Senate approves amendment requiring handgun safety locks

Status
Not open for further replies.

Harry Tuttle

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,093
Senate approves amendment requiring handgun safety locks

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/26/national1209EST0603.DTL
JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, February 26, 2004

(02-26) 09:09 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly agreed to require child safety locks on all handguns sold in the United States as part of a Republican-pushed package to immunize gun makers and sellers from lawsuits arising from gun crimes.

Senators voted 70-27 for the legislation after pleas from Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, who said the legislation would help stop children from accidentally shooting themselves with handguns they find inside the home.

"If we were to pass this legislation and it become the law of the land, the number of children involved in the number of accidental shootings would go way down," said Boxer, who cited FBI statistics showing a child killed by a firearm every three hours.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a sponsor of the original bill, said gun manufacturers already are working on the problem. Also, he said locks won't guarantee that guns can't be misused and that the amendment would be an intrusion of the federal government into people's homes.

"I don't believe the government ought to be telling people how to store an object in the home," Craig said.

The Senate in 1999 passed similar legislation, but the House refused to approve the measure.

The House passed the gun maker immunity bill last year.

Democrats plan to try and attach their other gun legislation to the bill providing for general immunity from lawsuits when a legally sold gun is subsequently used in a crime. In a test vote Tuesday, that bill got 75 votes, which would be more than enough to pass the Senate next week.

Before the final vote on Tuesday, Democrats plan to force votes on a proposal to require unlicensed sellers to check buyers' backgrounds at gun shows and to extend for 10 years the ban on assault weapons.

Supporters of the gun maker immunity bill plan to argue against most of the Democratic amendments, saying any attempt to make changes simply amounts to an attempt to kill the bill. For example, the GOP-controlled House already has said it does not plan to approve an extension of the expiring assault weapons ban.

The White House, which has indicated support for the assault weapons ban and the gun show measure, called on the Senate to pass the legislation without amendments.

"Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable," according to a White House statement released late Tuesday.

Democrats took that statement as an indication that President Bush was backing off his support for those two separate measures. "For the president to say he's for the assault weapons ban and act against it, that is a flip-flop if I've ever seen one," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Republicans, along with some Senate Democrats, have pushed for the gun immunity legislation for some time. Gun advocates say firearm manufacturers make legal products and should not have to spend millions of dollars fighting off suits.

Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, agreed to get behind the legislation after gun supporters agreed that firearms makers and distributors would not be immune to suits involving defective products or illegal sales. Daschle said his party's support comes "in part because of the acknowledgment of the need to address some of these concerns."

Other Democrats said the bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the gun industry. "We have huge problems in this country, but we're spending time trying to protect the special interests of a special group," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
On the Net:

Information on the bill, S. 1805, can be found at thomas.loc.gov
 
Are we talking integral gun locks, or just throwing a cheap cable lock in the box with the gun like some manufacturers already do?
 
Edited to redact original post. Some initial reports were that the amendment required integral locks, and that appears not to be the case. I don't want bad information hanging around. Sometimes it gets picked up.
 
Last edited:
This is a dupe of my earlier thread by the way. Can the admins delete mine since this is the only one with a response?
 
The only intelligent response I can come up with is, F#$%!

Wait...

Nope...that's it. I think I need to go lie down.
 
This is Kohl's child lock bill - he amended Boxer's amendment prior to the vote and stated that his amendment (which was approved) would make Boxer's bill almost identical to this one:

Child Safety Lock Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)

S. 866

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a handgun and provide safety standards for child safety locks.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 10, 2003
Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CORZINE, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. REED, and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a handgun and provide safety standards for child safety locks.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Child Safety Lock Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF CHILD HANDGUN SAFETY LOCKS.

(a) DEFINITIONS- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `locking device' means a device or locking mechanism that is approved by a licensed firearms manufacturer for use on the handgun with which the device or locking mechanism is sold, delivered, or transferred and that--

`(A) if installed on a firearm and secured by means of a key or a mechanically, electronically, or electromechanically operated combination lock , is designed to prevent the firearm from being discharged without first deactivating or removing the device by means of a key or mechanically, electronically, or electromechanically operated combination lock ;

`(B) if incorporated into the design of a firearm, is designed to prevent discharge of the firearm by any person who does not have access to the key or other device designed to unlock the mechanism and thereby allow discharge of the firearm; or

`(C) is a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is designed to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or other similar means.'.

(b) UNLAWFUL ACTS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

`(z) LOCKING DEVICES-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the transferee is provided with a locking device for that handgun.

`(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the United States or a State or a department or agency of the United States, or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a firearm;

`(B) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in subparagraph (A) of a firearm for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off duty); or

`(C) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under State law of a firearm for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty).'.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- Section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code, as added by this subsection, shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

(c) LIABILITY; EVIDENCE-

(1) LIABILITY- Nothing in this section shall be construed to--

(A) create a cause of action against any firearms dealer or any other person for any civil liability; or

(B) establish any standard of care.

(2) EVIDENCE- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the amendments made by this section shall not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other entity, except with respect to an action to enforce this section.

(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a failure to comply with section 922(z) of that title.

