Let’s be honest: parents with firearms do need to store them in a manner that keeps them away from children. They have to balance being able to easily grab the gun in case of home invasion versus their child finding it and playing around with it, and something potentially bad happening. However, is it the job of a school board to nag parents? How often will they nag?
Wake school board approves new safe gun storage initiative
Information on how to safely store guns will soon come to Wake County school families.
The Wake school board approved a resolution Tuesday supporting safe gun storage. It includes a commitment to regularly send information to families and staff about how to safely store firearms. (snip)
The plan that would provide families with information and resources about the importance of secure gun storage several times a school year and the legal consequences for not doing so. That could be in newsletters or by other methods. The system also has a new webpage devoted to resources.
So, apparently, the answer to how often will they nag is “all the time.” Will the teachers be asking the kiddies if mom and dad have firearms at home? You can bet they will. And then there will be preaching to the kids which will then make it back to the parents.
In the past year, at least three adults have been charged after a student brought a gun into a Wake County school.
What is not said, and what never shows up in the news, is if the parent was legally allowed to possess a firearm. And, if the minor had stolen the gun from elsewhere. We usually do not know the age of the minor.
Meanwhile
Colorado bill to ban purchase, sale of assault weapons passes first vote
After 12-plus hours of testimony and debate, Colorado Democrats advanced a bill early Wednesday morning to ban the sale or purchase of assault weapons.
The measure, HB24-1292, cleared its initial hurdle in the House Judiciary Committee and now heads directly to the House floor, after a late amendment removed financial penalties, which would’ve routed the bill to another committee, and replaced them with a petty offense charge. The measure still needs two votes in the House before restarting the process in the Senate.
They cannot be made or imported either, so, people cannot go to a surrounding state and purchase one. Obviously, the government is exempt from any of this. Realistically, any law that applies to the People should apply to the government. Then there’s that whole pesky first Amendment thingy, along with Article II section 13 of the Colorado constitution, which really only gives lawmakers the authority to regulate concealed carry.
Undocumented Immigrants Have Right to Own Guns, Judge Rules
A judge this month dropped gun charges against an illegal migrant in Illinois, sparking further debate about the rights associated with the Second Amendment.
U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Coleman of the Northern District of Illinois referenced lower court rulings in dismissing firearm possession charges against Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, who was illegally or unlawfully in the United States when he possessed a handgun in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago on June 1, 2020.
“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense,” Coleman, who was appointed under President Barack Obama, wrote in her eight-page ruling filed March 8.
Carbajal-Flores was charged under Title 18 of U.S. Criminal Code, which legally disallows undocumented individuals to possess firearms and ammunition “or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”
Well, that’s a hell of a thing. The 2nd applies to lawful citizens, not foreign citizens. In almost all cases, federal law and state law bar foreign nationals from purchasing and/or possessing firearms. Carbajal-Flores may be trustworthy, but, just like in the case of most minors, is barred from purchase/possession. How can a federal background check even be run on him? I’m not usually on blocking people from having firearms in a responsible manner, but, they have to be citizens.
Obama judge declares that foreign criminals are allowed to possess guns, but not American criminals. Well, that’s a hoot.
Teach exactly where in the 2nd Amendment does it say “lawful citizens” ??
Your beloved Founding fathers simply chose to use the word “people”
Non citizens traditionally were allowed to carry arms.
YOU want to limit the 2nd Amendment to only those “people” you approve.
PLAIN TEXT ???
OR
LIVING DOCUMENT??
Individuals who are in the USA illegally are by definition here illegally, subject to deportation, and are not therefore “the people of the United States,” to whom the Bill of Rights applies.
This isn’t difficult. You’re just dishonest and stupid.
Just because “traditionally” non citizens were allowed to carry a firearm does not mean they have to be forever. Secondly the Constitution and amendments needn’t state “lawful citizens” as it was written for them and intended for them.
No, he does not “want to limit the 2nd Amendment to only those “people” you approve” he wants it to apply to those it was intended for and not the entire universe. You commies just don’t get it. Just because some people have a thing does not mean everyone could, should or can.
PLAIN TEXT is clear enough if you aren’t an asshole.
NC has a per capita homicide rate twice as high as New York City.
Plain text gives rights to the PEOPLE. It always makes me smile when people cant hold their emotions in check during debate and must use insults.
