Gun Control Bill Would Subject Firearms to Consumer Safety Screening

CNSNews.com ^ | 6/11/03 | Robert B. Bluey

[pa_dweller]

Whoops! Reply #60 is targeted to post #29 (by Blood Of Tyrants), not #57.

[pa_dweller]

You may be on to something there!

[Fee]

Does that include revolvers, black powder muzzleloaders???

[hattend]

The Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act, introduced by Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.) and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), would give the Department of Justice [infringement] authority to regulate the design, manufacture and distribution of guns.

Has Patrick Kennedy ever gotten a bill to the floor? What a moron.

[Jonah Hex]

Muzzleloaders do not have a magazine and are single-shot anyway, so that's not an issue. (At least my old replica 1865 .58 Springfield didn't.)

Since the rounds are stored in the revolver cylinder and the cylinder is actually the firing chamber, the weapon is inoperable without the cylinder in place. (Except to pistol-whip somebody, but that's a different subject.)

Magazine disconnects are most likely found in semiautomatics. As someone posted earlier, the Browning HP 9mm has a magazine disconnect as well as some Sigs. While not necessarily a negative for some people, I personally don't like them.

If you really want to see an argument take off, try telling a Glock pistolaro that his sidearm should have an integral safety and watch the fur fly!! (I stay out of those arguments.)

[Graewoulf]

Ping.

[ibbryn]

Load incicators (a raised red bump or something similar that shows when a round is chamberd) are also a really stupid idea that the dimwits will like.
They will CAUSE injuries because there are about 200 million guns out there without them. The standard rule for these guns are 1) all guns are loaded 2) never point at things you don't want to shoot 3) keep finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
They are going to make a load indicator standard on all NEW firearms. New firearm owners and others inexperienced with firearms will be indoctrinated that a load indicator is the way to tell the gun is "safe". If the new gun owner comes across one of the 200 mill guns that does not have a load inciator, they will assume that because they cannot see the load indicator the gun is unloaded and safe to mess around with. Plus, the load inciator may malfunction anyway, which means anyone with common sense will disregard the load incicator and follow the four rules of gun safety anyway.
And how will a load indicator work on a revolver?

[lainie]

Thanks!

[Djarum]

Does anyone smell FEDERAL GUN REGISTRATION in this plan?

How else can the rate be determined without knowing the exact number of firearms of that type in circulation. Or maybe he is too stupid to have realized this?

[Jonah Hex]

No problem. Look at my response #34.

Everybody has their firearms likes and dislikes. It's like preferring chocolate or vanilla (or strawberry, or pecan, or cookie dough, etc.) ice cream. That's great and good. Personally, I don't like the idea of a congresscritter telling me what features I HAVE to have on a firearm. As an adult, I've assumed responsibility for my life and actions that I don't need a governmental nanny or keeper.

OK, I'm climbing off my soapbox now.

:-)

[steve-b]

These people will come up with regulations that require firearms to include a big red light and klaxon that go off when the trigger lock is disengaged (a process requiring forty-seven steps). If the trigger is actually pulled, speakers will bellow out a countdown: "WARNING! THIS FIREARM HAS BEEN ACTIVATED! IT WILL DISCHARGE IN TEN SECONDS!... WARNING! THIS FIREARM HAS BEEN ACTIVATED! IT WILL DISCHARGE IN NINE SECONDS!...", etc. When the countdown reaches zero, the user will be asked to pull the trigger again to confirm that he wishes to fire the gun.

[tahiti]

I appreciate you effort expended to promulgate the summary of firearm regulations enacted by Congress, but in theory, none of these regulations are constitutional as they are currently enacted and enforced.

Yes, in Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3, Congress is granted, (I want to emphasize the word "granted,") the power, from the people, to "regulate commerce among the states."

(I will concede there is a big question as to the intent of the founders of this republic if they meant for the commerce clause powers to be used in the manner those powers are used today.)

However, there is also the Bill of Rights. All laws enacted by Congress cannot exceed their enumerated powers and cannot violate the Bill of Rights.

The CSPC agency, created by Congress, may have jurisdiction within state boundaries because of the "commerce clause," but any action by the CSPC other than providing information about manufactured products safety to citizens, would be a violation of the Bill of Rights.

Specifically,

--Amendment II, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

--Amendment V, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

--Amendment IX, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

If I have to explain why each amendment is violated by any confiscatory action, any mandated design additions, or prohibition of any type of firearm by the CPCS, then you are not reading our constitution from the perspective of a presumption of liberty.

I will admit, because of 40 years of Democrat control of the House and Senate, it has saddled us with judges that look out for our government's interests over the liberties of the people, and most individuals and business owners do not wish to take on the monumental effort to stand up to the CPSC agency.

[El Gato]

The Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act, introduced by Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.) and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), would give the Department of Justice authority to regulate the design, manufacture and distribution of guns.

Since when is the Department of Justice (which now contains the BATFE) a consumer products safety organization. Silly me I thought being named "Justice" they might have something to do with crimes and criminals....well I guess since the gun grabbers want to criminalize most anything to do with guns, I guess maybe it makes sense after all.

[El Gato]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is a law enforcement organization within the United States Department of Treasury

It is no longer in Treasury, it's now in Justice, mostly. The booze and tobacco tax collection part is still in Treasury. The rest is now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. So BATFers are now BATFErs. Downgraded from a 4 letter agency to a 5 letter agency, although they like to pretend they are a TLA, (Three Letter Agency) like FBI, or DEA.

[DumpsterDiver]

I appreciate you effort expended to promulgate the summary of firearm regulations enacted by Congress ...

Oh, I'm not defending the rules and regulations, I just wanted something I could give to the people who say that "teddy bears are more regulated than are guns".

[Technogeeb]

(I will concede there is a big question as to the intent of the founders of this republic if they meant for the commerce clause powers to be used in the manner those powers are used today.)

I won't conceded it. The founders were quite clear as to exactly what they meant in their writings. They just wanted to prevent state-to-state tariffs; the power exists only to promote trade, not to limit it. What is being done these days with the commerce clause powers is clearly an unconstitutional abuse.

If I have to explain why each amendment is violated by any confiscatory action, any mandated design additions, or prohibition of any type of firearm by the CPCS, then you are not reading our constitution from the perspective of a presumption of liberty

Almost no one does anymore; not even the so-called "conservatives".

[Billthedrill]

What is important about this isn't what regulations are codified by the law, but who writes the regulations. Under the CPSC an unelected board of bureaucrats may define "safety" however it pleases and levy whatever requirements it dreams up without review. Were a bunch of Congressmen to decide that "safety" involves making a "one-owner-only" gun and nothing less, we at least have the option of throwing them out of office. We have no such provision for members of an appointed board. Their decisions can be arbitrary and are final.

Yet another VPC propaganda ploy, the "safety" issue is very much a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Graewoulf]

Must be a power grab going on here if a Kennedy wants the Justice Dept to manufacture guns. Who knows? Maybe the Justice Dept. will eventually take over The Dept. of Defense?

Hmmmmm -- . Would the President then be "The Commander in Chief," or just "His Honor, THE Judge?"

[Travis McGee]

[demlosers]

The bill does not have bi-partisan support, and Kennedy conceded that it's not likely to reach President Bush's desk.

Another gun control bill that's DOA. However, the bill will be put on shelf until the leftists thinks the time is right to dust its off.