Is lawsuit immunity for trigger locks worth it?


PDA






NRAninja
December 14, 2004, 07:07 PM
We all remember watching c-span earlier this year. AWB, gunshow loophole, and the trigger lock bills were passed. The AWB passed 52-47, and I think the gunshow loophole was 53-46. The trigger lock amendment passed by a landslide. With the changes in the senate this year, it looks as if the AWB will fail by a few votes and the gunshow loophole will fail too or at best tie and die. However, the trigger lock amendment will easily pass unless Frist puts the smackdown on all amendments.

So is the lawsuit bill for trigger locks worth it?

If you enjoyed reading about "Is lawsuit immunity for trigger locks worth it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jefnvk
December 14, 2004, 07:42 PM
Please explain what about them. Are they being required to be given when you purchase a firearm? I have no problem with that, espscially since Century has found an interestingly cheap way around that.

Now, if every gun is required to have a trigger guard on it at all times,except when being shot, I have a problem with that.

jnojr
December 14, 2004, 07:46 PM
Huh??? AWB? What year was this posted in???

Tag
December 14, 2004, 08:18 PM
Anyways,

I'd rather have a free trigger lock included with a new gun as opposed to haveing the manufacturer build in a seperate locking device... which is just another part to fail.

What year are we talking about here... :scrutiny:

NRAninja
December 14, 2004, 08:46 PM
When they were debating the lawsuit immunity bill in the senate in the beginning of March 2004, many amendments were offered. One was a straight 10 year extension to the current AWB, one was mccain's closing of the gun show loophole, one was a requirement for all handguns to be sold with a trigger lock, one was Kennedy's expansion of the armor piercing thing, and I think there was another one but I can't remember it.

The AWB, gunshow loophole, and trigger lock amendment passed and after that the entire bill was shot down. The AWB and gunshow loophole passed by slim margins, but the trigger lock amendment passed with 70+ votes IIRC.

The trigger lock amendment wasn't that big of a deal. It didn't mandate that all guns have to have built in locking device garbage like H&K and Taurus have, but it does require new handguns to be sold with a lock like Glock and Beretta include with their guns. It doesn't require guns to be stored with trigger locks at all times. I don't know if it requires gunmakers to ship their guns with locks, or if it just requires you to buy one with the gun or whatever, but the bottom line is that we would all be paying for trigger locks one way or the other.

Since the amendment passed by a landslide, and since the lawsuit bill will surely come up again during this session of congress, is getting lawsuit immunity in exchange for required trigger locks worth it? The only way the trigger lock amendment won't be added to the immunity bill is if Frist doesn't allow amendments and there are 60 votes to stop the filibuster (which there were earlier this year so it will probably be no problem next time).

Ryder
December 14, 2004, 09:06 PM
When I bought my last rifle the clerk slapped the lock on the counter telling me it was his last one. I told him to give it to the next guy because I have no use for them. He said no can do, gun doesn't leave without it. So the next guy was just plain out of luck, no gun for him. This is infringement. If people want or need a piece of crap $5 lock they can buy a piece of crap $5 lock. I don't need nor want some stranger trying to force feed trash to me.

Lawsuit protection is a red herring. The antis lost these cases already. Anyone who ignores these precedents and files another suit should get slammed hard for wasting the court's time.

So the trade is people giving up the freedom to make decisions for themselves in order that some corporation can sleep at night? Don't sound good to me.

jefnvk
December 14, 2004, 09:22 PM
I don't mind it then. As Tag said, better to have them throw in a dollar gunlock (actually, knowing some gunshops, they probably build that dollar into the price), then to have them require internal locking things on all new guns.

I got a couple of spare locks now. Everytime I get a pistol permit, they insist on throwing on in. Can't do anything but help.

Standing Wolf
December 14, 2004, 11:31 PM
Gun locks are just one more means by which the leftist extremists hope to drive up the price of firearms beyond the means of commoners.

Bartholomew Roberts
December 15, 2004, 12:51 PM
Frankly I already have a big selection of trigger locks that I don't need and never use. It annoys me to pay $20 more on the price of a gun to get yet more of them.

The gun industry even has a program that distributes free trigger locks to those who need them. The trigger lock legislation is about as meaningless as you can get when it comes to actually solving the problem.

As idiotic infringements go, it pales in comparison to much of the more recent gun legislation proposals though, so I would probably tolerate it since I am already paying for the triggerlocks anyway as it has become industry practice.

Kharn
December 15, 2004, 01:41 PM
Ryder:
I believe the employee was asking you to leave the store with the lock, and then return in a few minutes seeking to dispose of an identical, but previously-purchased, lock by returning it to the store. ;)

Kharn

itgoesboom
December 15, 2004, 05:42 PM
We went through this nonsense a few years ago in California.

All firearms had to be sold with an approved trigger lock, and it had to be attached before the gun could leave the store.

