• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

— So Police Take Away All His Guns and License to Carry

Manc Skipper said:
Had he locked the glove box or the car, preferably both, then he'd behaved responsibly. He didn't do either of those simple things.
Click to expand...

not according to this law or what the captain said in the op and thats my point

if it was out of site just in the care the law is still broken there and then the captain said this

Capt. Richard Conklin told The Register the state believes storing a firearm in a car – even a locked car – is not “a prudent thing to do.” “A car is like a glass box. If you take out any of the windows, it is no longer locked,” Conklin said. He also said small safes shouldn’t be an option either since they can be easily taken out of vehicles.
Click to expand...

thats too far and something id never support

out of site in a locked car is just fine
 
AGENT J said:
not according to this law or what the captain said in the op and thats my point

if it was out of site just in the care the law is still broken there and then the captain said this



thats too far and something id never support

out of site in a locked car is just fine
Click to expand...

He left it in an unlocked glove box in an unlocked car. That's irresponsible.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Irresponsibility may be a way of life for some bottom feeders
Click to expand...

hard to take your claim seriously since you are opposed to private citizens owning any firearms
 
Manc Skipper said:
He left it in an unlocked glove box in an unlocked car. That's irresponsible.
Click to expand...

you can keep repeating that meaningless fact but it has nothing to do with what i said :shrug:
 
Manc Skipper said:
He left it in an unlocked glove box in an unlocked car. That's irresponsible.
Click to expand...

He should never own a gun.....but some on here would elect him president of the nra
 
So, when his stolen gun, which he admitted to not securing, is used in a felony such as murder, he bears no responsibility whatsoever. If the gun is used by a toddler to blow their own brains out, he is innocent and ought to have his gun returned to him (with the blood splatters thoroughly washed away). It's not his fault. There was nothing he could have done to prevent the tragedy that resulted from his failure to secure his firearm.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
So, when his stolen gun, which he admitted to not securing, is used in a felony such as murder, he bears no responsibility whatsoever.
Click to expand...

What if it were a knife in the unlocked glovebox instead of a gun, and the thief uses the knife to commit murder. Is the owner of the knife still culpable?
 
Stealers Wheel said:
So, when his stolen gun, which he admitted to not securing, is used in a felony such as murder, he bears no responsibility whatsoever. If the gun is used by a toddler to blow their own brains out, he is innocent and ought to have his gun returned to him (with the blood splatters thoroughly washed away). It's not his fault. There was nothing he could have done to prevent the tragedy that resulted from his failure to secure his firearm.
Click to expand...

the only way the toddler would get the gun is from the guy who stole it. that is an intervening action.
 
aociswundumho said:
What if it were a knife in the unlocked glovebox instead of a gun, and the thief uses the knife to commit murder. Is the owner of the knife still culpable?
Click to expand...

gun banners hate gun owners and will support any law or ruling that harasses or punishes gun owners
 
aociswundumho said:
What if it were a knife in the unlocked glovebox instead of a gun, and the thief uses the knife to commit murder. Is the owner of the knife still culpable?
Click to expand...

Yes......
 
Captain Adverse said:
No hate involved but I don't agree.

As an advocate of individuals having ALL rights restored when someone has completed time for any crime they may have been convicted of, I can hardly agree with an individual who hasn't even been convicted of a crime suffer any "taking of property."

Hell, I don't agree with any requirement to have a permit.

All this does is serve as a warning to other gun owners NOT to report a lost or stolen weapon.
Click to expand...

Then don’t. But you’ll be in a world of pain if your gun is used to commit a crime or otherwise found at a crime scene and you never reported it stolen.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Man Reports His Pistol Stolen — So Police Take Away All His Guns and License to Carry
By Pluralist | Oct 4, 2019

"A Connecticut man had his pistol permit and firearms seized by authorities after he reported the theft of one of his guns on Monday. Officers responded on Tuesday to a report of car burglary made by Christopher Jerome, 26, the New Haven Register reported. He told police that, believing he would get back into the vehicle shortly, he didn’t lock his car doors after parking on Monday evening. Jerome said the next day he discovered his pistol had been lifted from the car’s unlocked glove box and the driver’s side door was open.

Police arrested Jerome on a reckless endangerment charge.

Under a recently implemented state law, police then entered Jerome’s home and removed the rest of his firearms: a Glock, another handgun and an AR-15.

The new law, which took effect on Oct. 1, prohibits storing a handgun in an unattended motor vehicle if it is not in the trunk, a locked safe or a locked glove box. Authorities also seized his pistol permit, which according to one police official, will likely be revoked. Capt. Richard Conklin told The Register the state believes storing a firearm in a car – even a locked car – is not “a prudent thing to do.” “A car is like a glass box. If you take out any of the windows, it is no longer locked,” Conklin said. He also said small safes shouldn’t be an option either since they can be easily taken out of vehicles.

Jerome has been released after posting a $1,000 bond."

Text of the new law.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, secure your guns or you won't have any guns to worry about anymore. I support this law and would like it to be a Federal regulation. It's one of the few gun control policies I support because it can actually improve safety and doesn't undermine the RKBA.

Queue the hate, it changes nothing.
Click to expand...

I agree with securing my guns. I installed a lock box in my truck in the event that I remove my side piece. Bolted it to the floor and everything.

But, people shouldn't prosecuted for being a victim of a crime.
 
