Democrats encouraged by Senate approval of amendment requiring handgun safety locks

mLive ^ | 2/26/04 | Associated Press

[Indy Pendance]

So, if I don't have children in the house, I don't have to worry if it has a 'child safety lock'. Stupid nannies.

[JohnnyZ]

This law is unconstitutional as in now stands unless a compensation mechanism to reimburse gun manufacturers for the extra cost that they will incur to implement this law.

If that is so, then every bit of government regulation of business is unconstitutional.

[Bob Mc]

We should start a movement, with every new gun purchase, mail the lock immediately to your favorite senator.

Or better yet, the gun makers could give refunds on returned locks, like deposits on coke bottles. Then they could reuse the locks and call it "recycling" to help reduce consumption of our precious natural resources.

[ibbryn]

Try this for me.
Load a revolver. Place a trigger lock on it (I know the trigger lock people say not to place the lock on a loaded gun, but humor me).
Pull the hammer back.

Now what?

[therut]

I would like to see a few million of these worthless gun locks sent to congress with a message attached -------do not lock up the 2nd amendment. I'm going to suggest this on a few gun boards. I already have a dozen I will donate to send. I use one as a door knocker.

[gonzo]

"...or can't find the tiny keyhole behind the hammer..."

Geez, Bob, take the Taurus apart, and remove the lock stuff. That gun's unsafe with that mechanism inside.

BTW, when did they start adding stupid-locks? ..............FRegards

[m1911]

Seatbelts are a great example! And remember, they started out by only requiring the manufacturer to provide them too. Now, how many states have mandatory seat belt laws?

[supercat]

Try this for me. Load a revolver. Place a trigger lock on it (I know the trigger lock people say not to place the lock on a loaded gun, but humor me). Pull the hammer back.

Now what?

If the revolver is loaded, odds are you now have a very dangerous situation which cannot be safely defused without being able to undo the lock (since many revolvers do not allow the action to be opened when cocked).

New England Firearms shotguns are the same way.

A slight irony is that an ordinary padlock will do a better job of securing either type of firearm, if it's placed behind the trigger, than will a "trigger lock", since it will prevent the weapon from being cocked in the first place.

[Slings and Arrows]

No argument. I oppose this legislation firmly - the gun owner should make the choice. My only point was that, if the information in the article is correct, this amendment is a p.i.t.a. instead of armageddon.

[supercat]

I don't think this bill requires that guns be kept with trigger locks, only that they be sold with trigger locks. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Someone on another thread stated (I don't know on what basis) that the bill would impose a $2500 penalty on someone whose gun was stolen without being locked up.

[satchmodog9]

this sucks. read it word for word. it does nothing. it protects no one. it gives more than it protects. this is bad.

[jslade]

I'll never have a trigger lock on my pistols. They can go f**k themselves.

[Bob Mc]

Oh thanks, can I? Is it hard?

"Stupid locks", ha, very funny.

[supercat]

The amendment only requires a lock be sold with it. This will be a boon for enterprising gun stores. Sell a trigger lock with every gun for $10 and offer the new gun owner a $5 trade in on his trigger lock towad the purchase of ammo. Your shop can sell the same lock for the rest of your life.

Until the CPSC decrees that any gun lock weighing less than 100lbs is "unsafe" because a crook could just take away the firearm, lock, and all.

BTW, I'd guess that probably half of all the gun locks out there could be considered "unsafe" by an unbiased observer; so it's not a stretch at all to think the government might decide to declare all but the most expensive ones "unsafe".

[supercat]

One thing I'm not clear on: other than retail firearm stores, in what situation is a trigger lock actually a worthwhile and meaningful means of securing a firearm? To me, it seems that in any situation where one is adequate, other security would render it unnecessary; in any case where one is necessary, it would be inadequate.

Something like a strong cable lock I can see as having some value, insofar as a firearm can be cabled to something. But a trigger lock that does nothing to prevent a firearm from being taken, lock and all, to someplace where the thief can work on it at leisure, seems downright useless.

Can anyone explain any situation where a trigger lock actually does some good?

[joesnuffy]

This is more frog boiling in action...the stated goal of Islam is to kill all the Jews and convert Christians and other infidels by force...turn their nation into one ruled by Sharia law...and dhimitude

The goal of most of our so called leaders is to disarm we the people...and trash the constitution..in order to usher in their new world order...

The Republican gun grabbers do it slowly as to not spook the faithfull....the Democraps
are rouge asses and have little patience...together they make a nice team....one pretending to hate the other or to not have the same ends in mind...

They are all equally worthless...
imo

[joesnuffy]

Every 48 hours, a child is killed through an accidental shooting, Boxer said.

Hey when you need to tell a lie to get your way...a BIG LIE is better than a little one... Of course even when you decide to call a 30yr old a child....it's still a lie...

[George from New England]

"We believe we can get to 51," said Boxer, referring to the number of votes needed to add the measure to the gunmaker immunity bill

WHY is it that the democrats think they can get legislation passed with 51 votes? When the Republican's want something the Democraps make them force a filibuster break with what 60 votes or 66 votes.

Damn broad and damn the democrats.

[Richard-SIA]

I have the text of the amendment, in PDF.

It is far worse than a mere "peace offering", it does a LOT of damage that may not be apparent to the casual observer.

It is the thin end of the wedge giving the Consumer Product Commission an "In" to regulate firearms manufacturers and dealers!
This has been a long sought goal of the anti's!

This must be taken out of the bill, the sooner the better.

[Richard-SIA]

I have the full text of both amendments!

They are in PDF, I opened and pasted them into a single page.
I have been unable to convert them into a format that I can post here.

HELP!

There should be a way to convert and post this, I am using MAC OSX.3

I would like for this to be available for viewing NOW, not tomorrow!

It is not as immediately bad as some post have indicated, but it has some severely insidious effects!

For one thing, it gives the anti's one of their fondest wishes!
It gives oversight of gun manufacture and dealers to the Consumer Products Safety Commission, in direct violation of existing law!