(d) CIVIL PENALTIES- Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking `or (f)' and inserting `(f), or (p)'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(p) PENALTIES RELATING TO LOCKING DEVICES-

`(1) IN GENERAL-

`(A) SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; CIVIL PENALTIES- With respect to each violation of section 922(z)(1) by a licensee, the Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for hearing--

`(i) suspend or revoke any license issued to the licensee under this chapter; or

`(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount equal to not more than $10,000.

`(B) REVIEW- An action by the Attorney General under this paragraph may be reviewed only as provided under section 923(f).

`(2) ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES- The suspension or revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative remedy that is otherwise available to the Attorney General.'.

(continued)
 
(continued)

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT.

(a) IN GENERAL- The Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 39. CHILD HANDGUN SAFETY LOCKS.

`(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARD-

`(1) RULEMAKING REQUIRED-

`(A) INITIATION OF RULEMAKING- Notwithstanding section 3(a)(1)(E), the Commission shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Child Safety Lock Act of 2003 to establish a consumer product safety standard for locking devices. The Commission may extend the 90-day period for good cause.

`(B) FINAL RULE- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, the Commission shall promulgate a final consumer product safety standard under this paragraph not later than 12 months after the date on which it initiated the rulemaking. The Commission may extend that 12-month period for good cause.

`(C) EFFECTIVE DATE- The consumer product safety standard promulgated under this paragraph shall take effect 6 months after the date on which the final standard is promulgated.

`(D) STANDARD REQUIREMENTS- The standard promulgated under this paragraph shall require locking devices that--

`(i) are sufficiently difficult for children to de-activate or remove; and

`(ii) prevent the discharge of the handgun unless the locking device has been de-activated or removed.

`(2) INAPPLICABLE PROVISIONS-

`(A) PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT- Sections 7, 9, and 30(d) shall not apply to the rulemaking proceeding described under paragraph (1). Section 11 shall not apply to any consumer product safety standard promulgated under paragraph (1).

`(B) CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 5- Except for section 553, chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to this section.

`(C) CHAPTER 6 OF TITLE 5- Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to this section.

`(D) NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT- The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) shall not apply to this section.

`(b) NO EFFECT ON STATE LAW-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding section 26, this section shall not annul, alter, impair, affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this section from complying with any provision of law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, except to the extent that such provisions of State law are inconsistent with any provision of this section, and then only to the extent of such inconsistency.

`(2) CLARIFICATION- A provision of State law is not inconsistent with this section if such provision affords greater protection to children from handguns than is afforded by this section.

`(c) ENFORCEMENT- Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2)(A), the consumer product safety standard promulgated by the Commission pursuant to subsection (a) shall be enforced under this Act as if it were a consumer product safety standard described under section 7(a).

`(d) DEFINITIONS- In this section, the following definitions shall apply:

`(1) CHILD- The term `child' means an individual who has not attained the age of 13 years.

`(2) LOCKING DEVICE- The term `locking device' has the meaning given that term in clauses (i) and (iii) of section 921(a)(36) of title 18, United States Code.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 1 of the Consumer Product Safety Act is amended by adding at the end of the table of contents the following:

`Sec. 39. Child handgun safety locks.'.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS-

(1) IN GENERAL- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Consumer Product Safety Commission $2,000,000 to carry out the provisions of section 39 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, as added by this Act.

(2) AVAILABILITY- Any amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.
 
Hmmm. For NC;

Edwards - Did not vote
Dole - Nay

Liddy surprised me on this one.
 
Actually, I don't care about this locking device issue as it doesn't mandate A) integral locks or B) that I MUST use these. Sure, it does establish a precedent that would allow a lawyer to claim that I am negligent for not doing so, but that would happen anyway.

What I AM worried about is that this bill will be a vehicle for extending the AWB, via the backdoor, allowing the Republicans to wimp out and that they are doing it for the children and had no choice but to do so if they wanted preemption of gun industry lawsuits. :barf:
 
The big huff over the lock is that it has to be an approved lock, meeting a certain standard. What if no lock is ever good enough? No more sales, eh?
 
Perhaps so, but it would seem no more than a delaying action, as any halfway sanecourt would rule that they have to set a reasonable attainable standard, should the NRA et. al challenge it. You can bet the NRA won't file in the 9th Appeals either (I said halfway-sane :D ).
 
ARRRRGGGGGG !!!!

I called my sen. K.B.hutchison from here in Texas and made my view (which I had made earlier by email before the vote) Clear





If this is what I get out of republicans why should I keep voting for them ?

At least J Cornyn stood by us.

I really want to know does the us senate use the 2 or 4 ply copy of the US. Consititution.


:fire:
 
Yeah, good idea, have a gun lock on your home defense weapon. Wait Mr. Criminal Scumbag, please don't slaughter my family....I need to find the key to take the lock off my Sig...thanks much.


I love this little gem --"If we were to pass this legislation and it become the law of the land, the number of children involved in the number of accidental shootings would go way down," said Boxer, who cited FBI statistics showing a child killed by a firearm every three hours."


Let's see, a child every 3 hours....that's 8 per day, and some 2400+ per year.

I wonder how she got that figure? Could it be she's including gang-banging teens in that number?
 
It would appear that Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell knows where his bread is buttered. He abstained from voting.

hmph.

Better than voting for it directly, I suppose.

At least Allard isn't afraid to let grown adults make their own decisions.
 
Wild, did our senators vote in favor of this???

Cause.... WTH!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top