Meeting with Attorney Scheduled

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

Many of our members feel they have been unlawfully co-hearsed coerced into giving up their right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and their right to remain silent. I believe that in many of these encounters, if we were not as polite as we were, the instances would have resulted in an unlawful arrest.

Click to expand...

Sir,
Your letter is well written and I sincerely hope it achieves the object for which you wrote it. You may wish to consider replacing the word "co-hearsed" with "coerced" as the latter is the word I believe you were looking for in the context.

Regards,
AR

imported post

Thanks guys. I get nervous (getting MUCH better though) when I try talk about something that is potentially polarizing in person. I like the written word much better.

Thanks for the spelling mistake! I've been meaning to look that up; the spell checker wasn't doing a great job with that one.

imported post

Something else that was mentioned in the meeting with the lawyer yesterday, IB and I didn't mention.

The lawyer who we stated is pro-gun asked if we were NRA members. I for one am not. I am looking at some mail from NRA today, I am going to join when done posting this. they offer some good benefits, look it up and decide for yourself.

He made a good point, they do fight for gun rights, although there is an opinion I am not versed on. They may be mute on the subject of open carry, I have heard that said lately regarding the guy who carried at Obama's townhall meeting. Anyway, they do fight for our rights to even continue to own a gun. If enough of thier members open carry, they may listen to us, or lose us as members. Just a thought, they are bigger than we are and that helps. They are offering a 10 dollar discount to join now.

imported post

It was that quick, I am now a member. Got a cool duffle bag too, will be a good range bag. Not sure if I am breaking any rules here, I didn't look first. I am not intending to advertise for them. Just thought it would be good to put it out there, in case the thought hadn't crossed any ones mind yet. Last I will say about it.

imported post

That is one reason I suggested we ask about the requirements to form a non-profit organization. It has worked well in several states (Virginia and Tennessee come to mind), resulting in higher awareness of gun rights and an advocacy/lobbying group for approaching government. NRA can be enlisted and better engaged when they see an active organization focused on issues rather than members just wandering around working on situations where they are directly involved.

You have to start somewhere.

imported post

jdgypsy wrote:

He made a good point, they [NRA] do fight for gun rights

Click to expand...

Yup, that is why the NRA specifically approved language in new Idaho law this year that requires locking up your protection in any location (including your home) where child day care takes place.

imported post

rpyne wrote:

jdgypsy wrote:

He made a good point, they [NRA] do fight for gun rights

Click to expand...

Yup, that is why the NRA specifically approved language in new Idaho law this year that requires locking up your protection in any location (including your home) where child day care takes place.

Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding me.

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

rpyne wrote:

jdgypsy wrote:

He made a good point, they [NRA] do fight for gun rights

Click to expand...

Yup, that is why the NRA specifically approved language in new Idaho law this year that requires locking up your protection in any location (including your home) where child day care takes place.

Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding me.

Click to expand...

I wish I were. Here is the response I got from Idaho State Senator Denton Darrington when I challenged him on supporting the provision in S1112:

The bill was amended and the exact language presented by the NRA was put in the bill and their representative from Virginia was here last week to get it done.

Click to expand...

S1112 enacted language in the daycare licensing law 39-1109(1)(e) which states:

Firearms or other weapons which are stored on the premises of a daycare facility must be kept in a locked container that is inaccessible to children while daycare attendees are present

Click to expand...

imported post

Sounds reasonable to me.

While most of us are responsible enough to secure our weapons properly without a statuatory requirement I find this reasonable and prudent as aday careregulation.

imported post

ecocks wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me.

While most of us are responsible enough to secure our weapons properly without a statuatory requirement I find this reasonable and prudent as aday careregulation.

Click to expand...

So, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? This is the GFSZ extended to daycare.

imported post

This doesn't change your ability to keep and bear.

It does establish legal standards of storage as well as a punishment for those who improperly secure their firearms and are in the business of taking care of children.

So, what part of protecting little children do YOU not understand?

imported post

ecocks wrote:

This doesn't change your ability to keep and bear.

It does establish legal standards of storage as well as a punishment for those who improperly secure their firearms and are in the business of taking care of children.

So, what part of protecting little children do YOU not understand?

Click to expand...

Oh, but it does effect your ability to keep and bear arms. I can guarantee you that if you are found to be carrying at a daycare facility you own your license will be revoked under this law.

"Keep" and "bear" are two separate things. You might argue that it allows you to "bear" because it says that it only applies to "store[age]", but it is not uncommon for liberal judges to claim that extends to mean "possess".

Our government was never intended to protect us from ourselves, it was intended to protect our RIGHTS. It is none of their business how or where anyone stores anything.

The most used battle cry used by the totalitarian libtards is "for the children."

I challenge you to show me one case where a child was injured in Idaho by accessing a firearm "stored" in a daycare facility. This law is just one more infringement of the natural right of self protection.

imported post

ecocks wrote:

This doesn't change your ability to keep and bear.

It does establish legal standards of storage as well as a punishment for those who improperly secure their firearms and are in the business of taking care of children.

So, what part of protecting little children do YOU not understand?

Click to expand...

Would you leave your children at a child care business without checking the business out? I seriously doubt that anyone randomly picks a business out of the phone book and drops their kids off there with no questions asked. What makes it so difficult to ask "do you have firearms here, and if so, please show me how they're secured from the children"? Seems to me that making your own choice to insure that the business is a safe place for your children to be should be up to the individual, not the government.

Laws don't stop things from happening, they merely punish after the fact. Unsafe firearms at a daycare...what punishment after the fact could unshoot a child? So really, what did this new law accomplish, other than infringing on firearms rights of those running a daycare, and making the children *less* safe, by insuring that the daycare provider cannot be armed? Without this, there are plenty of laws on the books to punish already.

I'm quite disappointed to see this on the books, but I don't see it being fought for RKBA anytime soon in the courts. Time to see if my local rep voted for this, and communicate my dissatisfaction. Perhaps a clarification can be passed to add to it that it does not apply to weapons worn/carried.

imported post

Storage is storage.

Nothing there prohibits you from carrying your weapon.

While no law can "unshoot a child" it establishes that a childcare facility can lose it's license which can prevent the incident from occuring in the first placeand establish this as a criteria for evaluating the location on an on-going basis. It further establishes a standard of conduct with regard to the concept of storage although it apparently stops short of CA's approved storage methods.

As for how people pick a daycare, countless people operate private daycares at home, often for friends and neighbors, where consideration of adjacent living quarters are problematic at best. While you and I might think of asking about firearms, there are millions who wouldn't and how do you "unshoot" a child after the fact? Speaking for myself, when my children were younger, asking about firearms on the premises is something I only thought about once when I knew the husband and wife personally and was aware of their possession of handguns and black powder weapons. I strongly doubt some of their clients knew of this and would have never thought to ask. Placing this on the list for regulated daycares gets it in the open for consideration of all operations by parents and guardians.

Your "guarrantee" is amusing, but meaningless at this time. Rest assured, if you have properly predicted this turn of events I'll certainly acknowledge your prescience.

While I would have personallyfavored an approach of modifying the manslaughter laws to specifically include negligence with regard to storing/securing firearms,including a kickerfor situations involving children and assuring daycare inspections had this on their checklist prior to license issuance and subsequent inspections, this seems a reasonable compromise and establishes an appropriate standard.

Go NRA!

imported post

ecocks wrote:

this seems a reasonable compromise

Click to expand...

Yup, just like "as long as you can keep your shotgun to to go duck hunting, who needs those horrible ugly assault weapons".

This is just another example of why I support GOA instead of NRA.

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

So really, what did this new law accomplish, other than infringing on firearms rights of those running a daycare, and making the children *less* safe, by insuring that the daycare provider cannot be armed?

Click to expand...

Let us be accurate in our objections here; the law does not preclude a daycare provider from being armed to protect themselves and their charges. The law proscribes a method of storage that makes the firearms inaccessible to the children.

There is no prohibition on the wearing of a sidearm in a holster on one's belt.

There is no prohibition on a quick release lock for a longgun in case such is needed in a home defense scenario.

This is not an infringement on the right to keep, nor to bear arms. It simply says that if one runs a daycare establishment, one must practice due diligence in securing ones firearms from the clients' children. A firearms vault might even count for a tax writeoff as a business expense in this situation.

Firearms or other weapons which are stored on the premises of a daycare facility must be kept in a locked container that is inaccessible to children while daycare attendees are present

Click to expand...

imported post

While at the surface any childcare provider should take reasonable measures to keep firearms out of reach of children, when it becomes law we can rest assured gov will take it too far. This should be between parents and providers. A scenario.., ok, you have an unchambered shotgun that you keep in your bedroom on top of a tall dresser. Your wife decides to watch a couple neighborhood kids for a few extra bucks while she is watching your kids as well. The bedroom is locked, while she is watching the kids. By my standards the firearm is well out of reach of the children, but that doesn't meet gov prescribed measures, so now your a criminal. Leave the gov out of it. Moreover, drowning, poisoning, falls, and the like are a much more likely cause of death than firearms, and are things we consider we should be responsible to look into ourselves. To regulate firearms is to disproportionately target them as a response to a heightened sensitivity to them for some reason.

imported post

Eric. wrote:

While at the surface any childcare provider should take reasonable measures to keep firearms out of reach of children, when it becomes law we can rest assured gov will take it too far. This should be between parents and providers. A scenario.., ok, you have an unchambered shotgun that you keep in your bedroom on top of a tall dresser. Your wife decides to watch a couple neighborhood kids for a few extra bucks while she is watching your kids as well. The bedroom is locked, while she is watching the kids. By my standards the firearm is well out of reach of the children, but that doesn't meet gov prescribed measures, so now your a criminal. Leave the gov out of it.

Click to expand...

Eric,
While I agree with your generalized conclusion to "leave the gov out of it," I'm trying to point out that this law is being cast in an incorrect light. Hence my admonition to be accurate in our criticism. Again, I agree with "leave the gov out of it."

I agree that this should really be between parents and providers. But your scenario of the wife watching a couple of neighborhood kids is not applicable. The bill says:

Firearms or other weapons which are stored on the premises of a daycare facility must be kept in a locked container that is inaccessible to children while daycare attendees are present

Click to expand...

And from the definitions section, we find that:
39-1102 (5)

"Daycare facility" means a place or facility providing daycare services for compensation to seven (7) or more children not related to the provider.

Click to expand...

imported post

My bad, I hadn't looked up how many children it took to make a place a "childcare provider." I was just addressing the concept of gov intervention for regulations, and noting their predisposition to regulate firearms.