What about admitted drug users? should they be allowed to own guns?
“THE people.”
Those whose presence is illegal are not THE people.
Life gets easier when you decide you’re going to be honest for a change.
They may as well. It’s not like they are teaching the kids anything useful.
There are two purposes of this ruling:
1) to delegitimize the Second Amendment through absurdity;
2) to ensure the invading army is as well equipped as possible.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do these gun grabbers not understand!?!
We get it, there are those who believe semi-auto AR-15 style rifles should not be permitted but “shall not be infringed”, duh. An old Supreme Court made it almost impossible to get a fully auto firearm for protection but again, “shall not be infringed”, duh. Various states have made it almost impossible for kids, violent felons, psychopaths and sociopaths to defend themselves from groomers and other ne’er-do-wells, but the Second Amendment makes it clear that ANY restriction on arms violates the Constitution!!
Some local governments have tried to force gun-bearers to maintain control over their firearms at all times in the homes, as if this would keep robbers from stealing and kids from killing themselves and others. Several thousand handguns are stolen from cars and homes every year.
Only a few hundred children are accidently killed via firearms each year. This compares with some 20,000 suicides and 10,000 homicides using firearms.
Another weak attempt at snark by the Rimjob.
You’re neither clever nor relevant.
Maybe just seeking attention.
Give up it up, fatso.
You really suck at this whole “sarcasm” thing.
Google “sarcasm” and “satire”…
It should be evident by now that our Constitution is used as an excuse as Supreme Court justices make decisions based on their current biases and political beliefs. It’s almost a living document.
Pretty clear right? But the Supremes have permitted laws regulating who, where, what kind of gun etc.
But somehow this allows a 20 inch but not a 16 inch shotgun, allows a semi-auto assault weapon but not an automatic assault rifle. Over the years the people have gone from not legally keeping a handgun in their pocket to keeping one concealed. Many states have a minimum age for buying a handgun as 21 and 18 for long guns, but several states have no minimum age for a long gun. The 2nd doesnt mention age.
Helloooo, Rimjob.
Our esteemed host asked:
I’ve told this story before: at a physician’s appointment, a nurse asked me if I have any firearms at home. I responded that it was none of her business and that I found the question offensive. The school board has the right to advise parents of anything they choose, because that’s part of freedom of speech, but parents have the right to push back and, come the next election, send the school board members packing.
The constitution states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so yes, any person in the United States, here legally or otherwise, has the right to own firearms. We can, however, ban convicted felons from owning firearms, and thus the solution to illegals having weapons is to arrest, try, and convict them of felonies, thus taking away any legal right to own firearms from them.
Alas! Here in the Bluegrass State, a very stupid state court judge in Jefferson County, where Louisville is located, ruled that KRS §527.040, which bans convicted felons from possession of firearms, is unconstitutional. However, in her ruling, she completely failed to recognize that the 14th Amendment allows the government to restrict individual rights following due process of law, and didn’t even mention the 14th Amendment save to note that it was ratified in 1868, and the Commonwealth will be appealing.
Seems that there is an epidemic of judges, lawyers, and pols that got their degrees off the back of a cereal box.
I disagree Dana. The Constitution was written for the people of the US, not the world. In fact by their own choices the rest of the world specifically excludes many of our rights. When you make a broad based statement like “any person in the United States, here legally or otherwise, has the right to own firearms” you sound sadly like Elwood. Does your broad based statement include visitors too? Come to the US for vacation, buy and carry a gun? That’s why “anchor babies” became a thing. The poorly and unreasonable application of our Constitution to aliens. They visit, drop a kid and BINGO! they are Americans. Ridiculous.
That’s nonsense. The Constitution and the amendments were penned for American citizens, no one else.
Our Constitution was penned by British subjects born in the British colonies. There were no “US citizens” until 1790.
That said, you raise a good point… what did the founders mean in the 2nd Amendment by “the people”? It’s safe to say they did NOT mean to permit native Americans or Negro slaves to have firearms! Today, many Americans consider Blacks and Indians to be people.
Since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, they probably meant only “free white persons” whose fathers were or had been US residents.
Should that be the case today or should we follow the more liberal interpretation of “people”?
Sounds like a job for the Supreme Court…
According to our Constitution, calling a child born in the United States a non-citizen is unAmerican!!