Guns and Shit

[Hanley]

Do it.

+1

[5hout]

@mikeylikey The two specific kinds of safe's I'm thinking of that are great solutions, that this law seems to exclude are locking storage cabinets and locking jobsite tool boxes.

Gun safes are (in general, there are some companies that aren't like this) a giant ripoff. You're paying for something to be large and cool looking. Their fire protection is generally provided via slapping 4-5 inches of drywall under a thin skin of metal. The problem here is that if they're in a real fire the drywall "protects" the guns via decomposition into water and other stuff (this takes a lot of energy, while the drywall is decomposing the in-safe temp doesn't rise much) and then the guns burn up anyway b/c it turns out that this only works if the fire is completely done and cool within, say, an hour. A more expensive (i.e. "real") solution is stuff like thick rockwool and similar products that actually provide non-degradation based insulation.

So, if you don't give a shit about the fake fire protection you can just buy a lockable cabinet or jobsite box and get the lock, without the bullshit. This also means (per footprint/volume) you get way more interior size per dollar, b/c you're not paying for an often extremely thin skin of metal wrapped under drywall in a way that looks really cool.

Now, this aspect of the law is still better than (say) Cali's dumbass law that requires an extremely specific testing requirement that bears no relationship to reality, safety or reason and has the effect (and probably purpose) of making it more expensive). Also, as you note, you can easily get around this via running a cable lock through the guns and then maybe buying a specific gun safe (or electronic lock) for any home defense earmarked items.

I think if you are the kind of person who has enough invested in guns that you need robust fire protection specifically for your guns, you probably have the issue of keeping them away from unqualified children pretty well sorted. (Side note, I can't help but notice that the people with 100 guns that we're supposed to be afraid of are literally never the ones shooting up schools).

On the other extreme, those locking cabinets seem like they could be defeated by a healthy juvenile male with a screwdriver or pry bar. Maybe we're thinking of different products.

https://gunsafereviewsguy.com/articles/ ... s-stronger

I think this is the best breadcrumb on the topic, if I did the link correctly it will show a real safe vs a "cool looking gun safe" comparison.

The "gun safes" at Cabelas are just locking cabinets that look really cool and have drywall added to meet a fake fire test. You can absolutely defeat them with a crowbar, or in some cases, a screw driver.

Compare against this: https://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/H- ... c0QAvD_BwE

I will say, in the last few years, more companies have started offering better features (like tight fitting doors you can easily slide a crowbar into) and actual rated steel all the way around. Of course, they cost way more.

[mikeylikey]

The "gun safes" at Cabelas are just locking cabinets that look really cool and have drywall added to meet a fake fire test. You can absolutely defeat them with a crowbar, or in some cases, a screw driver.

Compare against this: https://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/H- ... c0QAvD_BwE

I will say, in the last few years, more companies have started offering better features (like tight fitting doors you can easily slide a crowbar into) and actual rated steel all the way around. Of course, they cost way more.

I don't doubt there are lots of ways to get better fire protection, or better theft protection, or both, than the average "gun safe". Just a couple things;

There is something to be said for using a product for its advertised purpose. I think building codes are a good example here: Can you come up with a 'better' way to splice wires than a standard wire nut, or a novel design for a floor joist that is better than a 2x10 on 16" centers? Sure, but the problem is the inspectors and the insurance companies cannot evaluate every bespoke solution that some guy comes up with out there. Similarly the Michigan legislature cannot evaluate every job box or custom fire safe out there so they have to go by products that are warranted by the manufacturer to be fit for the purpose at hand. For every guy like you who would use a legit uber-secure job box, there is some cheap bastard who will put his gun in a locking office depot file cabinet and try to argue it's just fine. Now you're legislating gauge thicknesses and rockwell harness of hinge pins etc etc. Just unworkable.

[mikeylikey]

One down:

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 473790007/

[mbasic]

One down:

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 473790007/

I would think the dad would be a slam dunk, being that he was the one who armed the kid. But what do I know?

[mikeylikey]

One down:

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 473790007/

I would think the dad would be a slam dunk, being that he was the one who armed the kid. But what do I know?

[mbasic]

One down:

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 473790007/

I would think the dad would be a slam dunk, being that he was the one who armed the kid. But what do I know?

funny too, we have a case here locally where the son is accused of some pretty heinous crimes and the mom and dad have been rumored to have helped cover it up, or, at least withheld evidence, etc. Whole family is considered wealthy-privilged-trash or whatever.

