[NavyCaptain]

I think they got their peace offering. Child locks are acceptable to almost all. A ban is a harder mountain to climb.

[AD from SpringBay]

What's the Senate? I remember at one time we had something called a Senate - they used to establish laws, or something like that. At least they used to before the judges took it over. So they're still in business? Well I'll be.

[bolobaby]

Gee... I wonder if these lawmakers realize that a trigger lock really doesn't prevent a single-action handgun from going off? I guess those will become more popular now, because if I'm going to protect my home, I'm not going to want to fart around looking for the trigger lock keys!

[Imal]

This is one reason, but not the only reason, why I can never vote for a Democrat.

As for the amendment, Congress has no constitutional authority to legislate on how I store my guns. The "elastic commerce clause" only stretches so far, and not enough to cover this.

[.38sw]

Those who buy locks are more likely to use them. That much we know is certain."

and how do they know this for certain? California already requires the purchase of a DoJ approved lock with every firearm (unless you sign an affadavit that you own a DoJ approved safe). I have several of those locks, and resent every dollar I spent on them.

[Condor51]

Oh goody, another trigger lock to throw into the 'junk drawer'.

Hell, they don't even make good paper weights. But I guess if you had a sock full you could use them to whack someone in the head with.

[tahiti]

"The GOP-controlled Senate voted 70-27 to require all handguns sold in the United States to have child safety locks,"

Amendment V

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

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.

I thought each Senator took an oath that they will uphold, protect, and abide by the covenents of the Constitution.

[Lancey Howard]

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.

So, at conference the House will say, "Take it out", the Senate will say, "Oh, alright, since you insist", and then a "clean" bill will be passed by both chambers and signed into law by the President. Do I have this right?

[gitmo]

Then: Give me liberty or give me death!
Now: Take my liberty before I hurt myself.

[goldstategop]

It'll be DOA with an AWB extension ban in the House.

[MagnusMaximus1]

Latest update and more details on this AP story posted at this thread link:

"Senate OKs Handgun Locks Legislation (will the RINOs sell us out on the AWB, too?)"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1086280/posts

[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.

[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...

[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!

[templar]

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."

I can see that those who go out and purposefully buy a lock are are more likely to use it (I'm assuming the statement doesn't mean more likely than those who don't buy locks and is just poorly worded and not asinine). What I'm curious about is the basis of the implied conclusion that locks automatically included in the purchase of a handgun without the owners intent are more likely to be used (than one acquired in another manner I presume). Anyone know of any studies I can reference about this?

[Krodg]

A couple of months ago a freeper explained how this bill could possibly erode our rights, and I started to believe him. After a few threads here I changed my mind. No way would I ever vote to support the posters on FR owning guns... your insane rants and 'Lock and Load' attitudes are very detrimental to your cause. JMO...

[CHICAGOFARMER]

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.