Scruit

Yes. And I do. Help keep them organized and helps prevent a thief stealing my cars. I use this one: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/GE-AccessPoint-001795-TouchPoint-Cabinet/dp/B000GTQU5E]Amazon.com: GE AccessPoint 001795 TouchPoint 30-Key Cabinet' date=' Clay: Home Improvement[/ame'] Works very well. You should try it. Primary purpose is to mitigate loss in the event of a break-in (thief doesn't have piles of keys to access everything. I'm acknowledging the indisputable fact that guns are more deadly than a set of car keys.

The thief did every criminal act, except for 4511.661, which is on you... That's the difference between you hand me, and why we won't see eye to eye. I'm more cognizant of how my actions could affect others.

Great video.

The rifle had no bolt and was monitored at all times. It was safe.

That's your problem. The people who ARE out to solve it are going to solve it with bans unless we meet them halfway. Do you read my posts? I advocate quick-access safes when not in a holster on your person. I can get to either loaded pistol or semi-auto rifle within 10 seconds from any room in my house. All gun owners have a moral duty to not allow their guns to wind up in the wrong hands. How you achieve that may be up to your own personal judgement and sense of responsibility... But that doesn't help when you see the stats on how many stolen gun wind up being used in crimes. How is storing your weapons, loaded, in a quick-access safe (when not on your person) a violation of your rights? Care to explain why you think that? Personal responsibility is a two-way street. You can't just say; "Bad guy took the gun I had propped up next to my TV while I went on vacation and shot up a school with it, therefore not my fault."

If you leave your car running unattended then you ARE breaking the law. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.661 Apparently.

That approach hasn't worked to date. We keep saying there is no one single solution, but then shoot down suggestions unless they fix everything. Safe storage is a good idea, and responsible gun owners already store their weapons in a secure manner. Guns stolen from lawful owners wind up in criminal hands being used for crimes. Higher gun crimes result in more calls for gun control. It's like a dog licking it's own arsehole. Whether we do it by passing a law, or through a public education campaign, or some not-yet-suggested means, having guns stored safely will cut down on the number of new black market guns. My safe allows me to access my guns in a couple of seconds. My carry piece is either is either in my holster or in my safe. I never leave any of my guns in a room I am not in unless they are locked up. Again with the rhetoric. This is a discussion, not a soap box. Tell me how you would solve the problem of lawfully held guns being stolen and winding up in the black market.

If you leave your car outside with the engine running... Yeah, you should be fined. I think the AWB will do most of the work of safe storage laws - anyone who had an AR stolen will never be able to replace it, so you can be damned sure I'm upgrading my safe.

I answered that we all care about it because our rights are under attack. No right is absolute. Free speech does not protect libel. Freedom of religion doesn't allow you to sacrifice virgins. The right to bear arms should not allow mentally distrubed people to own guns. The solution is going to be a compromise, or it's going to be an absolute on one end of the the scale or the other. If we refuse to budge on anything and the killing continue then we may even see the 2a repealed. Instead of that I'm trying to suggest laws/processes that actually have the potential to work while preserving 2a intact for law-abiding citizens. I will also add that there's too many people on this site that will jump down your throat for making suggestions. If you don't like it, suggest something else. We're trying to have a dialog, and vitriolic rhetoric on either side is not going to help. We all want to see fewer gun crimes. We also seem to be unwilling to even allow a conversation on how to achieve that. Fine, that's your choice. With the political weight behind the gun grabbers right now you my find that "From my cold dead hands" might just come to pass.

If that is what you are worried about then just talk to PNC about it. The rules for employees accessing accounts that they are not supposed to are very strict - it's a termination offense. Talk to the manager at your branch, or to customer service or whatever and ask if they can give you an absolute assurance that this girl will never be able to access you account. I used to work for Chase and we all got mandatory annual training on which accounts we were allowed to access and which we were not. It was frowned upon to even look at a friend or family member's account WITH their permission unless it was your job (teller, personal banker). They gave examples of scenarios where you're just gonna be out the door too - an ex-spouse is the example they always gave us; "Jane has divorce from John and John says he cannot afford alimony. Jane uses her access to see his bank account to see if he is lying. Is this acceptable?" Tell them if they cannot give you a written assurance that she will never access your account (or that at least if she does she'll be caught the very first time) or you'll walk. I'm sure they'd dealt with this before and will know what to do. It'd be much easier than dealing with moving accounts. What is her job? Does she work on the retail side (teller, personal banker, manager) where access to customer accounts is part of her job? Or is she backoffice? I was a Database Administrator, and I couldn't even get close to any customer accounts.

Please add my wife as a definite.

I used to bank with 5/3. Then one day the bank manager took money out of my account using a forged withdrawal ticket.

Driving is not under attack until someone like Feinstein says she's going to introduce a mandatory buyback of cars.

So we're settled on that, just haggling over the price? (I kid, I kid!)

If you can find said M-F then go for it. I offer that as an alternative to having the taxpayer foot the bill (or not being able to fund the buyback)

Would you sell them for a million dollars?

We need to better identify the source of illegal weapons, and work to try to stop those sources (knowing we will never stop them completely) Most common sources or criminals' guns (according to the pdf in the other thread) are stolen, obtained from from family/friends (including straw purchases?) and "existing black market". Stolen: Safe storage. If it's not in your holster it needs to be in a safe. Anyone who burglarizes your home should not be able to easily walk out with your guns. Family/Friends: People need to be responsible for who they give their guns to. Straw purchases are already a felony (falsifying federal records wrt 4473). How much "more illegal" can you make it? Existing black market: Gun buybacks with amnesty help in a small way but if the buyback paid out more then they'd get more guns in. This also creates a problem whereby the gun may be evidence in a crime, but it's generally better to stop a future crime than solve an existing one. They need to figure out the black market value of these guns and see if it makes sense to match or beat that. Guns turned in at a buyback need to be returned to the rightful owner if determined to be stolen. This may be an insurance company (whereby they may just allow it to be destroyed) or an individual. Even after NFA or the new AWB, and stolen guns (even "banned" guns) recovered by the police should be returned to their rightful owner, no hiding behind the "no transfer" rule. Continued police enforcement upon finding illegal guns, etc, is always going to be necessary against the black market. Penalties for possession of a stolen gun need to be high enough to dissuade lower level criminals. The girlfriend who agrees to "hold" her boyfriend's illegal firearm needs to know that she's looking at several years in jail if caught. Suggestions to help fund a buyback this: 1) When a gun returned to the rightful owner, that owner has to pay the cost of processing/returning the gun. This will go to pay for the manpower required to trace the gun. The tracing would only include checking for the serial number in police reports of stolen guns, not trying to follow the gun's history through sales. If it was not reported stolen then tough. 2) The police and government should be able to keep and use any guns they can make use of (lowering the cost of procuring guns) provided that no lawful owner exists or can be found, and that the gun is not wanted in any crime (ballistic fingerprinting, if that is still a valid thing or easily searched. etc) If people voluntarily turn in a gun that the police can use, why not let them use it? or other branches of government. Guns that are siezed, rather than voluntarily surrendered, would have to be returned to the lawful owner or destroyed - don't want to set up a system when the police can think; "That guy has a nice rifle, let's seize it on a pretense and keep it!" 3) The destroyed guns would be recycled and the scrap would help fund the program.

Been with Huntington for 15 years. Never had any problems. Had several bank accounts, credit cards, a couple loads and a mortgage through them over the years.

Cool, tnx

10am-?

So, Alexander Hamilton said that a well-regulated militia means a well trained militia, but that the amount of training required is beyond what the general public could achieve. Following this meaning, would the "well regulated milita" mean only those people sufficiently trained as to be ready to go to war?

Safest would be to get rid of it. Another option is to permanently convert it to 30 rounds or less. Any conversion would have to be reasonably irreversible, so a rivet or cross bolt that could easily be removed would be risky. Welding a block in place would be better. I've also heard of people filling the bottom of the mag with epoxy so that when it hardens it creates a new "floor" but that would make it difficult to clean.

It's all in http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.11 (E) “Automatic firearm” means any firearm designed or specially adapted to fire a succession of cartridges with a single function of the trigger. “Automatic firearm” also means any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading, other than a firearm chambering only .22 caliber short, long, or long-rifle cartridges. (K) “Dangerous ordnance” means any of the following... (1) Any automatic or sawed-off firearm, zip-gun, or ballistic knife; ... (6) Any combination of parts that is intended by the owner for use in converting any firearm or other device into a dangerous ordnance. So 40 round mag IN a semi auto rifle = automatic weapon = dangerous ordnance. 40 round mag for a semi auto rifle that you have in your possession = you may be charged for it if they feel they can prove you intended to use the magazine in that rifle within the state of Ohio. Having said that, I have all the parts I need at my house to make all kinds of "dangerous ordnance", and so do most of the country. Can the prosecutors prove that there is an intent to do assemble said dangerous ordnance? But don't forget, everything I say means exactly jack shit.

Chill, dude. WTF did I do to you? Also, David Gregory asked the ATF if the 30 round mag was ok to possess for his news report and they told him yes. Hope you don't expect us to trust the ATF as the oracle of all valid information.