Should there be a city ordinance for locking up guns?

While our City Council is concerned about potty mouth people at the council meetings, maybe they should look at REAL threats to our community. What should we do with LEGAL gun owners who don’t either secure their guns in their homes (the best idea) or secure them in vehicles by keeping the doors locked and out of view. The Sheriff and Police Chief take issue with it;

With a growing problem like this, we asked what is being done for prevention? Both Police Chief Matt Burns and Milstead say there’s not much that can be done, besides remind gun owners to use common sense.

Both men agree creating laws to punish a gun owner who leaves the weapon in an unlocked car is not the answer.

“South Dakota law is very clear and prohibits municipalities from having any sort of regulation on firearms and things like that. So that’s a bit of a stretch there to believe that some sort of law or sanction would be in place that a victim, who’s the victim of a crime themselves, would face some sort of penalty,” said Burns.

“You know, because you would be taking legit, lawful gun owners and making them criminals because we’re trying to prevent other criminals from stealing their guns. I hate to make lawful gun owners into criminals,” said Milstead.

Milstead says he would much prefer gun owners just do what they’re supposed to; which is lock up the dangerous weapon they don’t want being used to hurt others.

“You’d feel horrible if your gun was stolen out of your car, where you’d left it unlocked. And ultimately it ends up being used by somebody to kill somebody, to rob somebody, to commit a violent crime,” said Milstead.

Sioux Falls City Councilor Pat Starr has suggested a city ordinance that would fine a citizen who didn’t secure a gun in their car by locking the doors and concealing it. It seems there is an issue with State Law, and we know our State Legislature, they would NEVER pass a law like this, in fact, their solution to gun control is MORE guns.

Yeah, they are idiots.

But I wonder if you could get savvy with the ordinance. First off, I would never make it a felony, I would just have a simple fine like a speeding ticket. But instead of naming ‘guns’ specifically, maybe you could phrase the ordinance like this;

If stolen property taken from an unsecured vehicle is used in a crime you will receive a $250 fine and the property will be kept for evidence.

So this could be anything. A knife, gun, tire iron, wrench, etc. This way the gun nuts can’t say we are going after their guns, we are simply telling them, if you own something that can be used as a weapon and you are storing it in your vehicle without securing it, and it is ACTUALLY USED IN A CRIME, you will be accountable. This game of ‘reminding’ people to lock their cars is NOT working. This would be a pleasant reminder.


#1 JKC on 07.07.18 at 7:10 pm

“If guns are illegal only criminals will have guns…”

Hasn’t the NRA been saying this since 1968? Doesn’t their own quote prove the point? And when law abiding gun owners are slack in their ownership are they not facilitating those “criminals” regardless of whether overall gun ownership is legal or not?

Maybe such slackness should not be a misdemeanor, but it should be a liable act in civil court. It’s a tort. The gun owner is assuming the risk by not locking their car and should be held accountable (financially) if that gun ends up doing damage (person or property) to another by a criminal who stolen the gun.

You ask what about stealing a vehicle and killing a pedestrian as a result? Is the actual vehicle owner then liable, too? Well, in theory they are, but there is a thing called economies of scale where the deaths from such a scenario are few and far between, while the deaths and injuries (person or property) from stolen guns are way too frequent. So it is incumbent upon society as a whole to address the stolen gun issue in a manner, which is far less necessary at this time with stolen vehicles.

Plus, in theory through the requirement of having to have vehicle insurance already lays the legal groundwork for potential risks in owning a vehicle. But with guns, there is no legal groundwork or process yet, which needs to be addressed, because guns are lethal weapons and all owners of guns are assuming a risk when they take possession of one or ones; and that risk needs to be indemnified.

For with every right there is a responsibility and the 2nd Amendment does not give you a right or a license of aloofness to your responsibility within the social contract of society as a whole….

#2 D@ily Spin on 07.07.18 at 10:59 pm

The city will have a federal litigation nightmare if they attempt restricting guns. The only prerogative is to confiscate a gun as evidence whether stolen or used in a crime. There’s no limitation on length of time. Any gun that can be kept off the street for years is good. Publicize that guns will not be immediately returned and owners will better secure them.

#3 White Panther on 07.08.18 at 8:21 am

In gun safety classes they teach keep your guns locked up when not in use.

#4 Ljl on 07.09.18 at 11:22 am

The sherif can deny carry permits for these fools.