Anyway the parents were divorced prior to this ...a few years. The family fled the country/"went on vacation" when the 'story' was unfolding in the local news and things were circulating in the rumor mill. Authorities has not acted on anything for quite a while, because the evidence was a lot of he-said-she-said-stuff, eye witness accounts by minors, etc .... Anyway, it appears the parents may have remarried just because they cannot testify against eachother (or, their tesaomies cannot be used that way by a 3rd party) ....or something like that.

[aurelius]

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 473790007/

"Now that we have an example in the books of what facts are enough to subject parents to 15 years or more in prison, I expect that prosecutors in Michigan and nationwide will consider charging parents, not only in school shootings but in many other crimes their children commit," Bullotta said. Good.

"It is quite frightening to imagine where this precedent will lead." Not for people that actually parent.

[aurelius]

I would think the dad would be a slam dunk, being that he was the one who armed the kid. But what do I know?

Apparently the case was split when the mom's defense became it was dad's fault.

There is a picture of the mom with the pistol 3 days before the shooting. The implication being the mom was the last adult who had possession of the pistol and therefore had the primary responsibility for securing it. The jury foreperson stated that was a big factor.

I guess the dad can say he always locked the gun up and the mom was to blame? Reasonable doubt and all that.

[mikeylikey]

So, this law:

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/document ... A-0017.htm

Sec. 9. (1) An individual who stores or leaves a firearm unattended on premises under the individual’s control, and who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is, or is likely to be, present on the premises, shall [safe storage stuff]

(3) An individual is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both, if the individual violates subsection (1) or (2) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result of the violation both of the following occur:

(a) A minor obtains the firearm. (b) The minor does either of the following: (i) Possesses or exhibits the firearm in a public place. (ii) Possesses or exhibits the firearm in the presence of another person in a careless, reckless, or threatening manner.

(4) If an individual violates subsection (1) or (2) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and, as a result of the violation, a minor obtains the firearm, discharges it and inflicts injury upon the minor or any other individual, the individual is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(5) If an individual violates subsection (1) or (2) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and, as a result of the violation, a minor obtains the firearm, discharges it and inflicts serious impairment of a body function upon the minor or any other individual, the individual is guilty of a felony punishable by not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $7,500.00, or both.

(6) If an individual violates subsection (1) or (2) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and, as a result of the violation, a minor obtains the firearm, discharges it and inflicts death upon the minor or any other individual, the individual is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.

... went into effect on February 13th this year.



https://apnews.com/article/michigan-fir ... 85d5bd4150

FLINT, Mich. (AP) — A Michigan man whose 2-year-old daughter shot herself in the head with his revolver last week became the first person charged under the state’s new law requiring safe storage of guns, just days after the new measure took effect as part of a sweeping reform of gun regulations in the state.

N=1 but this seems like a very reasonable and appropriate application of the new law.

[5hout]

So, this law:

https://apnews.com/article/michigan-fir ... 85d5bd4150

FLINT, Mich. (AP) — A Michigan man whose 2-year-old daughter shot herself in the head with his revolver last week became the first person charged under the state’s new law requiring safe storage of guns, just days after the new measure took effect as part of a sweeping reform of gun regulations in the state.

N=1 but this seems like a very reasonable and appropriate application of the new law.

Is it? From one aspect, sure I mean he violated the law, charge him and move on.

OTOH

He was a felon (illegal to own a gun, separate felony for the ammo), felony child abuse, a pile of other charges (9 in total without the law), and was facing life in prison without the new law.

So now you add this extra life in prison charge, w00h00! Look, the new law is fine. I have some quibbles with it we discussed above, but it's fine on the whole. This is a fairly pointless exercise of it though, given the shitpile of other felonies involved. I'd also rant, b/c I'm ornery today, much like with the MSU shooter (who apparently was target shooting (while a prohibited person) IN TH CITY OF LANSING (i.e. was sitting in his house and shooting out the window at a tree in his backyard) and the cops basically did a "well he's not doing it now that we're here so nothin' we can do gov" noise complaint level investigation) this is another justification for a new law that would have been prevented by enforcing the damn laws we already have on the books.

And, you don't even have to upend the history of criminal proximate cause to do it (here).

https://youtu.be/2_j8du6fkQ4?t=95 Yes, she says Fed gov, but it's a good clip and I still love it.

[5hout]

https://nypost.com/2024/02/19/us-news/t ... is-safety/

This seems a little excessive, even for Texas.

