Senate backs trigger locks amendment.
- Thread starter bg
- Start date
- Status
It was an industry bill and it won't pass with provisions the industry can't live with. I suspect that the added cost of cheap gun locks is less than the added cost of the litigation risk, so I can see how this amendment passed if the industry agreed to it based upon its loss experience.
Regardless of what the industry thinks, this bill should not be passed with additional gun control measures, but I do not view the addition of gun locks in the packaging as gun control. The requirement that guns be stored a certain way would be gun control, but this law does not do that. (As an aside, storage legislation could be proposed independent of legislation requiring the inclusion of gun lucks in the packaging, so I do not see a significant correlation between the packaging requirement and the storage requirement.)
Regardless of what the industry thinks, this bill should not be passed with additional gun control measures, but I do not view the addition of gun locks in the packaging as gun control. The requirement that guns be stored a certain way would be gun control, but this law does not do that. (As an aside, storage legislation could be proposed independent of legislation requiring the inclusion of gun lucks in the packaging, so I do not see a significant correlation between the packaging requirement and the storage requirement.)
CAS700850
Member
Trust me when I say that I fully understand slippery slope arguments, and that any infringment is problematic, regardless of the level of infringment. That said, I just don't see this as a poison pill, if you will. It requires a lock to be sold with every handgun. Bump the price of a handgun up $5 or $10 for the cost of the lock. Get it home and toss the lock if you choose. Use them for something else. A buddy uses a couple of the cable locks as bike locks.
I read one post above that said state's will require use of the locks if this amendment passes. I don't see how providing the locks will spur Cali, Mass, N.Y. and the like to suddenly pass bills requiring the use of the locks. They could have tried this already, and may have in some places.
I read one post above that said state's will require use of the locks if this amendment passes. I don't see how providing the locks will spur Cali, Mass, N.Y. and the like to suddenly pass bills requiring the use of the locks. They could have tried this already, and may have in some places.
RealGun
Member
At least WE need to see this for what it is. If you have an incident and did not use a trigger lock, you will be subject to a new criminal liability. To avoid the liability, you may have to sacrifice self defense, disabling the gun. Alternatively, you are now also forced to buy a safe to make self defense practical.
Not excusing negligence and stupidity, sh?t happens, but now you go to jail and lose your RKBA. It is just more harassment of gun owners and a law that makes it look like legislators are doing something about some supposed problem, all the while demonizing gun ownership. Listen to the arguments by the proponents of the measure.
You can ignore this law or its impact, but you can't escape the criminal liability implied. If you have an accident in your home, instead of being told what a dumb ass you are and what not to do in the future, you go to jail and lose your guns. That may seem like justice to some, but the underlying motive is to harass gun ownership, making it less practical to have one available for its intended purpose.
What's next? Drawer locks for sharp knives? Stay the hell out of my house!
RealGun
Member
Why does the bill exempt use of a safe? Exempt for what? We-e-e-ll, it is an exemption from prosecution for criminal negligence.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
No, under current law you are already subject to civil liability whether you use a lock or not.
RealGun
Member
Criminal liability? A sentence of more than one year equates to felon status, and you lose your guns.
XLMiguel
Member
CAS700850 - Don't toss those locks! Get one of them VPC/Brady Bunch prepaid envelopes and mail 'em to them, along with instructions on where to put them. I mean, if they believe in them, it's only fair that they pay for a supply, right? 
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
This law creates no criminal liability for not using a lock as a citizen. It doesn't even create a civil liability for not using a lock as a citizen. It says if you use a "secure storage device" you are immune from current civil liability laws.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Text of gun lock amendment:
SA 1626. Mr. REED (for Mr. KOHL) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 5. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.--This section may be cited as the ``Child Safety Lock Act of 2005''.
[Page: S9193] GPO's PDF
(b) PURPOSES.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers;
(2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in possession of a handgun; and
(3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms to law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.
(c) FIREARMS SAFETY.--
(1) MANDATORY TRANSFER OF SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.
``(2) EXCEPTIONS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
``(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the United States, a department or agency of the United States, a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
``(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off duty); or
``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
``(C) the transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a curio or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 921(a)(13); or
``(D) the transfer to any person of a handgun for which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions stated in section 923(e), if the licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers to the transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of the delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun storage or safety device for the handgun.
``(3) LIABILITY FOR USE.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action.
``(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS.--A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
``(C) DEFINED TERM.--As used in this paragraph, the term `qualified civil liability action'--
``(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, if--
``(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access to it; and
``(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and
``(ii) shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''.
(2) CIVIL PENALTIES.--Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(p) PENALTIES RELATING TO SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--
``(A) SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; CIVIL PENALTIES.--With respect to each violation of section 922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for hearing--
``(i) suspend for not more than 6 months, or revoke, the license issued to the licensee under this chapter that was used to conduct the firearms transfer; or
``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount equal to not more than $2,500.
``(B) REVIEW.--An action of the Secretary 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) shall not preclude any administrative remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.
(3) LIABILITY; EVIDENCE.--
(A) LIABILITY.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
(i) create a cause of action against any Federal firearms licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or
(ii) establish any standard of care.
(B) 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 relating to section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code, as added by this subsection.
(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this paragraph 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) EFFECTIVE DATE.--This section and the amendments made by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SA 1626. Mr. REED (for Mr. KOHL) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 5. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.--This section may be cited as the ``Child Safety Lock Act of 2005''.
[Page: S9193] GPO's PDF
(b) PURPOSES.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers;
(2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in possession of a handgun; and
(3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms to law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.
(c) FIREARMS SAFETY.--
(1) MANDATORY TRANSFER OF SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.
``(2) EXCEPTIONS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
``(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the United States, a department or agency of the United States, a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
``(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off duty); or
``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
``(C) the transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a curio or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 921(a)(13); or
``(D) the transfer to any person of a handgun for which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions stated in section 923(e), if the licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers to the transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of the delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun storage or safety device for the handgun.
``(3) LIABILITY FOR USE.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action.
``(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS.--A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
``(C) DEFINED TERM.--As used in this paragraph, the term `qualified civil liability action'--
``(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, if--
``(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access to it; and
``(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and
``(ii) shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''.
(2) CIVIL PENALTIES.--Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(p) PENALTIES RELATING TO SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--
``(A) SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; CIVIL PENALTIES.--With respect to each violation of section 922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for hearing--
``(i) suspend for not more than 6 months, or revoke, the license issued to the licensee under this chapter that was used to conduct the firearms transfer; or
``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount equal to not more than $2,500.
``(B) REVIEW.--An action of the Secretary 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) shall not preclude any administrative remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.
(3) LIABILITY; EVIDENCE.--
(A) LIABILITY.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
(i) create a cause of action against any Federal firearms licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or
(ii) establish any standard of care.
(B) 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 relating to section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code, as added by this subsection.
(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this paragraph 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) EFFECTIVE DATE.--This section and the amendments made by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
cuchulainn
Member
I'm not happy about this amendment, however some in this thread are confusing:
A) Requiring dealers to provide locks (which it does).
B) Requiring owners to use locks (which it doesn't). That may come later.
A) Requiring dealers to provide locks (which it does).
B) Requiring owners to use locks (which it doesn't). That may come later.
The issue of civil or criminal liability is going to be dependent on the law of a particular state absent a safe storage law, and the fact that a lock is or is not included with a firearm is not likely to be a determining factor. In a state where the DA/plaintiff's lawyer is going to key up a case, do you really think that defense of "they didn't give me a $2 trigger lock to go with my $500 gun so I'm not guilty (or liable, as the case may be)" is going to help?
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
MA requires trigger locks? I bet that it's also illegal to have a loaded shotgun unlocked in plain view next to a few boxes of ammo, hm?
I don't like bad laws, no one should obey them.
I don't like bad laws, no one should obey them.
I see the point for those opposing gun locks.
However, I think it actually helps us. Let me explain.
The locks will help the republicans seem "reasonable" to the average voter, which will help them stay in power. If they stay in power, then it won't become manditory.
If the Democrats regain power, locks will be the least of our problems. They'll go after firearms in a big way, they'll want blood for the trouble we've caused them, and they'll gut gun owners in every way possible. We'll have to put the locks on cardboard-cutouts of guns, because they'll be coming for the real ones.
It's just smart politics, a win-win situation for us when you think on it.
However, I think it actually helps us. Let me explain.
The locks will help the republicans seem "reasonable" to the average voter, which will help them stay in power. If they stay in power, then it won't become manditory.
If the Democrats regain power, locks will be the least of our problems. They'll go after firearms in a big way, they'll want blood for the trouble we've caused them, and they'll gut gun owners in every way possible. We'll have to put the locks on cardboard-cutouts of guns, because they'll be coming for the real ones.
It's just smart politics, a win-win situation for us when you think on it.
Waitone
Member
Enough of the equine skat. Make them get reasonable and roll back anti-gun legislation. You want gun locks? Fine now propose to existing laws for which you will support the repeal. Reasonable is a two way street. For far too long second amendment supporters have put up with death by a thousand cuts. The latest trigger lock is just another cut.
No more. Make them give ground. Make them demonstrate reasonableness.
Ya give 'em nuthin'!
No more. Make them give ground. Make them demonstrate reasonableness.
Ya give 'em nuthin'!
jefnvk
Member
See, the difference between the first scenario, and all the rest? The first is not preventing you in any way from owning anything. All the other points in there actually prohibit you from owning something.
I'm with rebar on this one. The amendment is not hurting you in any way, and could end up helping a great deal.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
You know, I read this, remember that story about The Window War, look over at the pile of 50 or so gun locks I have, and these little wheels start to spin...
jefnvk, how is this not hurting anyone?
Guns will cost more.
This could be viewed as a government subsidy for gun-lock makers.
Government-enforced product bundling is absurd. If I want a gun without a (useless) gun lock, I should be able to get that. If I have a (useless) lock at home and want to use it on a newly-purchased gun, I shouldn't have to buy a new lock.
Hopefully reasonable FFLs will buy the safety locks back from customers. I'd even sell one back at a slight loss. Unfortunately, I bet the government would say that transaction is a conspiracy to violate federal law, which is probably 5-10 in the slammer. :banghead:
Guns will cost more.
This could be viewed as a government subsidy for gun-lock makers.
Government-enforced product bundling is absurd. If I want a gun without a (useless) gun lock, I should be able to get that. If I have a (useless) lock at home and want to use it on a newly-purchased gun, I shouldn't have to buy a new lock.
Hopefully reasonable FFLs will buy the safety locks back from customers. I'd even sell one back at a slight loss. Unfortunately, I bet the government would say that transaction is a conspiracy to violate federal law, which is probably 5-10 in the slammer. :banghead:
sturmruger
Member
I'm sorry but I don't think this is all that big of a deal. Plus there is a very distinct possibility that the Kohl ammendment will get thrown out in the conference with the House.
If I was a dealer I don't think I would mind this new law. The bottom line is there are plenty of places to get gun locks for free. Plus by reading the law it sounds like I could bring a gun lock to my dealer when I fill the paperwork ou then when I go back to pick up the handgun 48 hours later he could give it back to me.
If I was a dealer I don't think I would mind this new law. The bottom line is there are plenty of places to get gun locks for free. Plus by reading the law it sounds like I could bring a gun lock to my dealer when I fill the paperwork ou then when I go back to pick up the handgun 48 hours later he could give it back to me.
jefnvk
Member
If you look at the locks that come with Century Arms weapons, you will see that locks don't add but a few pennies on the price. Furthermore, anyone can go down to their local police office, and pick up as many gun locks as they want. The gov't is already making the locks, and giving them away for free. I don't see how that adds expense to the gun.
- Status
