Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

URGENT! URGENT! Change In Status Of Gun Bill -- Immediate calls needed to your Representative
Gun Owners of America ^ | October 17, 2005 | NA

Posted on 10/17/2005 12:17:14 PM PDT by neverdem

www.gunowners.org
Oct 2005

URGENT! URGENT! URGENT!
Change In Status Of Gun Bill
-- Immediate calls needed to your Representative

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585

Monday, October 17, 2005

Last week, a bill containing a mandatory trigger lock requirement looked to be dormant on Capitol Hill. The prevailing wisdom was that the bill was dead for the year.

However, given the mercurial nature of legislation and legislative bodies, one can never be certain of what is going to happen as long as Congress is in session. One event that can always shake up the legislative calendar is experiencing a leadership change -- such as when pro-gun House Majority Leader Tom DeLay stepped down from his position recently.

What we do know at this point is that the bill is before the Rules Committee today, and will most likely reach the House floor sometime this week.

The underlying bill would help protect the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits brought by cities, municipalities, and radical anti-gun interest groups.

Unfortunately, the bill was amended on the Senate floor in July by anti-gun Democrat Senator Herb Kohl (WI), who added language requiring licensed gun dealers to supply a trigger lock device with every handgun sold.

House leadership is now being pressured to quickly adopt the Senate version of the bill instead of taking up its own bill, which contains no gun control.

While it is imperative that the Congress pass legislation to protect the firearms industry, this bill should not be used as a vehicle for a misguided gun control proposal.

The Kohl amendment would effectively impose a "gun tax" on all handgun purchases.

Worse, the amendment leads gun owners to the verge of mandatory trigger lock usage, which would actually endanger lives by rendering self-defense firearms useless. While the amendment does not require that gun owners use trigger locks at this point, it is easy to see how trigger locks, like automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, can quickly become compulsory.

Mandatory trigger locks has long been part of the agenda of anti-gun zealots. Though masquerading as a modest step, the amendment will inevitably serve as a stepping-stone to more onerous legislation.

The House bill, introduced by Florida Congressman Cliff Stearns, could potentially help protect the gun industry, but it would do so without saddling American gun owners with yet another gun control law.

H.R. 800, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, garnered well over 250 cosponsors and would pass the House easily if the leadership would bring up this bill rather than its Senate counterpart. In that case, the bill would either go to a joint House-Senate conference, where the different bills would be reconciled, or back to the Senate, forcing that chamber to either pass a clean bill or explain to voters their refusal to protect the beleaguered gun industry.

ACTION: Please ask your Representative to urge the House leadership to take up H.R. 800, which contains no gun control proposals, rather than its Senate counterpart. As GOA is the only national gun lobby insisting on a completely clean bill, it would be very helpful if you would circulate this alert widely throughout the pro-gun community.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message such as the one below.

Or, you can call your Representative toll-free at 877-762-8762.

--- Pre-written letter ---

Dear Representative:

I am saddened that the House is on the verge of passing gun control in the name of protecting the gun industry. The House should ditch S. 397 and use its own bill, H.R. 800, instead.

H.R. 800, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, garnered well over 250 cosponsors and would pass the House easily if the leadership would bring up this bill rather than its Senate counterpart.

But S. 397 is gun control pure and simple. The Kohl trigger lock amendment would effectively impose a "gun tax" on all handgun purchases. Worse, the amendment leads gun owners to the verge of mandatory trigger lock usage, which would actually endanger lives by rendering self-defense firearms useless.

While the amendment does not require that gun owners use trigger locks at this point, it is easy to see how trigger locks, like automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, can quickly become compulsory.

Mandatory trigger locks has long been part of the agenda of anti-gun zealots. Though masquerading as a modest step, the amendment will inevitably serve as a stepping-stone to more onerous legislation.

Please tell the Speaker and the Majority Leader of the House that S. 397 is unacceptable to gun owners. Instead, send H.R. 800 to the Senate or tack it on as an amendment to some "must pass" legislation.

Sincerely,


Up to Home
Copyright, Contact and Credits


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: banglist; triggerlocks
Don't copy. Write your own letter.
1 posted on 10/17/2005 12:17:19 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bump


2 posted on 10/17/2005 12:24:44 PM PDT by Maeve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I'm not sure how big a deal this is, considering that the manufacturers seem to be putting these trigger locks on their new guns anyway, without government compulsion. I just bought a Taurus revolver a couple of weeks ago. All of the revolvers I looked at had these locks.


3 posted on 10/17/2005 12:24:51 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Maryland has had a mandatory trigger lock provision for years. It adds to the cost of purchasing a handgun but otherwise has no effect. Interestingly, the Maryland law requires an external trigger lock even when the handgun has an internal trigger lock. Talk about dumb!!

Anybody want to buy a couple of external trigger locks? Condition is "like new."

