"BTW. It looks like for private owners, you are liable under civil proceedings if someone steals your gun and uses it in a crime because you didn't have it locked up."
At present it is possible for anyone to bring civil suit against you for this. That shouldn't be a surprise; you can bring civil suit against people for lots of things.
This provision does not *add* any new civil liability to us as firearms owners. What it does do is remove all possibility of liability for those who elect to store their firearms in a "secure gun storage or safety device." What does that mean?
Armed with the section 921(a)(34) I found the definition:
(34) The term ''secure gun storage or safety device'' means -
(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to
prevent the firearm from being operated without first
deactivating the device;
(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that
is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not
having access to the device; or
(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that
is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is
designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or
other similar means.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/44/sections/section_921.html That means that if you have your firearm in a safe of any kind, including the quick-release ones, that you will be rendered immune to liability if someone takes it. It does not mean only trigger locks.
Note that the original Boxer amendment 2620 did not have this provision, but the amendment of the amendment 2622 (which is what passed) does.
IMO unless there's a detail (in which case post source) this is a net gain for us, which explains the Republican vote on the matter.
Assuming, of course, that you can PROVE your gun was properly locked up according to government stnadards.
I had to read this for my self after I heard him say this.
Are we now using FICTISIOUS movies to base laws on?
PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - February 25, 2004)
[Page: S1577] GPO's PDF
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Idaho.
One thing I know is that we often disagree, but I would never accuse him of these statements. He is an honorable man. We have our differences on things that we ought to be putting into law. But I would like, if I may, to correct my friend's impression because not only was there a phone which was answered but the now owner of the license is a good friend of the former owner.
If one looks at the pictures that we displayed, the weapon used was a pretty sizable piece of equipment. As I remember from what I saw on the film shown on television, there was evidence that this Lee Malvo was carrying a weapon out of that store. The camera saw it. Certainly it could have been negligence. It could have been reckless or maybe the gun was paid for by a friend, and with the wink of the eye, out it went. But to give this criminal credit for telling the truth is something that I--