of it.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: MarkB on March 14, 2019, 10:41:02 AM
Technically, you should be good with the break-in provision as long as you file a police report.  What happens in real life may be another question.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Just Bill on March 15, 2019, 07:17:36 PM
I got the report from the republican house committee, sounds like it is going to "we(dems) are in charge, so suck it, you can't stop us now."  Screw the people!!
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: PPScarry on March 17, 2019, 03:55:17 PM
I too have guns around when home. No kids in my household either. 
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Just Bill on March 23, 2019, 09:11:53 AM
This bill hits the house floor on Tues.  As I mentioned a while back, they are in the process of turning me into a criminal.  Firearms that are safely locked away are of no use for self defense.  This just their first step to showing me the inside of the Smyrna Hilton.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Cbmarine on March 23, 2019, 02:21:18 PM
Liability depends on the prosecutor. Worthwhile strengthening this language:

HB 63 Affirmative defenses: (http://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?LegislationId=47156)
”The firearm was stored in a locked box or container, disabled with a tamper-resistant trigger lock which was properly engaged so as to render the firearm inoperable by a person other than the owner or other lawfully-authorized user, or stored in a location which a reasonable person would have believed to be secure from access by an unauthorized person.
(2) The unauthorized person obtained the firearm as the result of an unlawful entry by any person.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Just Bill on March 23, 2019, 03:48:02 PM
When I was fetched up in Dover a long time ago, a reasonable person would not even enter a house if the door was open., but it was rarely locked.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Just Bill on March 27, 2019, 07:23:17 AM
According to the legislature website, HB63 passed 22-19 on tues.  Since it was put to the floor yesterday and already passed, there must have been a lot of debate...NOT!!  I have no doubt it will also pass the senate which will make me a criminal with the stroke of Carneys pen.  Next up, semi's, magazines, and probably more.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Radnor on March 27, 2019, 07:41:09 AM
This is from the shining light Larry Mitchell....

In reply to your earlier scenario, if the repairman is a juvenile, mental health issues or felony convictions then they are an unauthorized user. This is the current law that define persons prohibited.

I will support this bill because it provided.      safe storage within the home and does not violate anyone’s rights.


And my question...
Dear Mr. Mitchell,

I am AGAINST HB63 and request you vote the same way.

The language in the Bill is too vague.  What if a repairman I invited in
to repair an appliance gets access to my firearm I have stored for home defense?

About the only acceptable item is the affirmative defense for unlawful entry.

Again I ask you vote NO.


Looking forward to your reply.


To the attorneys on the site, will the Heller decision help us?
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Just Bill on March 27, 2019, 10:22:46 AM
My letter to my rep, Seigfried, resulted in his Y vote, which I assumed he would do.   Not sense in wasting a letter to my far left senator.  So now I am a criminal, because I will not unload/lock my guns away.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: SturmRugerSR9 on March 27, 2019, 01:28:22 PM
The Government vs Rights:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/26/socialism-is-rooted-in-godlessness/
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: MarkB on March 27, 2019, 02:22:34 PM
From a non-lawyer opinion position, if your firearm is locked up and your home is broken into (with proof of break-in) then you are safe if a "persons prohibited" gets that firearm.  A potential grey area may be if your home is broken into and your firearm is not locked up and a persons prohibited gets the firearm.  The reading of the text says you do have a defense if an unauthorized entry occurs and he firearm is taken.  The other defense is if you have control of the firearm and it is taken from you.  As for me, all my firearms not in use are locked in a safe and I carry my other firearm on my person or have control of it 24hours a day.

Please correct me if I am wrong in any of this.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: oldgraygeek on March 27, 2019, 03:43:51 PM
Quote
if your firearm is locked up and your home is broken into (with proof of break-in) then you are safe if a "persons prohibited" gets that firearm.  A potential grey area may be if your home is broken into and your firearm is not locked up and a persons prohibited gets the firearm.  The reading of the text says you do have a defense if an unauthorized entry occurs and he firearm is taken.  The other defense is if you have control of the firearm and it is taken from you.