[mbasic]

https://nypost.com/2024/02/19/us-news/t ... is-safety/

This seems a little excessive, even for Texas.

I see the pictures show the 'scene' at night.

IIRC Texas has that law if you are thwarting a felony/theft or something-something AT NIGHT HOURS you can use lethal force even though is not a self defense situation.


"Additionally, deadly force may be used against an intruder at night who you reasonably believe will imminently commit theft or criminal mischief."
https://versustexas.com/blog/castle-doc ... 20mischief.

So the bar to kill is set pretty low with the "mischief" language (stealing a bbq pit) ...and he did steal it.
The BBQ-bandit WAS after all "an intruder" at one point earlier.
"Reasonably believe" .... well the guy did steal said bbq, and had it while driving off.
"imminently" .... well, it did in fact happen.
If it were dark at the time, this checks all the boxes.
Case closed

-------------------------

EDIT: I was kinda joking above trying to stretch things a bit to make it a legal kill to show how stupid this law is. But as I read the article further....FUCK, texas really means you can shoot a guy on the run with your BBQ.

Texas Penal Code Section 9.42 requires that all three of the following circumstances exist in order for you be justified in employing deadly force to protect property.

1. You must be justified in using force;

2. Must only be to the degree you reasonably believe deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent:

a. the imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; orb. Someone fleeing from those things;

JFC, you gotta love texas

[5hout]

https://nypost.com/2024/02/19/us-news/t ... is-safety/

This seems a little excessive, even for Texas.

I see the pictures show the 'scene' at night.

IIRC Texas has that law if you are thwarting a felony/theft or something-something AT NIGHT HOURS you can use lethal force even though is not a self defense situation.


"Additionally, deadly force may be used against an intruder at night who you reasonably believe will imminently commit theft or criminal mischief."
https://versustexas.com/blog/castle-doc ... 20mischief.

So the bar to kill is set pretty low with the "mischief" language (stealing a bbq pit) ...and he did steal it.
The BBQ-bandit WAS after all "an intruder" at one point earlier.
"Reasonably believe" .... well the guy did steal said bbq, and had it while driving off.
"imminently" .... well, it did in fact happen.
If it were dark at the time, this checks all the boxes.
Case closed

-------------------------

EDIT: I was kinda joking above trying to stretch things a bit to make it a legal kill to show how stupid this law is. But as I read the article further....FUCK, texas really means you can shoot a guy on the run with your BBQ.

Texas Penal Code Section 9.42 requires that all three of the following circumstances exist in order for you be justified in employing deadly force to protect property.

1. You must be justified in using force;

2. Must only be to the degree you reasonably believe deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent:

a. the imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; orb. Someone fleeing from those things;

JFC, you gotta love texas

God dammit forum bullshit I had a big reply and fucking lost it. Cliffs notes now: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

That section requires an immediate need (i.e. no way to recover property if you don't act NOW). If prosecutor wants the grand jury to return a bill, it's easy enough to show the shooter's own words (recall shooter is not present and does not present arguments at this stage) that he wasn't chasing b/c there was no alternative (i.e. he intended to shoot the person under the above section to stop the theft), but he only shot when he thought the person was reaching for something (say a cell phone), and feared for his life. Is it reasonable to shoot people for making a jerky motion when you're chasing them down in the dark? Even in Texas I'll bet you can go up on charges for it.

I'm not saying I expect charges, merely that if the prosecutor feels like it I think there's enough here.

[mbasic]

(to be clear, my posts are in a sorta sarcastic trolling tone. IOW: the night thing and fleeing language seems like a bad idea / can of worms to even bring those up)

Speaking of Texas....

Did ya'll see the two Houston lady-cops who just blinded blasted, as in mag dumps, through a wall/door/window and killed a homeowner.
One may have mag dumped, reloaded, and then cranked out more random-blind-shots.

I guess the homeowner accident lock herself out of her house, and went thru the window to get her key.
Neighbor called police hearing the 'break in'.

Lady cops on edge ...scared ..... decided to spray the door and window with lead at the first sign of contact with a person inside the house.

[5hout]

(to be clear, my posts are in a sorta sarcastic trolling tone. IOW: the night thing and fleeing language seems like a bad idea / can of worms to even bring those up)

Speaking of Texas....

