To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a handgun.
What is a transfer? Any time a 4473 is required? What about private sales? What a stupid law.
What is a transfer? Any time a 4473 is required? What about private sales? What a stupid law.
They're taking it beyond that: even a trip to a gunsmith's, requiring entry on the 'smith's *bound book* record of work performed, would require return with a NEW trigger lock, which MUST bne of a type *approved by the manufacturer*...whose attorneys will of course insist be only those made/installed by the manufacturer themselves:
SA 2617 - SA 2633 have been proposed, and SA 2620, SA 2621, SA 2622, SA 2628, and SA 2630 have been agreed to by the Senate. SA 2620 is Boxer's "Child Safety Device Act of 2004," which requires licensees to provide a "locking device" with any handgun and gets the CPSC involved in regulation of such "locking devices." SA 2621 makes a variety of changes to the details of S. 1805. SA 2622 is the "Child Safety Lock Act of 2004," which requires licensees to provide the transferee of any handgun with a "secure gun storage or safety device."SA 2622 also provides for immunity from a qualified civil liability action for a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with a handgun.
SA 2628 makes an exception for "an action involving "a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo that meets 1 of the requirements under clauses (i) though (v)."
SA 2630 makes an exception for officers or employees of Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies for civil actions that meet 1 of the requirements under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A).
Most problematic are SA 2620 and SA 2622, which collectively impose different requirements for devices that licensees must provide with handguns. The "locking devices" of SA 2620 will have to conform to standards to be promulgated by the CPSC, while the "secure gun storage or safety devices" of SA 2622 will have to comply with 921(a)(34). If S. 1805 becomes law with both SA 2620 and SA 2622, a licensee will have to comply with BOTH requirements. The extent to which CPSC follows or departs from 921(a)(34) will determine the extent to which a single device will be adequate to comply with both requirements. Also, while SA 2622 purports to prevent its immunity provision from establishing a standard of care, what liberal trial lawyer wouldn't try to make it do so? For those reasons, I think both SA 2620 and 2622 represent wedges to force open a door to increasing gun control laws.
There are a few potential pitfalls created by SA 2620 and SA 2622. One is that, under SA 2620, a "locking device" has to be "approved by a licensed firearms manufacturer for use on the handgun with which the device or locking mechanism is sold, delivered, or transferred...." Thus, it puts licensed firearms manufacturers in the position of having to approve "locking devices." I am not convinced that manufacturers might face some liability resulting from such approval, particularly when they are forced to comply with CPSC standards. For example, if the CPSC were to require manufacturers to file a form certifying their "locking device's" compliance with a standard and the device were found to somehow fall short of the standard, I could imagine that there might be an attempt to circumvent the supposed legal protection of S. 1805 by alleging that the manufacturer's erroneous certification form was a "false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product," as excluded by SA 2621.
The requirement for such an approved "locking device" could also be problematic for transactions involving used handguns, as there would not necessarily be a manufacturer available to provide the required approval. Thus, SA 2620 could create a de facto ban on the sale of used handguns, particularly in states that require handguns to be transferred through dealers or in any state if a law were passed to close the supposed "gunshow loophole."
Additionally, the provisions of SA 2620 and SA 2622 could be particularly insidious for gunsmiths and pawnbrokers, both of whom are "dealers." For example, if a competition shooter were to take a very specialized competition handgun for a slight tune-up and the gunsmith were to perform some very simple procedure, such as replacing the recoil spring, and return the handgun to the customer, what is to prevent the gunsmith from having violated the requirements of SA 2620 and SA 2622 regarding having to provide a "locking device" and a "secure gun storage or safety device" with the handgun, even if the customer already possessed such devices for the handgun. Likewise, even the return of a customer's handgun to that same customer by a pawnbroker could arguably give rise to such a requirement even if the customer already possessed adequate devices for securing the handgun. Even more insidiously, if the CPSC were to change the standards for a "locking device" prior to the return of the handgun to the customer, an argument could be made that a violation of the provisions of SA 2620 and/or SA 2622 would occur. Moreover, even if a gunsmith or pawnbroker were to provide an improved "locking device" meeting a modified CPSC standard, if such an improved "locking device" were not approved by "a licensed firearms manufacturer for use on the handgun," an argument could be made that the improved "locking device" still did not comply with the provisions of SA 2620.
As can be readily seen from the foregoing examples, S. 1805, as amended, is of dubious effectiveness for limiting civil liability of federal firearms licensees and, more likely, creates legal impediments and pitfalls not only for licensees, but also for firearms consumers. Based on that analysis, I would recommend asking one's Senators to vote against S. 1805, as amended.