I agree. This is how I, also not a lawyer, interpret the text of the bill.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: muleman88 on March 27, 2019, 06:14:40 PM
All of my firearms are locked up in my LOCKED HOUSE! How many locks are necessary ?
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: robberbaron on March 27, 2019, 06:49:53 PM
The biggest problem I see is.....if there is a problem and your gun is accessed, no matter how or by whom, you will have to pay to defend yourself. That can get to be very expensive. The justice system tends not to be very just sometimes.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: seniorgeek on March 27, 2019, 07:49:56 PM
All of my firearms are locked up in my LOCKED HOUSE! How many locks are necessary ?

EXACTLY!
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: oldgraygeek on March 27, 2019, 07:51:44 PM
I don't like it any more than you do, but it's most likely gonna happen.
The bottom line is this, as I read this law, we are protected if anything illegal is done to gain access to our firearm. If we are "lucky," we would not be charged with anything in such an event. (Example: Your locked home has been burglarized, you are Off The Hook).
If we were not "lucky," well, then we would be in for a difficult and expensive fight for our lives.

I already have the legal power lined up. I wouldn't want to have to spend that money, but I know he wouldn't gouge me and he'd be worth every penny.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Hawkeye on March 28, 2019, 09:08:33 AM
Delaware is becoming more like New Jersey every day. Make no mistake, this is not about safety.  This is about gun confiscation inch by inch and harassment of law abiding citizens who dare to think diffrently then they do. Progressive politicians want to make owning a firearm as burdensome as possible hoping that people will just figure out it is too much trouble.  I feel a rant building up so I better stop here.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: muleman88 on March 28, 2019, 12:19:26 PM

The bottom line is this, as I read this law, we are protected if anything illegal is done to gain access to our firearm.


Breaking into a house is illegal . Theft is illegal!. It shouldn’t matter if my guns are locked up in an additional locked device or not . It’s ridiculous how the criminals have more protection under the law than the law abiding citizen.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Cbmarine on March 28, 2019, 12:27:47 PM
HB63  (http://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=47156) has passed out of the House and is assigned to the Senate Executive Committee.  If you have suggestions for amendments to tighten up the language regarding illegal entry send them to Senators Delcollo and Pettijohn among others. 

Senate Executive (http://legis.delaware.gov/CommitteeDetail?committeeId=517)
150th General Assembly (Present)

Members (6)
Chair:   David B. McBride
Vice-Chair:   Nicole Poore
Members:   Harris B. McDowell
Bryan Townsend
Catherine Cloutier
Gerald W. Hocker
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Radnor on March 28, 2019, 12:45:39 PM
Sent to my elected Rep.

Mr. Mitchell,

Let's make grandma follow the safe storage bill.  How could this have ended differently if her firearm was locked up???
https://www.azfamily.com/news/grandma-shoots-intruder-to-protect-family-ycso-says/article_f4f842f8-4cf4-11e9-9c8c-ab08803fe5ac.html?fbclid=IwAR3jIw0M9cOopanyouAGNtG7JW3zzyyjU67k3gqOh_KegirLaJkBAm27MNA

I'm sure she asked the intruder to kindly stay put while she had time to retrieve her firearm that was locked up.


Looking forward to your reply.

Radnor
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Radnor on March 28, 2019, 01:53:06 PM
And the response I received.....

I applaud the women and the outcome of this incident, she did everything within the law if this had been in Delaware. In Delaware she would not had to have the gun locked up as long as a juvenile, person with mental health issues or convicted felon was not living in her home. It is absolutely the gun owners responsibility to keep guns away from unauthorized persons (persons listed above). If the owner does not have this scenario with any of the three listed, she could have guns all over the home.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Cbmarine on March 28, 2019, 03:05:56 PM
And the response I received.....