Did ya'll see the two Houston lady-cops who just blinded blasted, as in mag dumps, through a wall/door/window and killed a homeowner.
One may have mag dumped, reloaded, and then cranked out more random-blind-shots.

I guess the homeowner accident lock herself out of her house, and went thru the window to get her key.
Neighbor called police hearing the 'break in'.

Lady cops on edge ...scared ..... decided to spray the door and window with lead at the first sign of contact with a person inside the house.

I can't tell from the footage if the gun was visible, but she was carrying her gun per her attorney.

Given the story:
1. Cops told there is an intruder.
2. Broken glass, signs of forced entry.
3. Person inside house with gun.

I hope this goes down on the homeowner's side, but not hopeful.

[aurelius]

Even in Texas I'll bet you can go up on charges for it.

This case is less egregious than the guy that executed the prostitute in the middle of the street with an AR-15 for taking the money without providing services. I expect no charges.

[5hout]

Even in Texas I'll bet you can go up on charges for it.

This case is less egregious than the guy that executed the prostitute in the middle of the street with an AR-15 for taking the money without providing services. I expect no charges.

I somehow forgot about that one. But, you have persuaded me.

[mikeylikey]

https://nypost.com/2024/02/19/us-news/t ... is-safety/

This seems a little excessive, even for Texas.

I see the pictures show the 'scene' at night.

IIRC Texas has that law if you are thwarting a felony/theft or something-something AT NIGHT HOURS you can use lethal force even though is not a self defense situation.


"Additionally, deadly force may be used against an intruder at night who you reasonably believe will imminently commit theft or criminal mischief."
https://versustexas.com/blog/castle-doc ... 20mischief.

So the bar to kill is set pretty low with the "mischief" language (stealing a bbq pit) ...and he did steal it.
The BBQ-bandit WAS after all "an intruder" at one point earlier.
"Reasonably believe" .... well the guy did steal said bbq, and had it while driving off.
"imminently" .... well, it did in fact happen.
If it were dark at the time, this checks all the boxes.
Case closed

-------------------------

EDIT: I was kinda joking above trying to stretch things a bit to make it a legal kill to show how stupid this law is. But as I read the article further....FUCK, texas really means you can shoot a guy on the run with your BBQ.

Texas Penal Code Section 9.42 requires that all three of the following circumstances exist in order for you be justified in employing deadly force to protect property.

1. You must be justified in using force;

2. Must only be to the degree you reasonably believe deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent:

a. the imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; orb. Someone fleeing from those things;

JFC, you gotta love texas

God dammit forum bullshit I had a big reply and fucking lost it. Cliffs notes now: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

That section requires an immediate need (i.e. no way to recover property if you don't act NOW). If prosecutor wants the grand jury to return a bill, it's easy enough to show the shooter's own words (recall shooter is not present and does not present arguments at this stage) that he wasn't chasing b/c there was no alternative (i.e. he intended to shoot the person under the above section to stop the theft), but he only shot when he thought the person was reaching for something (say a cell phone), and feared for his life. Is it reasonable to shoot people for making a jerky motion when you're chasing them down in the dark? Even in Texas I'll bet you can go up on charges for it.

I'm not saying I expect charges, merely that if the prosecutor feels like it I think there's enough here.

I would assume the defense theory of the case would be the homeowner was not using force to recover the property but, rather, having followed the thief with non-lethal intent (take license plate # and/or report direction of flight to police) the homeowner was accosted by said thief who obviously had other intentions and made gestures reasonably interpreted as going for a gun. At which point homeowner then shooting in ordinary self-defense.

[mikeylikey]

I see the pictures show the 'scene' at night.

IIRC Texas has that law if you are thwarting a felony/theft or something-something AT NIGHT HOURS you can use lethal force even though is not a self defense situation.


"Additionally, deadly force may be used against an intruder at night who you reasonably believe will imminently commit theft or criminal mischief."
https://versustexas.com/blog/castle-doc ... 20mischief.

So the bar to kill is set pretty low with the "mischief" language (stealing a bbq pit) ...and he did steal it.
The BBQ-bandit WAS after all "an intruder" at one point earlier.
"Reasonably believe" .... well the guy did steal said bbq, and had it while driving off.
"imminently" .... well, it did in fact happen.
If it were dark at the time, this checks all the boxes.
Case closed

The mere fact that you are dicking around on my property after dark removes most innocent explanations for why you might be there. I can't see who you are, how many of you, if and how armed, etc. The law essentially favors my presumption of nefarious intent and I think that is fine.