So I purchased a Ruger .357 blackhawk, which comes in a nice lockable case, with a lock.

But that didn't qualify, so I had to purchase a new trigger lock, put it on the pistol, even though that meant that I couldn't lock or even close the Ruger case.

So I had to walk out of the store with the pistol in an opened case, unlock the trigger lock, and then reclose and lock the Ruger case before I could legally drive home. :banghead:

And since the lock didn't fit inside the case, do you think that I ever used that trigger lock?

I.G.B.

Ryder
December 15, 2004, 05:50 PM
"Can't do anything but help."

I don't call getting killed by good intentions help.

jefnvk
December 15, 2004, 05:53 PM
I don't call getting killed by good intentions help.

:confused:

Note, that I said that about throwing in the lock for free. NOT about any legislation requiring it being used.

Ryder
December 15, 2004, 05:53 PM
"do you think that I ever used that trigger lock?"

Doesn't California have a storage law? Something about gun safes? No, I wouldn't imagine anyone who has to own a safe would have much use for a trigger lock.

RangerHAAF
December 15, 2004, 05:57 PM
I say don't give 'em nothing! They've never given us(gun owners) anything but grief and they tried and would like to make us criminals, but for now we've got the drop on them in congress. To give them anything would be weakness.

Ryder
December 15, 2004, 06:05 PM
Ok Jefnvk, I misunderstood that you were saying using one couldn't hurt. Hey, I just woke up :D I should know better than to post ANYTHING! Sorry.

Some places actually require the lock to be installed before walking out of the store? I've not experienced that. I get home with the lock still in the package. Except for the one lock my kid wanted for his bike a few years back they are all still in their packages. Some now reside in the dump (still in their packages). What I'd like to do with these things is return them to the politicians in a very specific way, but that's not very high road. ;)

Shotbot
December 15, 2004, 07:15 PM
Doesn't California have a storage law? Something about gun safes? No, I wouldn't imagine anyone who has to own a safe would have much use for a trigger lock.

Actually, California has an exemption for the cable/trigger lock requirements for owners of gun safes or DOJ-certified lockboxes. (Wal-mart cheapie gun cabinet is certified). So if you buy the $80 cabinet, you don't have to buy the otherwise-required lock. But there's also a glut of free cable locks up here, because the sheriffs department had an excess supply of Project Childsafe locks. I'll take it for free.

beerslurpy
December 15, 2004, 07:33 PM
We dont need lawsuit protection. All the lawsuits already ended in the manufacturerers favor.

We definitely dont need trigger locks. I have a gun safe for all the guns I'm not currently using and NO trigger lock (I threw out the one I was given in CA) for the handgun that sits in my nightstand. If someone breaks into my house, I have enough to worry about without wrestling a lock off the gun.

dav
December 15, 2004, 11:10 PM
Is lawsuit immunity for trigger locks worth it? No.

Rumpled
December 16, 2004, 03:06 AM
The part in the PRK that really sucks is you have to have a receipt w/in 30 days for PURCHASING a lock. So, you go to the nice police or other giveaway to placate the fears of "for the children" and since you didn't buy it - it don't count!
As far as storage at home - you don't (as of yet ) have to keep them in a safe, just if a minor gets ahold of it and does damage - you're SOL!

CAS700850
December 16, 2004, 11:03 AM
Despite the previous postings, we do need lawsuit protection if the firearms industry is going to contnue to exist, despite previous victories in court. The situation is this, a new theory will be proposed, which will serve as the basis for a new lawsuit, frivolous though it may be. The action will commence, and because it is a new theory, the matter will not be dismissed on res judicata grounds (meaning no dismissal due to the previous case), and will be fully litigated at the expense of the industry. Here's where the real fun starts. Other cities/states will see the new theory, and they will institute similar actions in other jurisidictions, which will not be bound by res judicata (new theory) or even a victory by the gun industry in the first case, as the ruling in the first jurisidction will be non-binding. Then, even if the cases are won at the trial level, appeals will follow, and more appeals still, especially since the government lawyers are salaried, and can undertake this action as one of many on a desk, at no additional expense to the city/state. Meanwhile, the gun industry will start to feel the pain of having to actually pay for each attorney in each action for every hour of work done, not having salaried attorneys in every state.

And, say the industry survives this round of suits. It only takes a creative lawyer to think of yet a third theory, and start the whole process again. Eventually, the cost of defending against all of these suits will drive the gun industry into bankruptcy.

So, in my opinion, even a built in lock on a firearm, as unpleasant as it might be, is worth it if teh Feds can pass a law protecting against these actions.

Andrew Rothman
December 16, 2004, 08:09 PM
We dont need lawsuit protection. All the lawsuits already ended in the manufacturerers favor.

At a cost of HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS spent by the gunmakers?

Figure that a $500 handgun costs $300 for the gun and $200 for manufacturer's liability.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is lawsuit immunity for trigger locks worth it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!