Baltimore County looks to regulate gun shows and gun shops

lazarus said:

Sometimes there is a slippery slope, sometimes there isn’t. There is zero slippery slope that a business that advertises and sells guns might have some minimum security requirements from the state. Homeowners (typically) don’t advertise that they own and have guns in their home.

Click to expand...

adit said:

It was passed this year in DE.

https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail/47156

Click to expand...

Under the revised statute, a crime is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly stores or leaves a loaded firearm where a minor or other person prohibited by law, or “unauthorized person,” can access the firearm, and the unauthorized person obtains the firearm.

Click to expand...

Blacksmith101 said:

It appears that law only applies to a "loaded firearm".


Most gun stores do not keep their guns loaded.

Click to expand...

(2) Unsafe storage of a firearm is a class A misdemeanor if the unauthorized person does any of the following:

a. Commits or attempts to commit a crime with the firearm.

b. Uses the firearm to inflict serious physical injury or death upon any person, including the unauthorized person.

c. Transfers or attempts to transfer the firearm to another unauthorized person.

Click to expand...

lazarus said:

Sometimes there is a slippery slope, sometimes there isn’t. There is zero slippery slope that a business that advertises and sells guns might have some minimum security requirements from the state. Homeowners (typically) don’t advertise that they own and have guns in their home.

Click to expand...

erwos said:

I completely agree with your premise; the question in my mind is how the law is going to be implemented and whether it's going to be a genuinely fair assessment of the security needs for the shop vs just trying to make their lives miserable. Unfortunately, as Marylanders, we're all fairly familiar with the state trying to make our lives difficult on the firearms front for cynical political pandering.

Click to expand...

lazarus said:

Sometimes there is a slippery slope, sometimes there isn’t. There is zero slippery slope that a business that advertises and sells guns might have some minimum security requirements from the state. Homeowners (typically) don’t advertise that they own and have guns in their home.

Click to expand...

Not_an_outlaw said:

Can you provide an example where there wasn't a slippery slope?

Click to expand...

Tebonski said:

I tell Chief Hyatt that Baltimore County businesses pay taxes for police protection. Chief Hyatt needs to detail uniformed and plainclothes police officers to protect the gun shops. That will guarantee no more gun shop burglaries.

Click to expand...

lazarus said:

So this sounds on the extreme side of what should be required. But answer this, should there be minimum standards for store security?

Many businesses types have minimum requirements depending on what industry they are. A lot are “good prudence” in the part of the business, but some are required by the state.

So should there be some minimum requirements? Or should FFLs be allowed to operate a business with no security shutters and no locks and no video security. Just turn the knob after hours and you can walk in and help yourself. Or should there be SOME minimum requirements? If there should be some, what should they be?

Yeah, criminals are the ones responsible for their actions, but there is some onus on a business owner that deals in either valuable or dangerous merchandise to properly secure it using some due diligence. Something like basic video surveillance seems like a no brainer to me as would shutters for windows/doors after hours. Beyond that...don’t know.

Click to expand...

1time said:

It's sounds awesome that you think this is a big conspiracy to rid the county of gun shops but this started long before Johnny O was county exec. The same Johnny O that voted against the 2013 madness, by the way.

I am not telling you how I think it should be or that I agree with it. What I am telling you is what happened.

The first time a bunch of guns end up on the street the conversation is "Do you believe that such and such doesn't have an alarm or cameras". The second time is "Man, I really thought such and such would have gotten an alarm or some cameras". The third time its more like " What the F, they just don't give a shit if their guns are stolen". The eventually someone bitches enough to lawmakers and a law is made. Once you get lawmakers on board with "there needs to be a law" you don't know where its going to go and it probably won't end well.

I imagine it's pretty frustrating to investigate a crime without knowing when something happened, any clues as to what they looked like and there is a huge delay in figuring out what the stolen property you are looking for, looks like.

Again, I am not talking what if; that is what happened. I know the person doing the complaining and he is not politically connected in any way, just frustrated.

Click to expand...

Pinecone said:

Those requirements should be, and in most industries ARE, proscribed the their insurance company.

Click to expand...

lazarus said:

Maybe. Except plenty of industries have requirements to operate dependent upon their licensing. Food industry has tons. Health care. Etc.

Since you aren’t eating guns, but they are deadly weapons, I see nothing wrong with some minimum requirements for physical security.

If everyone did some reasonable and logical minimum we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Because everyone would be doing. A reasonable minimum. But some people are idiots and don’t. So big daddy has to come along and tell everyone what the minimum needs to be.

In an ideal world we wouldn’t need police or courts, because everyone would be honest, decent and no one would be stupid. Heck we wouldn’t need government because everyone could just simply get along. But I haven’t seen that world even in fairy tales.

It’s the balancing act of individual freedoms versus societal freedoms. I lean heavily towards individual freedoms, but I recognize sometimes that has to be a little compromise because my neighbor is a dimwit idiot (not saying my actual neighbor is. They are actually pretty nice people).

Click to expand...

Don H said:

Problem is those reasonable and logical laws will never be enough. These laws will be used to run gun shops and gun shows out of Baltimore County. Then once the "reasonable and logical" laws are accepted in a few liberal counties they will then become State law.



And of course more guns are stolen from homes than gun shops and gun shows so it is only "reasonable and logical" that we expand the laws to apply to all gun owners. Then we will all be required to buy rated gun safes and have them inspected by the Authorities after purchasing the required permit. And we all know that even a gun safe won't stop a determined criminal so we will all need to carry Gun Owners Insurance just in case our legally owned firearms are stolen and used in a crime.



So No, considering the State we live in and the politicians that run this state I'm not inclined to support this at all.



You call it a compromise but that would mean that both sides get something. What do the gun owners get? I would suggest Constitutional Carry.

Click to expand...

1time said:

This isn’t the first step to push gun shops out. This is using a legal means to get a business to do what they should have done to begin with.

Click to expand...

1time said:

You have to take some kind of responsibility as a private dealer. When you are repeatedly targeted, and can’t bother with an alarm system, video, or really any means of hardening eventually something will force your hand.

Click to expand...