Discussion in 'Legal' started by bg, Jul 28, 2005.
I had a feeling this would happen.
I guess one day I will have to daisy chain all of mine together to make a chain to put across the driveway
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!
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
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
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.
My "Made in the USA" Ruger Alaskan came with a nice lock all the way from China.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
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 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!)
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.
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.
Some where and at some time truth and reality has to club these people.
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.
Separate names with a comma.