I am a "no compromise" kind of guy.
"It only requires manufacturers to provide locks with the guns they sell."
This kind of "compromise" is the same sort of foolishness that brought us the AWB - no need to go into all those cosmetic issues again here. It is insane to require anybody to sell a lock with a gun. If I need a lock, I'll buy one. I don't need a lock -- I have a big, expensive safe.
"It also offers immunity to gun owners who keep their guns locked if their locked gun is stolen and used in a crime."
Immunity if my 'locked' gun is stolen -- why do I need immunity at all. Why does the gun have to be "locked." Punish the criminal who stole the gun, and then used it in a crime, not me. I would be the victim, not the perpetrator - and I would resent being treated like one.
And, besides, I want to keep my gun unlocked, under my pillow - where I can use it if I need to.
This is like saying I will be immune from prosecution for creating an "attractive nusaince" if a home invader has to kick down the front door of my house so long as it was locked.
You want the federal government telling you that you have to lock the front door of your house ?? Yes, its a damn good idea, but do you want it to be a federal mandate ??
It is EXACTLY the same principle. The government proposing to tell me what I have to lock and when. What I do inside my house is MY business.
I don't consider the watered down gun lock amendment to be reasonable in any way, shape or form - there was no reason to compromise. Such logic only gave some RINOs, like my guy Warner, a weak excuse to vote for it.
Its dumb - plain and simple.
Here's the text of Craig's Ammo Ban Amendment at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087321/posts
It too is unreasonable in my view, and no one can seem to devine Craig's logic in seeking a compromise, an untenable compromise at that.
skip2myloo wrote:Let's think this through. Today, if someone is killed by a criminal, there are trial lawyers who try to sue the gun manufacturer and the dealer who first sold the gun, even if the criminal stole the gun from the dealer. S.1805 is being proposed to prohibit these costly and frivolous lawsuits.
Immunity if my 'locked' gun is stolen -- why do I need immunity at all. Why does the gun have to be "locked." Punish the criminal who stole the gun, and then used it in a crime, not me. I would be the victim, not the perpetrator - and I would resent being treated like one.
Let's say that S.1805 passes with no amendments. Actually, let's say that S.1806 (the unamended version) passes. Do you think the trial lawyers are just going to give up on suing people when someone is killed by a gun? I doubt it. The next logical target would be any gun owner whose gun is stolen and used by a criminal. If the law passes with only protection for gun dealers and gun manufacturers, gun owners are going to be the next target of frivolous lawsuits. The "safe storage" amendment at least offers some protection from that.
skip2myloo wrote:Nothing in the Boxer/Kohl amendment would change that. Presumably, you will not allow the gun to be stolen while you are sleeping next to it. I also keep a weapon handy for protection when I'm sleeping.
And, besides, I want to keep my gun unlocked, under my pillow - where I can use it if I need to.
However, I don't think it's a bad idea to lock that weapon up (either in some kind of locked storage or with a trigger lock) when I leave it unattended when I leave my house.
skip2myloo wrote:Somewhat similar. But you don't seem to fully understand the legal principal involved. An "attractive nuisance" is something potentially dangerous that does not have reasonable security and access control to prevent people (children especially) from getting into it. So, a locked door, or a tall fence with a locked gate (around a swimming pool for example) will give you immunity from "attractive nuisance" lawsuits.
This is like saying I will be immune from prosecution for creating an "attractive nusaince" if a home invader has to kick down the front door of my house so long as it was locked.
skip2myloo wrote:First, I don't see the text at that thread. But I have read it, and I don't support any of the Ammunition Ban Amendments (neither Senator Craig's nor Senator Swimmer's).
Here's the text of Craig's Ammo Ban Amendment at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087321/posts
Those amendments haven't been voted on yet. There is still time to fax and/or call your Senators to get those amendments voted down. And I don't know what Senator Craig was thinking when he proposed his Ammunition Ban Amendment amendment.
If that amendment actually passes and becomes part of S.1805, then I think S.1805 should be rejected due to the amendment(s) that aren't consistent with the goal. I feel the same way about Senator Feinstein's amendment to make the Assault Weapons Ban permanent. If that becomes a part of S.1805, then S.1805 should be rejected.
But, neither of those amendments have passed yet. Now is the time to contact your Senators and say they should reject those amendments and pass the cleanest version of S.1805 possible.
gatex wrote:As I stated above in my reply to skip2myloo, gun owners whose weapons are stolen are the next likely targets of frivolous lawsuits once gun manufacturers and dealers are given the protection of this law. There are potential consequences today if your unlocked gun is stolen and used in a crime. The reason gun owners whose weapons are stolen aren't likely to be sued today is because the lawyers are going after the deeper pockets of the gun dealers and gun makers. When those deep pockets are put off limits, you can bet the lawyers for crime victims will be looking for others to sue when their clients (the victims and victims' families) are injured by criminally misused guns.
Implies there are consequences if an unlocked gun is stolen and then used in a crime. --- What does the amendment say ?
Here's the actual text of the Boxer/Kohl amendment:
Again, if gun makers and gun dealers get immunity (that's the whole point of S.1805), I think that gun owners are the next logical targets for trial lawyers to sue. So, the immunity gained from this is probably a good thing for gun owners.TITLE II--CHILD SAFETY LOCKS SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ``Child Safety Lock Act of 2004''. SEC. 202. PURPOSES. The purposes of this title are-- (1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers; (2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in possession of a handgun; and (3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms to law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting. SEC. 203. FIREARMS SAFETY. (a) UNLAWFUL ACTS.-- (1) MANDATORY TRANSFER OF SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following: ``(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.-- ``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun. ``(2) EXCEPTIONS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to-- ``(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the United States, a department or agency of the United States, a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or ``(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off duty); or ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty); ``(C) the transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a curio or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 921(a)(13); or ``(D) the transfer to any person of a handgun for which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions stated in section 923(e), if the licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers to the transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of the delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun storage or safety device for the handgun. ``(3) LIABILITY FOR USE.-- ``(A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action. ``(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS.--A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. ``(C) DEFINED TERM.--As used in this paragraph, the term `qualified civil liability action'-- ``(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, if-- ``(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access to it; and ``(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and ``(ii) shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''. (b) CIVIL PENALTIES.--Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ``(p) PENALTIES RELATING TO SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.-- ``(1) IN GENERAL.-- ``(A) SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; CIVIL PENALTIES.--With respect to each violation of section 922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for hearing-- ``(i) suspend for not more than 6 months, or revoke, the license issued to the licensee under this chapter that was used to conduct the firearms transfer; or ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount equal to not more than $2,500. ``(B) REVIEW.--An action of the Secretary under this paragraph may be reviewed only as provided under section 923(f). ``(2) ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.--The suspension or revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty under paragraph (1) shall not preclude any administrative remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''. (c) LIABILITY; EVIDENCE.-- (1) LIABILITY.--Nothing in this title shall be construed to-- (A) create a cause of action against any Federal firearms licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or (B) establish any standard of care. (2) EVIDENCE.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the amendments made by this title shall not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other entity, except with respect to an action relating to section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code, as added by this section. (3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a failure to comply with section 922(z) of that title. SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE. This title and the amendments made by this title shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.