I applaud the women and the outcome of this incident, she did everything within the law if this had been in Delaware. In Delaware she would not had to have the gun locked up as long as a juvenile, person with mental health issues or convicted felon was not living in her home. It is absolutely the gun owners responsibility to keep guns away from unauthorized persons (persons listed above). If the owner does not have this scenario with any of the three listed, she could have guns all over the home.

What is the DE AG interpretation of the proposed bill? Hope it wasn’t that Mr Mitchell’s lips were just moving.  @Radnor, with your inferred permission, I sent your question and the response (without your screen name) to a Deputy AG asking who in the AG could render an opinion on Mr Mitchell’s veracity.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Just Bill on March 28, 2019, 06:53:36 PM
If you haven't checked, the AG is the same party as those in the legislature that have already violated their oath of office, "to protect and defend"...
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Cbmarine on March 28, 2019, 08:15:31 PM
If you haven't checked, the AG is the same party as those in the legislature that have already violated their oath of office, "to protect and defend"...
Taking a more positive approach since it is rare that an organization is entirely monolithic.  Having listened to KJ at a roundtable, it is obvious that she is entirely for gun control. However establishing a rapport with DAGs is, in my opinion, worthwhile.  When queried on school carry, the respective DAG interpreted the law literally and confirmed that school carry is legal if the carrier is compliant with federal and state laws.  The query below is in that vein. 
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Radnor on March 29, 2019, 07:58:00 AM
@Radnor, with your inferred permission, I sent your question and the response (without your screen name) to a Deputy AG asking who in the AG could render an opinion on Mr Mitchell’s veracity.

No, I have no issues with you doing this.

But it is my opinion they will not answer you.  Sure they will tell you to ask your attorney.  As their job is to put you in a box.

But, I hope I am wrong.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Radnor on April 02, 2019, 11:20:26 AM
Dear Mr. Mitchell,

Please take a moment to look at the following link:

https://lawnews.tv/examples-of-kids-using-guns-to-defend-themselves/

LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR COMMENTS.

Radnor

His reply....
I did look at your link that you provided and appreciate the information. As I read the links I found there was a common thread, underage individuals using a firearm to protect themselves or someone else. I find this to be completely lawful in Delaware. If you referring to the passage of HB 63 and how it would effect an underage user they would be covered under our statutes. HB 63 does not prohibit anyone from protecting themselves or someone else in their homes if confronted with the possibility of death or serious physical injury.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Just Bill on April 02, 2019, 07:01:12 PM
c'mon Todd, those stories of minors using firearms to protect themselves or other are all made up by the NRA or other gun nuts.  They never really never happen, just ask any liberal politician.  This is the mentality we are up against.

 I sent a letter(e-mail) to my rep, Seigfried, suggesting he has already broken his oath of office by voting for this bill.  I know, I am too subtle!!  I flunked the course on "how to win friends and influence people".   I received a reply telling me how he is there to serve the people in his district, call him anytime.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Etrier on April 04, 2019, 10:57:32 AM
 I am concerned that the average gun owner reads HB 63 and sees the affirmative defense terms (storage in a safe etc) of the bill as an exception to the unsafe storage mandates of the bill. The only method of compliance with HB 63 is "when the firearm is carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully-authorized user". Or when the "firearm was manufactured in or before 1899..." All of the other safe storage apparent exceptions (storage in a safe, trigger locks and unlawful entry) are included under the affirmative defense provision of HB 63.  An affirmative defense can be raised after you have been arrested for unsafe storage, are charged, hired a lawyer (spend a low of money), plead not guilty and you go to trial where you get to admit to the court that you did store the firearm in an unsafe manner so that you can assert your affirmative defense. To top it off if you seek a CCW permit or try to renew one, your record of arrest for unsafe storage will likely come into play as the reason for denial of the CCW. In the end maybe the AG will offer a plea deal or decline to press charges but that is not what is included in the text of HB 63.  Amendments need to be attached to this bill that change the affirmative defense language to exceptions from unsafe storage that include storage in a locked container, storage in a safe, trigger locks, unlawful entry to home, vehicle or other structures, medical and fire emergency.  I sat through the House debate and vote on HB 63 and it became evident to me during the debate that the purpose of this bill is to punish gun owners with crimes and monetary expense no matter how a firearm ended up in a prohibited persons hands.  Any argument from those that support HB 63 that this is a safe storage bill is false, such language does not exist in the current bill.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Cbmarine on April 12, 2019, 08:25:26 PM
As alerted by @radnor on the “from DGR” thread, HB63 on on the Senate Executive 4/17 meeting agenda. 

