Delaware Concealed Carry Forum
August 18, 2019, 08:11:42 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: HB 63 SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS.  (Read 3370 times)
Radnor
Administrator
Life Member
*****
Posts: 1649


New Castle Co.


« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2019, 03:20:26 PM »

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.
Logged

NRA Certified Instructor and Training Counselor, CRSO
Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection In The Home,
Personal Protection Outside The Home, Home Firearm Safety,
and Reloading

Also offer Delaware CCDW training.  PM me for details.
Just Bill
Life Member
*****
Posts: 611


« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2019, 11:01:12 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.
Logged

NRA Cert. Instructor Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun
NRA Lifer
NRA RSO
DE/PA CCDW permits
AGI certified gunsmith--Cowboy Action/1911/Glock/rifle/pistol/shotgun/rimfire
AGI Firearms Appraiser
Etrier
Member
***
Posts: 53



« Reply #32 on: April 04, 2019, 02:57:32 PM »

 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.
Logged

Kydex Holster Maker
Cbmarine
Life Member
*****
Posts: 1363


III Marine Amphib Corps. My dad’s shoulder patch


« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2019, 12:25:26 AM »

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
Logged

Just a smelly deplorable dreg of society clinging to God and guns.
New Castle County
_..  .  _._   _..  ..._ _  .  ._.
MarkB
Life Member
*****
Posts: 432



« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2019, 02:03:02 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2019, 03:29:02 AM by MarkB » Logged

NRA Benefactor Member
USCG, 1963-1967, GM-3
Cbmarine
Life Member
*****
Posts: 1363


III Marine Amphib Corps. My dad’s shoulder patch


« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2019, 03:20:42 AM »

Agree that it is a good amendment. The amendment’s 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.
Logged

Just a smelly deplorable dreg of society clinging to God and guns.
New Castle County
_..  .  _._   _..  ..._ _  .  ._.
RLS
Newbie
*
Posts: 16


« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2019, 05:39:39 AM »

Agree that it is a good amendment. The amendment’s 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
Logged
Just Bill
Life Member
*****
Posts: 611


« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2019, 12:42:23 PM »

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.??
Logged

NRA Cert. Instructor Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun
NRA Lifer
NRA RSO
DE/PA CCDW permits
AGI certified gunsmith--Cowboy Action/1911/Glock/rifle/pistol/shotgun/rimfire
AGI Firearms Appraiser
Radnor
Administrator
Life Member
*****
Posts: 1649


New Castle Co.


« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2019, 01:48:29 PM »

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
« Last Edit: April 18, 2019, 01:50:20 PM by Radnor » Logged

NRA Certified Instructor and Training Counselor, CRSO
Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection In The Home,
Personal Protection Outside The Home, Home Firearm Safety,
and Reloading

Also offer Delaware CCDW training.  PM me for details.
MarkB
Life Member
*****
Posts: 432



« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2019, 02:42:46 PM »

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.
Logged

NRA Benefactor Member
USCG, 1963-1967, GM-3
Just Bill
Life Member
*****
Posts: 611


« Reply #40 on: April 18, 2019, 04:07:06 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.
Logged

NRA Cert. Instructor Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun
NRA Lifer
NRA RSO
DE/PA CCDW permits
AGI certified gunsmith--Cowboy Action/1911/Glock/rifle/pistol/shotgun/rimfire
AGI Firearms Appraiser
SturmRugerSR9
Life Member
*****
Posts: 2434


Made in America


« Reply #41 on: April 18, 2019, 09:29:48 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.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 04:00:45 PM by SturmRugerSR9 » Logged

I'D RATHER HAVE A GUN IN MY HANDS, THAN A COP ON THE PHONE!

I reserve the right to not be perfect.

PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT!

DECCW Permit Holder
Former PA (non-resident) Permit Holder
NRA Member
USAF Vietnam Era Veteran
Kent County
Christian/Conservative
I cling to my GOD and my Gun
Clarence
Life Member
*****
Posts: 1130


Liberty and Independence


« Reply #42 on: April 20, 2019, 03:45:52 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.
Logged

DE PA VA AZ FL ccw. NRA Life Member.

For slavery fled, O glorious dead, When you fell in the foggy dew.
SturmRugerSR9
Life Member
*****
Posts: 2434


Made in America


« Reply #43 on: April 20, 2019, 04:03:53 PM »

The left-wing, socialist, communist in the government are attempting the same thing Hitler did by disarming the Jews. TAKE-OVER.
Logged

I'D RATHER HAVE A GUN IN MY HANDS, THAN A COP ON THE PHONE!

I reserve the right to not be perfect.

PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT!

DECCW Permit Holder
Former PA (non-resident) Permit Holder
NRA Member
USAF Vietnam Era Veteran
Kent County
Christian/Conservative
I cling to my GOD and my Gun
RLS
Newbie
*
Posts: 16


« Reply #44 on: April 20, 2019, 09:35:04 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
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!