Senate backs trigger locks amendment.
- Thread starter bg
- Start date
- Status
Beren
Moderator Emeritus
I may have fun with this one.
Bring a trigger lock for any handgun you plan to purchase and give the lock to the dealer prior to the purchase. At the time of transfer, he will provide you with the trigger lock.
I like that one, too!
NRAninja
Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 41
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=115872
told ya it would happen :banghead:
Oh well. At least we got lawsuit immunity. Maybe that will make certain manufacturers stop the no sales to civilians crap. A good example would be what happened with the FiveSeven and SS192.
told ya it would happen :banghead:
Oh well. At least we got lawsuit immunity. Maybe that will make certain manufacturers stop the no sales to civilians crap. A good example would be what happened with the FiveSeven and SS192.
Frist and the Republican majority could have gotten a clean bill through without the need for poison pills, but they didn't. This will open up a whole can of worms. What happens on down the road if your gun is stolen or misused by someone else? Not everyone can afford or has the means to own a safe. But he was using YOUR gun! Where was the trigger lock! 
carebear
Member
As has been said the law says "supply" the locks, not "sell", and it doesn't specify that the manufacturer or importer provide the device at point of production or distribution. The lock only comes into play when the gun is transferred to a non-licensee.
I assume if you bring the lock in, and he hands it back, that meets the letter of the law.
As far as liability implied goes.
Looks like an explicit intention to avoid establishing liability to me.
I assume if you bring the lock in, and he hands it back, that meets the letter of the law.
As far as liability implied goes.
Looks like an explicit intention to avoid establishing liability to me.
RealGun
Member
Quoted from GOA email:
Those who think
it's no big deal will tell you that even though the provision requires
gun dealers to include the sale of a "lock-up-your-safety"
device with every handgun sold, there are no penalties for the gun
owner if he or she does not use the trigger lock. Right. NOT YET.
Remember seat belts? First they had to be installed in every new car
sold. Then, it became mandatory that you wear them. You can almost
hear the debate in the next Congress: "It does no good to provide
trigger locking devices if gun owners aren't required to use them. We
need to punish any gun owner who fails to lock up his or her
handgun!"
Those who think
it's no big deal will tell you that even though the provision requires
gun dealers to include the sale of a "lock-up-your-safety"
device with every handgun sold, there are no penalties for the gun
owner if he or she does not use the trigger lock. Right. NOT YET.
Remember seat belts? First they had to be installed in every new car
sold. Then, it became mandatory that you wear them. You can almost
hear the debate in the next Congress: "It does no good to provide
trigger locking devices if gun owners aren't required to use them. We
need to punish any gun owner who fails to lock up his or her
handgun!"
carebear
Member
Except it explicitly does not say "sale" of safety device"
AND
it explicitly does say "shall not establish a standard of care" (regulation requiring use) or "create a cause of action" (open to liability) for non USE of the device by the gun owner.
The amendment increases the risk of those two things coming to pass not one whit. To do would still require a new, separate and distinct law to be passed to create such requirements and liabilities AND change the explicit wording of this bill at the same time.
Which is the same exact risk they'd come back and pass two new laws with those criteria without this amendment existing. i.e. no additional danger.
AND
it explicitly does say "shall not establish a standard of care" (regulation requiring use) or "create a cause of action" (open to liability) for non USE of the device by the gun owner.
The amendment increases the risk of those two things coming to pass not one whit. To do would still require a new, separate and distinct law to be passed to create such requirements and liabilities AND change the explicit wording of this bill at the same time.
Which is the same exact risk they'd come back and pass two new laws with those criteria without this amendment existing. i.e. no additional danger.
bg
Member
I wouldn't be surprized if the trigger lock req is based on Cal's req..>
Here's partial list.
http://www.gunlockinfo.com/Pages/CALIFORNIA REQUIREMENTS & LISTING.htm
And here's what they look like..For instance the GL-500/ 550
http://www.gunlockinfo.com/index.html
How are you going to like this thing hanging off your shooter ?
Here's partial list.
http://www.gunlockinfo.com/Pages/CALIFORNIA REQUIREMENTS & LISTING.htm
And here's what they look like..For instance the GL-500/ 550
http://www.gunlockinfo.com/index.html
How are you going to like this thing hanging off your shooter ?
Or Massachusetts:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131k.htm
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131k.htm
joab
Member
This was my line of thinking when I posted my "And then they came for me" comment.
Rights are usually slowly eroded as opposed to being simply and radically washed away
I'm glad GOA is angry about this. It's their job. I'm a member of GOA because they play a valuable role; GOA plays bad cop and gets angry letters written, NRA plays good cop and snuggles up to the so-called moderates in Congress. Moderates are won over. We win.
I'd say there's a fair chance the trigger lock stuff dies in conference and Frist throws up his hands and says he tried to help the moderates out. If not, we still won a major victory in exchange for pull-ties.
I'd say there's a fair chance the trigger lock stuff dies in conference and Frist throws up his hands and says he tried to help the moderates out. If not, we still won a major victory in exchange for pull-ties.
Marshall
Member
Dang, who's going to keep that gawd awful thing on their guns? Mine would be paperweights.
The majority..
of the gun locks that have been provided with new guns I've bought are not "trigger" locks but the cable locks designed to go through the frame or cylinder of a handgun.
Any gun owner should be smart enough to say that the lock (trigger or cable) was on the gun when it was stolen and be able to demonstrate how either type can be removed with common hand tools in less time than it takes to load a 30 round magazine.
One of the RSO's at a range I frequent is also a gunsmith. Several times when I've been there I've seen folks show up with trigger locks on guns that they had lost the keys for or couldn't get the key to work. The most time consuming part of his removal process is fishing the two huge screwdrivers out of his tool box. The actual removal takes about a second and a half. The cable locks can be defeated with any pair of pliers or wire cutters.