http://legis.delaware.gov/MeetingNotice/22073
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: MarkB on April 17, 2019, 10:03:02 PM
This amendment ws added to HB63 by the Senate.  It requires the State to prove unsafe conditions.  The text of the amendment is:

This Amendment removes the burden placed on a person to prove an affirmative defense and instead requires the State to prove all of the following apply: (1) A firearm was not stored in a locked box or container. (2) A firearm was not disabled with a tamper-resistant trigger lock which was properly engaged so as to render the firearm inoperable by a person other than the owner or other lawfully-authorized user. (3) A firearm was not stored in a location which a reasonable person would have believed to be secure from access by an unauthorized person. (4) An unauthorized person did not obtain the firearm as the result of an unlawful entry by any person.

This a good amendment.  It would be nice if the bill fails entirely but this does increase out protections.  The bill with the amendment now goes back to the House for a revote.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Cbmarine on April 17, 2019, 11:20:42 PM
Agree that it is a good amendment. The amendment’s  (http://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=47371)primary sponsor is Senator Townsend!  A moment of reality or a ploy to get the bill passed?  A clue for reality is in one of the Additional Sponsors: Senator Decollo. One can only hope that reality continues to dawn in Senator Townsend’s consciousness and he withdraws SBs 68-70.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: RLS on April 18, 2019, 01:39:39 AM
Agree that it is a good amendment. The amendment’s  (http://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=47371)primary sponsor is Senator Townsend!  A moment of reality or a ploy to get the bill passed?  A clue for reality is in one of the Additional Sponsors: Senator Decollo. One can only hope that reality continues to dawn in Senator Townsend’s consciousness and he withdraws SBs 68-70.

I don't count Decollo as a friend. He voted "Yes" on the Electoral College bill. He should be tarred and feathered.

Rick
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Just Bill on April 18, 2019, 08:42:23 AM
I would assume that the fact that a gun was stolen after breaking into a house is not a good defense??  So logic would suggest that I also must lock up all my medications, kitchen knives, baseball bats, etc.??
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Radnor on April 18, 2019, 09:48:29 AM
The amendment placed with the Bill:

This Amendment removes the burden placed on a person to prove an affirmative defense and instead requires the State to prove all of the following apply:
(1) A firearm was not stored in a locked box or container.
(2) A firearm was not disabled with a tamper-resistant trigger lock which was properly engaged so as to render the firearm inoperable by a person other than the owner or other lawfully-authorized user.
(3) A firearm was not stored in a location which a reasonable person would have believed to be secure from access by an unauthorized person.
(4) An unauthorized person did not obtain the firearm as the result of an unlawful entry by any person.

http://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=47371 (http://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=47371)
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: MarkB on April 18, 2019, 10:42:46 AM
A thought from a totally uninformed layman.

It appears that this amendment is an improvement over the EXISTING law in that the existing law does have the Affirmative Defense that you can use after you have been charged with a violation of the law and this amendment removes the Affirmative Defense and places the burden of proof of a crime on the State.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Just Bill on April 18, 2019, 12:07:06 PM
I assume that my house is secure enough that I don't need to disable or lock away my firearms.  But when the time comes, the state will disagree.  A secured , lock up, disabled, unloaded firearm is useless for defense!!!  I understand that no house is break-in proof, that is why I have loaded firearms.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: SturmRugerSR9 on April 18, 2019, 05:29:48 PM
I have my shotguns in a locked gun cabinet, pistol in locked metal cabinet or on me, other gun locked in case or trigger locks on them.  I have no intention of going out and spending a grand (that I don't have) on a giant vault. Besides, they are all in my locked house and no kids near here.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Clarence on April 20, 2019, 11:45:52 AM
Here is my main problem with these laws:  Why do they specifically address guns?   Are there not laws on the books right now for reckless endangerment?   Why just guns?    Leaving a loaded gun out where a child could get it is already  covered.  So is leaving A bottle of hydrochloric acid out where a child could get to it.  How about leaving a pile of pills out for someone bent on suicide. Isn’t that already covered under reckless endangerment?  How about gas and matches to a Pyromaniac.

