Ahhhh, ummmm, errrrr...... yes, this is the group claiming to promote gun safety by slowly taking our ability to own them away. In order to keep up appearances that they don't want to actually take the away they sorta kinda teach safety classes to other "moms". Maybe they should get NRA qualified instructors? Maybe? Moms Demand Teaches “Gun Safety” by Violating The Four Rules. And then gets interesting.
Their opinions and money (via Bloomberg) are driving firearm legislation here in Oregon. One of the will make the victim of a gun theft responsible for crimes committed by the thief using that gun for five years. This is expected to pass this spring using a legislative procedure that prevents a citizen referendum and if it doesn't pass there will be an initiative this next fall.
not sure about that... seems more like they don't enforce some laws because it helps them create new ones that they fully intend to enforce... to eventually take away our rights a little at a time...
Looks like they should watch an Eddie Eagle recording and use it in their program. If passed this ordinance will be used selectively as a club to beat down firearm owners and make it uncomfortable and difficult to legally own firearms.
Zoom in on the weapon itself - sure looks like there's a mag in it. And although the angle is odd, could it be the hammer is back? Nah - they can't be that stupid. Can they?... All the while plagiarizing National Sports Shooting Foundation. An organization the vilify. Where's Darwin when you need him...
I'd make the suggestion, but they've already banned me on social media. I was just trying to be helpful when I suggested to Moms Demand Action that all they had to do to get more action was lose weight, dress better, stop nagging and then make him a sammich and bring him a beer. Apparently they didn't want to know the truth about that, either, even after I pointed out that it would cut down on the time that Dads Demand Action members spend at the bar with their buddy Charlie (who is a much younger divorcee and goes by Charli). Chrissakes, like I said I was just trying to help...
The language they used in the past when we defeated it previously included trigger locks as an acceptable "safe" storage. This is intended to be a low cost option to prevent the argument that not everybody can afford a safe. The problem is that you can defeat any type of trigger lock with a screwdriver in seconds - there are several YT videos. This shows that the law is not about safety whatsoever and is instead part of a planned infringement on the way to confiscation. Here is my biggest concern about relying on a trigger lock. As the law is written the gun owner has to prove it was secured. Since the thief can pop that lock off quickly, and you know they already know how, all you have is the word of the criminal. Let's say the thug gets caught and has your pistol and decides to plea bargain and maybe gets a boost by stating that your pistol wasn't locked. Remember, as currently written the burden of proof is on you, the victim. Unless you had video surveillance the pistol locked you have no way to prove your innocence. Now you are considered guilty of every crime where the thug used your gun. That's right, it's not a fine - the law makes you guilty of the same crime. He lies to plea bargain to get ten years for murder and you might get to be his cellmate.
All these type of Safe Storage Bills will fail at the first Federal Court Challenge, as being in DIRECT CONFLICT with the Hellar & McDonald SCOTUS Precident... It just amazes me, every time I read one of the Bills, that the drafters, choose to ignore the Heller & McDonald Precidents which establish what the LAW OF THE LAND is on In-Home Storage... Why is it that these drafters have never READ this Precident? When seconds count, the Police are over muliple Minutes away.....
If I am not in the house, my guns are in the safe. If I am home and someone(s) break in, then they will not be comfortable with the viewing angle that they will have of my gun(s). Assuming they actually stop and drop when told to do so. If not, then they will definitely not like the viewing angle they may have of my firearms in action.
Likewise, except the one that is completely disassembled waiting for me to replace the trigger return spring. There are not two parts that are not separated. (It's a 32 five shot revolver, and there's no ammo in the house for it, even if the burglar is a FAST smith.
That picture makes me cringe. She looks so smug and self-righteous but to someone who knows guns she just looks like an unsafe idiot. This woman should have sucked it up and been trained by a professional before trying to train others.
I detest judging people on appearance alone, but you're right about that one. "I'm better than you and I know it" always gives me gas, makes me want to create the need to ventilate the room.
Scary picture in the OP...for many reasons. As for Safe Gun handling I would like to see a safety class offered that is : Free or low cost... Made an "Elective " class for schools and non mandatory for gun owners... Non political in nature...the class would just teach : Safe firearm handling... Common firearms ID... How a firearm functions... Basic ballistics... Andy
Probably at a gun store...possibly even a mom and pop LGS. Stupidity isn't a disqualifier. Hatred of the law isn't a disqualifier. Lack of experience and/or knowledge isn't a disqualifier. A desire to remove all guns from private ownership isn't a disqualifier. Unless she is a convicted felon who has not had her rights restored, she's not disqualified. The 2nd amendment, like unto it's elder sibling the 1st amendment isn't an "apply at will and ignore otherwise" deal. It's all or none. I won't go on my typical 2nd amendment rant but suffice it to say that while I feel that someone should take it away from her in what is rapidly becoming a dangerous situation...they should also strip it, safe it, and then give it back to her. If she persists in creating a dangerous situation more drastic measures may need to be taken because of the danger, but that doesn't include prohibiting her from owning or carrying the firearm. Eventually the situation will resolve itself, and hopefully not after a mass casualty event. And careful with the "well it should be", because THAT is the exact mentality the anti-gunners have and you are no better than they are if you start down that road. All or none people, no middle ground...for either side.
These women believe they are noble .but act in emotion not good sense . For the amount of people that die in cars the concern is lopsided but of course they enjoy their driving privilege.