4 posted on 10/17/2005 12:25:14 PM PDT by blau993 (Labs for love; .357 for Security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blau993

I will never use a trigger lock so Piss off :)


5 posted on 10/17/2005 12:31:09 PM PDT by Khepera (Do not remove by penalty of law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maeve; Brilliant; blau993; Joe Brower

I think the analogies with eventual mandatory seatbelt and motorcycle helmet usage are correct.


6 posted on 10/17/2005 12:35:46 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: neverdem

I wonder what the position of the gun manufacturers is. Since S&W and Taurus are putting the locks on their guns anyway, they probably want their competition to do so as well.

And I think Taurus owns the patent, so they probably make money every time a gun is sold.


8 posted on 10/17/2005 12:49:57 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Many States have mandatory trigger lock laws and, as you say, many manufacturers already include them. So what's the big deal? The big deal is that for doing something they're already doing, the firearms industry gets all of the current frivolous lawsuits in the court system dismissed. Trigger locks have not "long been part of the agenda of anti-gun zealots"; forcing gun makers to pay crushing legal bills has been and continues to be part of that agenda. This amendment, offered by a liberal Democrat, by the way, shoots that agenda in the gut.

The realpolitik choice gun owners have is to pay Master Lock for a trigger lock (One that will lock the back fence or, at worst, just end up in the trash.) or we can pay lawyers. One of those costs will get rolled into the cost of a new gun. In the long run, locks are cheaper.

...or we can "stand on principle" and get bulldozed in a liberal court.

9 posted on 10/17/2005 1:00:33 PM PDT by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
You make a compelling argument.
10 posted on 10/17/2005 1:04:05 PM PDT by stevio (Red-Blooded American Male (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
How does a trigger lock work on a spur triggered Derringer, NAA Mini revolver, or some of the smaller caliber Cowboy Action guns? How about the Springfield M6 Scout, which does not have a conventional trigger?

I'm not trying to be a smart___, but I already own several firearms where you could not fit a trigger lock even if you wanted to. What's to become of them if this nonsense becomes "law of the land"?

It pains me to say this but this is the only legislation that I can recall being influenced by Kohl in any fashion since he has been in the Senate and it sucks. The man is wealthy by anyone's standard and a businessman. One would think he would have been a conservative but it was all "old" money and he is liberal as any Gotham city pol. The only good thing I can think to say about the old fossil is that he is totally ineffective and unproductive as a Senator. That said, that nasty little @#$^% Fiengold is my other Senator. Almost makes me want to move.

Regards,
GtG

11 posted on 10/17/2005 1:04:53 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Though masquerading as a modest step, the amendment will inevitably serve as a stepping-stone to more onerous legislation.

Today mandatory locks. Tomorrow mandatory gun safes.
12 posted on 10/17/2005 1:08:29 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I have several unused trigger locks that were provided with guns I bought several years ago. Need one?


13 posted on 10/17/2005 1:27:54 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

damn it, the Donks pulled the same kind of stunt the last time this type of bill came up.

riders and bill amendments should be proscribed.


14 posted on 10/17/2005 2:52:28 PM PDT by King Prout ("La LAAAA La la la la... oh [bleep!] Gargamel has a FLAMETHROWEEEEEAAAAAAARRRRRGH!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Get the liability law passed and forget about the trigger locks. We can worry about those later if they become a problem.

We need to stop these gun lawsuits.

Then we can work on the instant check. heh heh heh


15 posted on 10/17/2005 2:57:18 PM PDT by Armedanddangerous (Cindy Sheehan, American Traitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Re your first comment: right on. Congress critters know form stuff when they see it. I suspect they are much more influenced by someone's letter explaining, in his/her words, why they would prefer they vote this or that way.


16 posted on 10/17/2005 4:18:25 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khepera

Recognize humor or irony when you see it. IMHO, you need a trigger lock for your brain, your mouth, or your key typing finger.


17 posted on 10/17/2005 6:32:19 PM PDT by blau993 (Labs for love; .357 for Security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Mine are used for a outside door knockers.


18 posted on 10/17/2005 6:37:49 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blau993

"Maryland has had a mandatory trigger lock provision for years. It adds to the cost of purchasing a handgun but otherwise has no effect"

Car makers first had to supply safety belts on all cars.

Next seat belt became mandatory but without fines for noncompliance.

Then fines became mandatory.

Now you have "safety" check days where the government targets those not wearing seat belts, just like drunk drivers.



19 posted on 10/18/2005 7:12:36 AM PDT by School of Rational Thought (Republican - The thinking people's party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

mandatory trigger locks, then a law that says you have to have a lock on your gun at all times.
i can see it now, bad uy comes up to mug you in a dark alley, you whip out your carry gun and keys and start fumbling with the lock.. BANG yer dead.
or maybe you're out in the woods, and being charged by a grizzy, out comes your .500s&w revolver and your keys and you fumble with the lock.. ROAR yer dead.


20 posted on 10/18/2005 8:51:37 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson