I just don't understand the US and the 2nd. You're not allowed to have a lot of various weapons and it just states that people can be "armed", which could mean a lot of things. And even then, having a gun stored away safely is absolutely not infringing on that right either, as long as you have access to it. This is just obsessive gun fetishism and it constantly gets people killed, including little kids.

This isn't preventing him from getting a firearm this is charging somebody with improper storage of a firearm. Not sure how likely it is the supreme Court will rule against it but it's different than the laws challenged so far

Where does the 2A say anything about "immediate self-defense"? Oh that's right, no where. Fuck SCOTUS

Doubt SCOTUS ever touches this.

The language matters A LOT: Michigan's mirrors California's, which would absolutely hold up to any constitutional challenge because it requires negligence with an adverse outcome. Michigan's and California's basically say you're a criminal if two things are met: you had any plausible expectation of a child being around, AND something bad actually happens.

Every states are a little different, and at the other end of the intelligence spectrum are New Jerseys and New Yorks, and nobody even cared to challenge those yet. New Jerseys statute says you're a criminal, regardless of circumstances, if the guns are not locked up per some collection of criteria at all times when you're not actively accessing them. I do know that most of New Jerseys rare prosecutions are actual bullshit, for example a cop going door to door to gun owners because of some local crime, asking to see someone's gun to check it and not liking that the safe in the room he was in when they showed up was not completely locked (never mind he lives alone). Expect any challenge to arise there.

If SCOTUS does throw out all storage laws, it'll be because of politicians who care more about their resume than about writing really good laws.

They did leave some wiggle room which has allowed the law here in Washington to stick around. Basically if there is a reasonable possibility that a person who is not allowed to handle firearms would have access to them, you can apply restrictions. Guns here have to either be on your person or locked if there is a possibility that your kids could access them.

Man how fucked is this timeline that I had to scratch my head a bit over whether this was a sincere response or a caricature of a particular US demographic?

"You wouldn't wear a condom on your man weapon would ya? Why would you safely secure your firearm? Murica! Fuck yeah!" - probably some dumbass

The farther you get from America, the more woefully absurd it sounds. But, right in the middle of America, it's a very different place.

And at this point in time, gun fetishism has gone meta-static and is afflicting many different states.

And it's not the possession of guns alone: I've seen the exposé where Switzerland's gun culture is compared, and questions are asked about how they can have one gun per adult and still suffer an almost non-existent rate of accidents and murders. A lot of it resembles the 1950s where kids would be part of a school .22 target rifle team, store their guns and ammo on the premises and still no one got hurt.

I really think it's the worship of guns, where Meal Team 6 tries to emulate cowboys of old, and fails on every level.

I wouldn't focus on his plea. He's likely doing this on the advice of his lawyer to secure plea deal. Initial charges always very harsh and this is a pretty common tactic in American court. It's like companies who won't say "you're sorry" because it opens them up to liability.

Yes, this is a great example of that.

If he plead guilty he'd be accepting a felony charge and would have to give up his guns. He's probably holding out for a plea that lets him keep them.