If you can limit it to 600, why not 6?
PSH Alert from Thomas Mannard the director of Illinois Council Against Handgun Ownership:
However, I am concerned that it is legal, as Mr. Sonka correctly asserts, to own 600 guns and keep them in your house, without any recourse afforded to neighbors who might object.
Clearly, no reasonable concerned citizen should argue about the right to hoard 600 guns when weighed against the issue of public safety posed by such firepower sitting in the middle of residential community. Not only are such a large number of firearms a burglar’s dream; they pose multiple potential scenarios under which harm could come to local residents.
Whether or not Mr. Sonka is found guilty of the charges, we should be asking ourselves whether there should be a legal right to possess more than 600 firearms in a residential neighborhood, regardless of whether they are for sale or part of a personal collection.
So, should my neighbors be allowed to inspect my weapons? Err, I’m concerned and reasonable and don’t have an issue with it. And he seems to think these weapons have the magical ability to unleash havoc all by their inanimate selves.
Anyway, seems to me he lost his license, had inventory, transferred inventory to self, sold inventory to recoup losses. He’s charged, no doubt, under the very loose definition of ‘unlicensed dealer’ which basically means ATF thinks you’re dealing and you have no license. Could be some other state law at play though, though I’ve been unable to find one though this bit says he is charged with gun running, a first class felony.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Or worse — why not 1?
I mean, is there some magical number that is greater than one, but less than 600? What would he consider a reasonable collection? Do handguns count for the same weight as shotguns, or rifles? What about air guns?
The orange NES Zapper count the same as the grey one?
I’d like just once for these “that’s too many guns” folks to say what an acceptable number of guns is in their view… I have a feeling that the number is “zero” but they know that’s a political loser so they speak about reasonable… reasonable gun control, reasonable limits…
October 25th, 2007 at 9:08 am
No Adam, they want to make it zero indirectly by making it so hard to get to “one” that you just give up. And if you manage to get to “one”, they demonize you as an unbalanced paranoid who shouldn’t have it because you are a potential danger now.
Since when do my neighbors have any say in what I do or keep on my property provided I am obeying the law? Damn right they don’t get any recourse, it’s none of their business!
Burglar’s dream perhaps but they have to get through the dog and the steel to get at them. And my guns are insured. I am not going to feel guilty if some criminal robs my house and takes my guns nor will I allow some peon to dictate to me that I was irresponsible in my storage of said arms. They are locked up, always. In fact, I got up in the middle of the night when I realized I had left a pistol on my desk with its cable lock fitted. I meant to put it back in the safe and didn’t. So I got up and did it.
I’ve got news for Mr. Mannard: I have an “arsenal” in the middle of a nice suburban neighborhood. So what? But they’re guns! And?!? There is no “public safety” issue. What there should be is people telling folks like this to mind their own damn business.
Maybe we should lobby to inspect Mannard’s home for all variety of object we might consider “dangerous” and “a threat to public safety”. Rope, bleach, overly long knives or heaven forbid, a meat cleaver. An “assault knife”, used only to chop meat! It must be controlled, licensed and registered.
When our neighbors get to decide what property we can keep in our homes, close the lid and dump us in the hole. We’re done.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:17 am
[…] Uncle sent me a sneak peek at this article yesterday, which prompted me to look up some Illinois gun laws, and let me tell you, I’m […]
October 25th, 2007 at 11:02 am
[…] Tommy Mannard thinks it’s 600 guns. Uncle talks for a bit about it, and rightly points out that there is not really a fundamental difference between regulating 600 […]
October 25th, 2007 at 11:54 am
(Playing devil’s advocate here)
What is the purpose of licensing a collector then? I’ve only got 6 death dealers but at any given moment, only 2 of them are going to be unlocked and ready for use. So, isn’t any firearm not ready for immediate use just part of a collection, no matter how small?
Damn, even playing DA, it sounds stupid.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
“they pose multiple potential scenarios under which harm could come to local residents.”
And what scenarios are these? I notice that Thomas Mannard didnt say. Maybe because there are no “multiple potential scenarios under which harm could come to local residents”?
October 25th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Robb,
The purpose of a licensed collector is to make the state feel good. Technically speaking, a “licensed collector” is a C&R FFL holder. My state, Maryland, has a state level “collector’s license” that any gun owner can get that waives their “one regulated gun a month” restriction and loosens the “peaceable journey” requirements. The downside to this license is the fact you have just told the state you are a bonafide gun owner.
If registration/confiscation ever try to come to pass, don’t you think the “licensed collectors” (whether state or C&R) will the first folks they come after? Low hanging fruit and all that.
In other words. other than C&R, there isn’t such a thing as a “licensed collector” except as a poltical/state regulatory construct.
This is why the BC, VPC can get away with this “licensed collector” crap. They are really thinking in terms of the Maryland ideal and then just make the collector status “may issue”. But also make being a “licensed collector” as a prerequisite to owning a gun or impose harsh storage requirements on one that could not be met in a practical sense by any but the wealthy (zoning, house vs. apt, strong safe, explosive vaults, the list can go on).
Yes, Robb, any gun not “at the ready” is technical in a collection. What is the definition of a collection but guns people think you don’t need. And they get to define “need”.
I can play devil’s advocate too. 🙂
October 25th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Well, I suppose one could argue that a person can only use one gun at a time, so they are as dangerous with one gun as they are with six hundred. And, really, if they were going to “try something”, six hundred is just a waste of their resources.
October 25th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Look at it statistically. I one gun can cause death and destruction wielded by a single gunman, say perhaps an unbalanced killer on a spree kills four people before being stopped.
Now he has five hundred ninety-nine guns at home. So spread those four deaths over 600 guns and they are only .6666666 of 1% dead, which can be acounted for by fingernails, hair or dead but not yet sloughed off skin cells.
Isn’t that a much better outcome than four totally dead people?
I must pay attribution for the logic to Sarah Brady and their demonstrated use of statistics to say any damn thing you want them to say.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Of course, everyone here is forgetting one small detail
The zombies.
This man is ready.