Our local gun lock giveaway is being coordinated out of the Lt. Governor's office (and I thought Republicans were suppose to be firearms friendly).
migoi
of the gun locks that have been provided with new guns I've bought are not "trigger" locks but the cable locks designed to go through the frame or cylinder of a handgun.
Any gun owner should be smart enough to say that the lock (trigger or cable) was on the gun when it was stolen and be able to demonstrate how either type can be removed with common hand tools in less time than it takes to load a 30 round magazine.
One of the RSO's at a range I frequent is also a gunsmith. Several times when I've been there I've seen folks show up with trigger locks on guns that they had lost the keys for or couldn't get the key to work. The most time consuming part of his removal process is fishing the two huge screwdrivers out of his tool box. The actual removal takes about a second and a half. The cable locks can be defeated with any pair of pliers or wire cutters.
Our local gun lock giveaway is being coordinated out of the Lt. Governor's office (and I thought Republicans were suppose to be firearms friendly).
migoi
joab
Member
I have no problem with lock give aways facilitated by govt offices.
Our local PD has a box under the front counter with the receptionist.
I don't agree with the locks being paid for with taxpayer money and I don't agree with making it compulsory, which will happen if a law is passed requiring locks.
For an example when I moved into my new home in Ocoee I had to have a safety and welfare inspection done by a representative of the town before they would allow my water to be turned on.
They were looking for, among other things, fire alarms and anti siphoning vales.
The valves have to do with water restrictions, so they are within their rights.
The alarms, although a good idea, are my business and should not be subject to governmental intrusion
Our local PD has a box under the front counter with the receptionist.
I don't agree with the locks being paid for with taxpayer money and I don't agree with making it compulsory, which will happen if a law is passed requiring locks.
For an example when I moved into my new home in Ocoee I had to have a safety and welfare inspection done by a representative of the town before they would allow my water to be turned on.
They were looking for, among other things, fire alarms and anti siphoning vales.
The valves have to do with water restrictions, so they are within their rights.
The alarms, although a good idea, are my business and should not be subject to governmental intrusion
Last edited:
RealGun
Member
Since integrated locks or locking devices are already included with guns, you are already paying for them. Requiring you to purchase a lock for an older gun would be much more sensitive politically, but count on that happening as a way of threatening you with liability exposure. This new law already promotes ownership of safes and states that other locking devices also provide "immunity".
I think it's clear that prosecutors will try to establish if a gun was stored in a safe or was disabled with a locking device. If an accident has occurred, I think the burden will be on you to prove the gun had been locked. The law can expect you to have a lock if provision of the locks is mandatory. Older guns can only be covered by a follow up law, probably by States at first, providing incentive to buy locks or safes. The incentive will be a threat of liability, which I am sure will include felony status, loss of all your guns, and the right to own them.
In other words, this is the setup for failure to lock a gun being the basis of a felony charge.
Receipt of locks will be covered by having to sign for its receipt when you buy a gun.
I think it's clear that prosecutors will try to establish if a gun was stored in a safe or was disabled with a locking device. If an accident has occurred, I think the burden will be on you to prove the gun had been locked. The law can expect you to have a lock if provision of the locks is mandatory. Older guns can only be covered by a follow up law, probably by States at first, providing incentive to buy locks or safes. The incentive will be a threat of liability, which I am sure will include felony status, loss of all your guns, and the right to own them.
In other words, this is the setup for failure to lock a gun being the basis of a felony charge.
Receipt of locks will be covered by having to sign for its receipt when you buy a gun.
svtruth
Member
Gun Locks
As a very new shooter, I don't have a cabinet, so I got a Plano case for a new acquisition (as I understand it, in RI a gun being transported should be under lock and key) LGS gave me one of their free cable locks to secure the case, it fit perfectly.
As a very new shooter, I don't have a cabinet, so I got a Plano case for a new acquisition (as I understand it, in RI a gun being transported should be under lock and key) LGS gave me one of their free cable locks to secure the case, it fit perfectly.
mountainclmbr
Member
When the cops have triple locked guns...trigger lock, lock box, locked in a vault.... then I will consider having something less. This country was founded on individual freedom, not state control over law-abiding citizens. I insist on having a level of control over the civil servants that I am forced to pay. It drastically limits the states I am willing to reside in, visit, or do business with.
RealGun
Member
That bluster is all fine and a charming sentiment, but you have to decide on an appropriate behavior, when the law thinks otherwise and you get nailed, officers at your front door. First order of business is confiscating the gun in question, even all of those on the premises. You will have been defined as NOT a "law abiding citizen", because they said so. At least your status is in question, and freedom to exercise your supposed rights is officially suspended. Bummer, huh? The ability to revolt is VERY theoretical.
MountainPeak
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 784
This passage, in the Senate, was a huge WIN, that we all should be celebrating. No offense to anyone, but this was a long, hard fought battle. If signed into law, gun control by lawsuit takes a BIG hit. Gun price increases, due to lawsuits, takes a BIG hit! This is great news. I plan on enjoying it!!!! I'm a member of the NRA and GOA, but in this case, I wish the GOA would stop the whining. IT'S a WIN for the GOOD GUYS!!! ADDED: I plan on enjoying this victory. We still can make changes, for the better, in the future. Something the GOA seems to forget. They fear changes for the worse. Two years ago, not many thought this would EVER get through the Senate!!!
ADDED: I plan on enjoying this victory. We still can make changes, for the better, in the future. Something the GOA seems to forget. They fear changes for the worse. Two years ago, not many thought this would EVER get through the Senate!!!- Status
