Senate backs trigger locks amendment.

I had a feeling this would happen.

don't pretty much all new handguns come with locks these days anyway? I don't think I've purchased one anytime recently that didn't have one...

I suppose this will apply to used handguns also ....

I guess one day I will have to daisy chain all of mine together to make a chain to put across the driveway

It will probably not apply to used handguns, unless the FFL holder buys a used gun to put in inventory. Consignment or transferred guns would probably not be affected as the FFL holder is not "selling" the gun, but rather providing a service. Same reason why a gunsmith doesn't have to ship a lock with the gun when they return your firearm.

This amendment was a no-brainer. Manufacturers are already doing this for handguns, so there is no additional cost and it allows them to say that anti-gun rights forces are being unreasonable for opposing the entire bill. If a senator votes against the final bill, it can be said that they opposed gun locks!

don't pretty much all new handguns come with locks these days anyway? I don't think I've purchased one anytime recently that didn't have one...

Click to expand...

Everyone I have bought has had one in the past few years. My problem with this is the next step.
The Brady Campaign's future speech "While all handguns now have locks with them we have yet another problem. No one is using them! So we must force the people to use these locks. We propose that all guns must have the lock in place 24 hours a day even when in use."
Do I think something like this will pass? No, but I can see this leading to some kind of regulation that says when the locks must be used and that makes me

Actually, few know what this legislation says yet as the amendment (S.A. 1626) hasn't been posted online yet.

If this is similar to the same amendment Kohl offered last year, then it has the following features:

1) It applies only to handguns
2) Law enforcement is exempt
3) Curio & Relics are exempt
4) The FFL must provide a "secure storage device".
5) People who use a "secure storage device" are immune from qualified civil liability lawsuits
6) FFLs can have their license suspended for up to six months and be fined up to $2,500 for failing to comply

Why can't 397 just get passed without add-ons ?

Click to expand...

Probably because there aren't 62 votes for cloture unless they allow popular (passed 70-27 last time it was offered) amendments like this one to be attached.

don't pretty much all new handguns come with locks these days anyway?

Click to expand...

My "Made in the USA" Ruger Alaskan came with a nice lock all the way from China.

The Kohl amendment would require any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer to include a separate child safety or locking device with each handgun purchase, except those purchased by government officials and police officers. Any violation could be punished by the suspension of a dealer's license, a $10,000 fine or both.

Click to expand...

I guess government officials and police officers don't have kids. Nothing new -- in CA they are specifically allowed to purchase guns that failed the CA "safety test."

I guess government officials and police officers don't have kids.

Click to expand...

No. They just have supernatural powers that allow them to guarantee nothing bad will ever happen if they leave their loaded sidearm in their 4-year-old's bedroom that us peons could never obtain or even comprehend

I can't help likening trigger locks to the evolution of seat belts. They made car makers provide them and then made their use mandatory.

The previous version of the bill provided for liability immunity when a qualified storage device is used, so obviously someone is envisioning making it a criminal liability for not using a trigger lock. Then the only way to protect yourself is to disable the gun, wear it to bed, or get rid of it. If you need it in a hurry, oh well.

The wammy is what insurance companies will say about your owning guns.

They just have supernatural powers that allow them to guarantee nothing bad will ever happen if they leave their loaded sidearm in their 4-year-old's bedroom that us peons could never obtain or even comprehend

Click to expand...

No they just have firearms training far superior to what the average citizen can get.
Thats why you never hear of a police officer shooting himself in the leg or accidentally almost shooting her partner.

The wammy is what insurance companies will say about your owning guns.

Click to expand...

Well if they can find just a hint of a justy not to pay a claim or to be able to raise premiums, they'll do it.

There should not be any amendments. That is totally wrong as far as I'm concerned. This trigger lock amendment is a joke.

Show me where it says anything in the Second Amendment about trigger locks. Go ahead. I dare you.

Show me where it says anything in the Second Amendment about trigger locks. Go ahead. I dare you

Click to expand...

Amen. Not that I have any anyhow (ah, how I love old family FTF gun transfers ). Or that the things that would warrent them actually work :banghead:

If there is an amendment that'll shut them up and keep them from proposing more amendments, this is probably the one to support. Besides the whole slippery slop thing, that RevDisk mentioned, there is nothing particularly bad about this amendment. No usage requirement, jsut give them a gun lock with a handgun. I haven't gotten a gun yet without a gun lock, its not real bothersome to me.