Napoleon said:
Then don’t. But you’ll be in a world of pain if your gun is used to commit a crime or otherwise found at a crime scene and you never reported it stolen.
Click to expand...

Only if it's registered.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
So, when his stolen gun, which he admitted to not securing, is used in a felony such as murder, he bears no responsibility whatsoever.
Click to expand...
if he committed the felony then yes he is responsible, if someone else commits the felony then they are responsible.
If the gun is used by a toddler to blow their own brains out, he is innocent and ought to have his gun returned to him (with the blood splatters thoroughly washed away). It's not his fault.
Click to expand...
If he is the parent of the toddler then yes he should be held responsible.
If some other persons toddler went into his car then the parents of that toddler should be held responsible IMO
There was nothing he could have done to prevent the tragedy that resulted from his failure to secure his firearm.
Click to expand...
IMO whomever broke into the car ans stole the gun should be the person held responsible. Had they not done that rhe firearm qould still be exactly in the same spot the owner had left it.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Man Reports His Pistol Stolen — So Police Take Away All His Guns and License to Carry
By Pluralist | Oct 4, 2019

"A Connecticut man had his pistol permit and firearms seized by authorities after he reported the theft of one of his guns on Monday. Officers responded on Tuesday to a report of car burglary made by Christopher Jerome, 26, the New Haven Register reported. He told police that, believing he would get back into the vehicle shortly, he didn’t lock his car doors after parking on Monday evening. Jerome said the next day he discovered his pistol had been lifted from the car’s unlocked glove box and the driver’s side door was open.

Police arrested Jerome on a reckless endangerment charge.

Under a recently implemented state law, police then entered Jerome’s home and removed the rest of his firearms: a Glock, another handgun and an AR-15.

The new law, which took effect on Oct. 1, prohibits storing a handgun in an unattended motor vehicle if it is not in the trunk, a locked safe or a locked glove box. Authorities also seized his pistol permit, which according to one police official, will likely be revoked. Capt. Richard Conklin told The Register the state believes storing a firearm in a car – even a locked car – is not “a prudent thing to do.” “A car is like a glass box. If you take out any of the windows, it is no longer locked,” Conklin said. He also said small safes shouldn’t be an option either since they can be easily taken out of vehicles.

Jerome has been released after posting a $1,000 bond."

Text of the new law.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, secure your guns or you won't have any guns to worry about anymore. I support this law and would like it to be a Federal regulation. It's one of the few gun control policies I support because it can actually improve safety and doesn't undermine the RKBA.

Queue the hate, it changes nothing.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what is meant by a Glock, another handgun and. It's almost like the word Glock congers something different?
 
Captain Adverse said:
No hate involved but I don't agree.

As an advocate of individuals having ALL rights restored when someone has completed time for any crime they may have been convicted of, I can hardly agree with an individual who hasn't even been convicted of a crime suffer any "taking of property."

Hell, I don't agree with any requirement to have a permit.

All this does is serve as a warning to other gun owners NOT to report a lost or stolen weapon.
Click to expand...

Great law... there is now a weapon out there that will most likely be used to rob or kill a person because of this previous gun owners utter stupidity and negligence. And what this serves as a warning is that gun owners should have to have permits to own a gun, register their weapon and to pass not only a gun safety class but that they can shoot within a decent accuracy.
 
Chillfolks said:
if he committed the felony then yes he is responsible, if someone else commits the felony then they are responsible.
Click to expand...

They are responsible for that felony... but he is responsible for negligence in contributing to the aid of that felony...
 
Wayne Jr said:
It's not because his gun was stolen, it's because he didn't lock it up. If his car was locked then he would have been fine, legally.
Click to expand...

Wrong. In a locked car is not fine according to the OP's post.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Failing to secure it is a public hazard. He left his car unlocked. All he had to do was lock his car. Then, even if the gun was still stolen, he wouldn't be in legal trouble. Most of these crimes are 'crimes of opportunity' and a car simply being locked can deter the incident. The perp will usually just move on and find an easier target.
Click to expand...

Not true according to the OP. Even a locked car is not considered safe.
 
Wayne Jr said:
It's not because his gun was stolen, it's because he didn't lock it up. If his car was locked then he would have been fine, legally.
Click to expand...

The term "secure" is nebulous. Are you saying that if his car doors were locked and the thief smashed them open and then stolen the gun he wouldn't have had his other weapons confiscated? Seems to me the authorities were just using it as an excuse.
 
apdst said:
I agree with securing my guns. I installed a lock box in my truck in the event that I remove my side piece. Bolted it to the floor and everything.

But, people shouldn't prosecuted for being a victim of a crime.
Click to expand...

He isn't being prosecuted for the theft. He is not being prosecuted for being the victim of theft.

He is being prosecuted for leaving his gun unsecured. The theft is incidental. Had the gun in an unlocked car been discovered some other way that didn't involve theft, he would have been arrested for the exact same thing.
 
PoS said:
The term "secure" is nebulous.
Click to expand...
The law spells out EXACTLY what it means. It's not my fault you neglected to read the law before commenting.

PoS said:
Are you saying that if his car doors were locked and the thief smashed them open and then stolen the gun he wouldn't have had his other weapons confiscated?
Click to expand...
Correct. Secure does not mean impenetrable. Secure means you've taken reasonable steps to prevent. Merely locking the car, and nothing else is all he had to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom