Actually, I spoke with him today, in his office. He explained that he supports the 2nd. I told him that there are a lot of people that claim that, and a lot of bills proposed that limit or restrict our right. He said that he was aware that his bill was on our "do not support" list. He went on to talk about his background and why he feels the way he does. Basically, he blew smoke for a while.
Before the conversation was over, I responded to something he mentioned about the political climate/school shootings/adolescents taking guns from home. I told him that if he really wanted to protect the children he needs to focus his attention on making our schools safer. Show people that our children are as important as the money in our banks. Place two or three safety officers, or let the faculty that are so inclined, acquire permission/training so that they would qualify to carry in their school. Show people that the kids have the right to be as protected as you [Dave Marsden] are in this building.
If he were to do that, he could make a difference. Instead, he wants to hold victims of theft, civilly responsible for property damage or wrongful death, for not adequately securing their firearms. The proposed bill doesn't spell out what "adequately" means. Having just been part of a jury last week (for the first time) on a case that was pretty easily spelled out, I don't know that I would feel safe about having twelve jurors sit in a room and unanimously agree on weather my locked house is "adequate".
FIREMISSION:: If you would like to participate in an online vote, here's the address:
http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2013/sb785/
He has another bill that doesn't bother me as much, requiring that if a firearm is lost or stolen, it must be reported to the police. Although, if you were to report the theft of a firearm from your locked home, and it were used in the commission of a crime, wouldn't the next logicalmove for a lawyer be to say that the firearms obviously wasn't "adequately" secured?