Seeing as how lawsuits are one of the biggest dangers to gun ownership in the US, they need to pass this bill. Without having to defend against ridiculous lawsuits, gun companies can actually turn a profit and innovate.

Requiring trigger locks would really not be an imposition to me, most of the shops around here provide them anyway and most manufacturers are installing them.

Hi cap bans wouldn't really effect my life either, I've only ever owned one double stack pistol anyway and I sold it cause the grip was too big for me.

.50 cal bans don't effect me cause I can't afford one and wouldn't have anywhere to shoot it anyway

I wouldn't even notice a renewal of the AWB, I only have that one AK that I bought while the ban was active

Ban high powered rifles? No problem I haven't hunted in years

Semi auto .22 rifles? I prefer pumps anyway.

What if they required that all guns be kept trigger locked, in a safe, with no ammo in the same building as the firearm?
What the hell, I live in a safe enough neighborhood

NRA-ILA ALERT:

NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 12, SPECIAL ALERT 7/28/05

TODAY'S UPDATE ON S. 397 (July 28, 2005)--
"The Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act"

Today the U.S. Senate took a number of actions related to S. 397, as debate winds down with a vote on final passage expected in the next 24 hours. Among the Senate's actions today:

Passage by a vote of 70-30 of an amendment by Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) that requires federally licensed dealers to provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" (e.g., trigger locks, cable locks, safes, gun cases, a lock box, etc.) with the sale/transfer of every handgun (does not apply to long guns). It does not require gun owners to use the device, and does not create any new civil liability for gun owners who choose not to use these storage devices. Virtually all new handguns today are sold with some type of secure storage or safety device. The Kohl Amendment does not have any significant impact on current law or S. 397 itself.

Tabling (and thus, killing) an amendment by Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) by a vote of 62-37. The Levin Amendment would have gutted S. 397, creating a giant loophole for anti-gun activist lawyers, allowing exactly the type of lawsuits this bill is intended to prevent. Last year this same amendment was decisively defeated.
Please contact your U.S. Senators IMMEDIATELY and urge them to support S. 397 without any anti-gun amendments. Be sure to tell your Senators that you consider any vote for anti-gun amendments as a vote against S. 397 itself.

ON FRIDAY, JULY 29, THERE WILL BE VOTES ON ANTI-GUN AMENDMENTS TO BAN AMMUNITION AND GUT THE LEGISLATION!

(For more complete information on S. 397, and to contact your U.S. Senators, please go to http://www.nraila.org/stoprecklesslawsuits.aspx. You may also call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121. Please IMMEDIATELY share this information with everyone you know who supports the Second Amendment!)





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring trigger locks would really not be an imposition to me,

Click to expand...

You're not seeing the process here. Congress uses their commerce role to require mfrs. to supply locks. Then the States make it a crime not to use the locks.

If the bill passes, I believe it has to go to conference with the House, who didn't include trigger locks. The amendment could get dropped.

States can and do already require trigger locks, but a gun mfr can then refuse to do business with a State. Interstate commerce judrisdiction, i.e. a bill from Congress, signed by the President, can force mfrs to cooperate and maintain supplies to a State. Of course, all they would really care about is what the police could buy.

Trigger locks are another feel-good-looks-good-in-the-news-and-keeps-Dianne-happy measure. I say give 'em nuthin'. Take the legislation, roll it into a tight tube and shove it . . . . . without the window dressing. Every bill before congress has a finds section which provides the "logic" justifying the legislation. that is where the lies are left to fester. I think the pro-second amendment types ought to fight tooth and nail and demand that no lies are placed in the findings section. so when Kole or whomever puts in a statement about a bazillion 1 year old kids a year offing themselves (used a justification for trigger locks) someone stands up and yells "BS" and says it ain't going in.

Some where and at some time truth and reality has to club these people.

Then the States make it a crime not to use the locks.

Click to expand...

That's the law in MA already. It's a feel-good totally unenforcable law, I know of no one who has actually been charged with not locking their weapon.

We should have countered the trigger lock ammendment with a "Steel Core" ammo ammendment that would require all rifles to be sold wit 20 rounds of Steel Core ammo.