First, I DO NOT Disagree, it IS the Responsibility of the firearm owner to secure their firearms. That said, this law does nothing that effects the Thief and everything to punish the victim. By law I need to buy a gun safe, by Law if my firearm is stolen I HAVE TO take a Government class. In the mean time the thief walks away with my Kimber 45 and goes off and shoots someone’s house…
8 Likes
Same story, different chapter.
5 Likes
One solution that would likely have a noticeable impact would be to remove the laws creating so many of the restricted public areas that force people to have to leave their firearms in their vehicles in the first place. And maybe pass some incentives or legal coverage that would encourage more private entities like mall owners to stop posting their properties as gun free zones for the same reason.
8 Likes
Yea it would. Since we are dreaming let’s throw reciprocity in there also.
5 Likes
I don’t expect either of those to pass in the current political climate. But if the anti self defense people are truly serious about making people safer they need to start coming up with proposals that are a lot more effective than the ineffective ones they keep coming up with.
5 Likes
My thinking exactly. If people weren’t forced to store them in a vehicle in the first place the problem would go away.
Not mention maybe doing something about the thiefs to begin with 
10 Likes
How do you spell denial?
2 Likes
Just saying free men don’t ask permission. Not advocating illegal carry wink wink but if you don’t feel safe then like…?
3 Likes
And in response to the Bruen decision, certain pinheaded politicians are trying to label everything as a “sensitive area” and ban concealed carry in those locations. If this is a big problem now, then just like always, politicians are just going to make it worse. They’re handing criminals a list of which parking lots to target.
5 Likes
They are openly trying to employ the tactic of making it so onerous to be armed that it is either extremely difficult, or a practical impossibility. This is the reason for that catchy little phrase " shall not be infringed". Even back when the 2A was written, they already knew how it would be attacked so as to restrict it into oblivion.
We are living in a time of things being flipped. Victim is made out as the criminal, criminal is made out as a victim, and support for the very constitution that gives us our protections and right to vote for who we want, is now treated as a vice.
When you burn down your own house, where do you then plan to live?
It reminds me of a former friend who traded in his truck and bought a Subaru. I asked him, " I know your life, what are you going to do without a truck?" He flippantly said " I don’t need a truck, You have one!"
4 Likes
You’ve spelled quite well in the thousands of words you have posted on this site.
We believe in being lawful, if we are caught carrying in a place that is not legal, we will be prosecuted and permanently lose our rights. Not a wise course of action, and not one you will find advocated here. That is why we lobby government to advocate for our rights. Organizations, on the federal level, such as GOA, SAF, and on the state level, my state, VCDL, have been effective at defending our rights. Also, Republican states have been passing forms of “Constitutional Carry” for at least several years now, and we now have 27.
3 Likes
If I’m not mistaken we should already have the constitutional right to bear arms. SHALL NOT
2 Likes
Yes, but are you willing to stake your life, liberty, future freedom, and all of your assets on breaking a law on where you are not “allowed” to carry? Most, if not all, here are not willing to do that. What we are willing to do is get the word out, contact, call, email, talk to, etc., our representatives, attend rallies, etc., but not put our lives and our families’ lives in jeopardy.
2 Likes
Then we will all sleep better. I hate to say it. We shouldn’t have to but we do.
Edit- unless we have too much to lose if we do.
In one of our self defense classes Master Lawrence put it like this,
“You’re walking along alone, someone jumps out with a knife, you fight with him. In the fight both you and he are injured. You defend yourself and call the police. The police show up, there’s a guy laying on the ground in a puddle of blood near death, there’s blood everywhere and a knife laying on the ground. You’re finger prints are on the knife due to the fight for the weapon.” what do the cops see? “You standing over a seriously injured person, you’re in a heap of $h!+.” he ends it with “It’s better to be judged buy 12 than carried by 6.”. So to answer the question we may have no choice. To survive we may have to risk “life, liberty and future freedom” just to survive.
1 Like
Sometimes it is better to commit the sin and ask for forgiveness. Something like that. It would be better if it was in a sin in the first place.
1 Like
The scenario cited is far different than illegally carrying in a GFZ.
1 Like
Theft is already against the law and they will be punished.
Edit I think I get what you’re saying we get punished twice once for losing our guns second by breaking the law.
1 Like
That seems to me the way they want it,punish the good guy and do nothing for the bad people.
2 Likes
You’ve been paying attention. 
4 Likes