The idea behind this law is to demonize guns period.  This law is totally unnecessary and redundant.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: SturmRugerSR9 on April 20, 2019, 12:03:53 PM
The left-wing, socialist, communist in the government are attempting the same thing Hitler did by disarming the Jews. TAKE-OVER.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: RLS on April 20, 2019, 05:35:04 PM
Here is my main problem with these laws:  Why do they specifically address guns?   Are there not laws on the books right now for reckless endangerment?   Why just guns?    Leaving a loaded gun out where a child could get it is already  covered.  So is leaving A bottle of hydrochloric acid out where a child could get to it.  How about leaving a pile of pills out for someone bent on suicide. Isn’t that already covered under reckless endangerment?  How about gas and matches to a Pyromaniac.

The idea behind this law is to demonize guns period.  This law is totally unnecessary and redundant.


They also do it to justify their existence. "See?  I did something." It is akin to the cel phone and driving laws. There were already laws that covered such things. Negligent driving, careless driving...




Rick
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Radnor on June 04, 2019, 07:56:11 AM
HB63 (safe storage w/ SA2) is on the agenda today.
http://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=47156 (http://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=47156)
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Just Bill on June 04, 2019, 06:47:19 PM
I knew they would sneak some of them in at the last minute(more or less).  I still don't understand that if my house is locked up, with the alarm on, how I am liable if my guns are stolen??????  They have to locked up in addition to being locked up??   Guilty until proven innocent??

Bill
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: MarkB on June 04, 2019, 09:43:20 PM
I knew they would sneak some of them in at the last minute(more or less).  I still don't understand that if my house is locked up, with the alarm on, how I am liable if my guns are stolen??????  They have to locked up in addition to being locked up??   Guilty until proven innocent??

Bill

Here is the text of SA2 for HB63 that made the State have to prove that ALL of the four violations happened.  Look at item 4.  If the firearm is acquired by an unlawful entry then you are not guilty under this law.

"This Amendment removes the burden placed on a person to prove an affirmative defense and instead requires the State to prove all of the following apply: (1) A firearm was not stored in a locked box or container. (2) A firearm was not disabled with a tamper-resistant trigger lock which was properly engaged so as to render the firearm inoperable by a person other than the owner or other lawfully-authorized user. (3) A firearm was not stored in a location which a reasonable person would have believed to be secure from access by an unauthorized person. (4) An unauthorized person did not obtain the firearm as the result of an unlawful entry by any person."
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Just Bill on June 05, 2019, 07:00:11 AM
New urinal says it passed the house yesterday(Tues), 23-18
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Radnor on June 05, 2019, 07:58:09 AM
It did pass, heard it today on the radio.

I knew it would pass.  They are reminding me of when I took my kids to places
and the souvenir shop is at the exit.  After you've been looking around for a while
and tell them time is almost up we're leaving.  The kids go around in a frenzy looking
for anything to buy....
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: Cbmarine on June 05, 2019, 07:16:33 PM
House Bill 63  (http://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=47156)
150th General Assembly (Present)

Bill Progress
Current Status:   Passed 6/4/19
What happens next?   Ready for Governor for action
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: MarkB on June 05, 2019, 10:22:22 PM
I heard on the radio that Carney will sign HB63 Friday.
Title: Re: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.
Post by: MarkB on June 06, 2019, 08:07:40 PM
Signed into law today.