Democrats encouraged by Senate approval of amendment requiring handgun safety locks

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Senate agreement requiring child safety locks on U.S. handguns gave Democrats encouragement Thursday that renewing an assault weapons ban might also become part of a package to protect gun makers and sellers from gun crime lawsuits.

The GOP-controlled Senate voted 70-27 to require all handguns sold in the United States to have child safety locks, adding the measure to the legislation providing the gun industry immunity from suits when a legally sold gun is subsequently used in a crime.

Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin argued that requiring child safety locks on newly purchased handguns would help reduce the number of children accidentally killed by handguns in the home. Every 48 hours, a child is killed through an accidental shooting, Boxer said.

"If we were to pass this legislation and it became the law of the land, the number of children involved in the number of accidental shootings would go way down," she said.

Kohl said the bill "is not a panacea. It will not prevent every single avoidable firearm-related accident. But the fact is that all parents want to protect their children. This legislation will ensure that people purchase child-safety locks when they buy guns. Those who buy locks are more likely to use them. That much we know is certain."

The Senate in 1999 passed similar legislation but the House refused to approve the measure.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the sponsor of the gunmaker immunity legislation, argued against the measure, saying gun manufacturers already are working on the problem. Craig said the amendment would be an intrusion of the federal government into people's private homes.

"For the first time, the long arm of government will reach into the private place and suggest to the average American how they will store an object in that private place," he said. "I'm not arguing about the care and the emotion and the concern and the reality. Not that at all. I understand that. But I don't believe that government ought to be telling the average citizen how they store objects within their home."

Craig and other Republicans, including the Bush administration, also called on senators not to add amendments to the gunmaker immunity bill that could bog it down.

Gun advocates say firearm manufacturers make legal products and should not have to spend millions of dollars fighting off suits. A test vote earlier this week garnered 75 votes for the measure, with Democrats agreeing to vote for the measure after the GOP agreed that firearms makers and distributors would not be immune to suits involving defective products or illegal sales.

The GOP-controlled House already has passed the bill. However, Senate changes will require that House and Senate negotiators agree to a compromise version, which could take months given the strong feelings on both sides.

For example, leaders in the GOP-controlled House already have said they do not plan to approve an extension of the expiring assault weapons ban. But Senate Democrats say they are close to getting enough votes to add that measure to the gunmaker bill.

"Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable," the White House said Tuesday.

The Senate's overwhelming approval of the gun lock amendment shows that senators are not listening to that advice and could be convinced that the assault weapons ban and other Democratic legislation should be added to the package, Boxer said. "Senators are not buying the argument that the bill should be clean."

Democrats are very close to having enough support to reauthorize the assault weapons ban for 10 more years, she said. The ban expires in September.

"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.

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

That is correct.

Newt Gringrich "hinted" at this concept of "unfunded, federal mandates," in the early 90's when stumping for Republican control of the House of Represntatives.

We, as citizens, are to blame. We have not held our elected representatives and senators accountable for their unconstitutional behavior.

The good news is that the inaction of accountability by we fellow citizens was more a result of ignorance than intent.

It is only in the last 10 years that I have taken the time to read both my state and the federal constitutions so I could correctly exert my rights of freedom and liberty against the socialist/communist fellow citizens.

I surely was not taught "civics" in school from the presumption of liberty, nor has anyone else.

This is the latest from NRA stratergy.

Information posted by NRA at 9:27am Chicagotime Friday 2.27.04 to my email.

Well you gun owners may want to hold your horses as this plays out.

Here is the latest read from NRA. I received it at 9:45am chicagotime.

On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Senate began to debate S. 1805—the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (formerly referenced as S. 659/S. 1806.) A bi-partisan 75-22 vote allowed debate to proceed, lifting the threat of a filibuster.

The debate continued late into the evening with no substantive movement on the bill and no additional votes were taken. Senators did, however, reach a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" spelling out specific amendments that would be permitted to be offered during the debate in anticipation of a final vote on the underlying measure next Tuesday.

On Thursday, the Senate reconvened and first considered was an amendment by anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that would require all handguns be sold with a mechanical safety device approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC). This amendment was then replaced with a "second degree" amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). The Kohl amendment is much less restrictive and also provides liability protection for gun owners. The revised amendment passed 70-27.

The Senate next debated an amendment by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) which would permit current and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms off duty in other states. Arguing hysterically against the amendment, anti-gun Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) revealed his deep distrust of gun carrying even by sworn police officers. A vote on the Campbell amendment was deferred until Tuesday.

Sen. Kennedy then introduced an amendment to ban the manufacture and sale of "armor-piercing" ammunition. Kennedy, who actually condemned the .30-30 Winchester cartridge during debate, wants to institute a "performance-based" standard that would grant any future Attorney General sweeping authority to ban any center-fire ammunition, including most common-place rifle hunting ammunition. The standard proposed by Sen. Kennedy was rejected in the 1980s as overly broad and unnecessary to meet any threat posed to law enforcement officers` safety. A vote on this NRA-opposed amendment will take place Tuesday.

The Senate next debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S. 1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was defeated, 56-40. A "law enforcement" exemption offered by Sen. John Corzine (D-NJ) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.

NRA strongly opposed both amendments. One of the strengths of S. 1805 is that it adopts the same rules for all plaintiffs, no matter how sympathetic or unsympathetic, and no matter how notorious or mundane their victimization. Plaintiffs` rights should depend on settled principles of law, not on emotion or sympathy.

NRA-ILA stands totally committed to enacting S. 1805 without anti-gun amendments, and will continue to vigorously oppose any reauthorization of the 1994 Clinton gun ban and any attempt to ban gun shows.

Please continue to contact your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to support S. 1805 without any anti-gun amendments. Call ILA`s Grassroots staff at (800) 392-8683, or visit http://www.nraila.org/stoprecklesslawsuits.aspx for additional information and to utilize the "Write Your Representatives" feature to contact your U.S. Senators.

This post is to provide information to the histeria that is running rapid on the internet.

I do not support NRA, nor am I a friend of NRA. However, U suggest that you don't have all the information.

Well, you have a point there. I am sure this would be the first of many "ideas" to "protect" us from ourselves 'ol Babs would throw out there. With that said, if this is a bone we throw out to get the manufacturer's protected from buttmunch lawyers who are going after them, then it may be worth it and fight the next battles another day.

I have been witnessing these fights for so long that I can barely remember when it all began for me, but this is the first time I actually feel good about our chances to repel most of this garbage they gun-grabbers keep throwing at us. I think that the general public is a LOT more informed these days and most people realize the role guns play in our personal safety. I don't think as many "uninformed" people buy the liberal clap-trap these days as they once did. We still have far too many that do, but their numbers are shrinking. Of course, there will always be that certain number of kool-aid drinkers who will never believe anything not coming from Babs, Chuckie or Sarah!

Yep, they're real. I bought mine at a local gun store, but you can find them all over the Internet as well: http://www.biometricsdirect.com/fingerprintsafe.htm

It's built out of heavy gauge aluminum, so it's not a real "gun safe", but it's more secure than dropping my .45 in the nightstand drawer and it keeps the kiddies out. I actually bolted mine into the concrete beneath my bed, so it's readily accessible and yet can't be stolen without a crowbar.

As for the cut finger question; my safe can hold up to 20 fingerprints (the one on that website says 15, but my manual says 20). I actually programmed both of my thumbprints, and the prints of both my index and middle fingers into the readers. As long as I have hands, I can get my gun :)

I realize that some gun owners have a problem with ANYTHING standing between them and their firearms, but I have young children and my wife insisted that I secure my guns as soon as the first one started crawling. $400 isn't cheap, but it was a decent compromise and it beats worrying about trigger locks.

"At no time in American history has the Supreme Court, even dating back to the begining of the republic, ever warped the 5th amendment in such a way."

"Warped?"

I am astounded with your use of this word.

The U.S. Constitution was meant to be a "limiting" document on the powers and jurisdiction of government in the lives a citizens: free citizens.

Why would not want to argue the "limiting" power of the 5th amendment from the presumption of liberty?

Why would not want to "expand" or "warp" the Bill of Rights towards more liberty and less government?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.