Posted on 02/26/2004 9:29:09 AM PST by RockChucker
Edited on 07/19/2004 2:13:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Senator Barbara Boxer's amendment to the Gun Manufacturers Liability Bill (still pending) has passed.
Her amendment mandates (according to what was stated during debate) that guns MUST, by force of Federal Law, be locked when stored in a home.
If you don't properly lock your guns, you pay $2,500 fine and lose your right to own firearms.
(Excerpt) Read more at quote.bloomberg.com ...
You mean the "Patriot" in "Patriot Act" ain't gonna guarantee my constitutional rights won't get violated?
Rush is talking about us losing the inalienables right here . .
EVERY ACTIVITY must be regulated, because somehow, someway, it can be shown to have some kind of impact on society. From spitting on the sidewalk, to having video games on cellphones, to wearing miniskirts to work, ALL must be regulated.
yes AND no
NO ZONES of questionable freedom must remain and YES all freedoms can be seen as "questionable."
Whatever happened to the smaller government, "terminate the fcc, dept of ed, and hhs" republican revolution?
How did we lose our "smaller government" soul and fall into an immoral worship of socialistic conservatism?
I caught PART of this earler right before I left. This was based on what Larry Craig said(which scares me to death). Boxer said it wasn't safe storage.
I'm waiting till Thomas posts it till I sound the big alarm, but this is certainly a "vanity" IMO worth posting.
Why is this a problem?
It won't show up there until tomorrow, or later tonight at the latest.
Unless the Good Friday/Easter holiday weekend interferes, in which case it may not be up until Monday or even Tuesday.
But hopefully, we'll have a copy from another source by then, and we'll know if any other *little surprises* were added. -archy-/-
Most vocal posters here are for 'lock and load'. Now you're saying you want rights but no repercussions. I thought the Democrats were the ones that always denied responsibility.
If I am not mistaken the firearms that were left in the hands of the peasants in Australia had to be
(1) firearms locked up
(2) Bolts removed and locked up separately
(3)Ammo locked up and stored in a third location.
Because this is not "commerce among the several states". It is, in nearly all cases, commerce between you and your local gun dealer.
If the statements made in the original post were backed up by the facts, I'd agree the bill should be killed. (Likewise if they'd get the AWB renewed as an amendment on this bill.) All the evidence I've seen so far indicates that Boxer's amendment only requires the manufacturers to provide safety locks that meet some defined standard. The only evidence that I'm aware of that there are fines for failing to keep your gun locked are hearsay evidence on this thread. Seems to me that if that was in the amendment, it would be showing up in some news reports about it.
As I see it, the situation right now is that gun manufacturers are having to pay big bucks repeated to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits... most financed with taxpayers dollars. The main bill will put an end to that. If the bill dies, the lawsuits continue.
If you read through all the posts on this thread, you'll see that there are staffers in the offices of senators and congressmen marking down that their constituents are telling them to vote against the bill. RockChucker may actually be Chuck Schumer's freeper name, for all I know. He's sure as hell done enough to get people to register their opposition to the bill.
We need more Tom Tancredo's.
Or $24,040.00 for a $40.00 firearm. I was watching this thread today, and no one noticed the ‘elephant in the living room’ until Post #193 (congratulations Free Trapper! ;>). I believe the following is the most critical aspect of the amendment (from what we know at this point):
”The amendment directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission to establish a consumer product safety standard for locking devices.”
According to the CPSC web site:
The [independent federal] agency is headed by three commissioners nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for staggered seven-year terms. The President designates one of the commissioners as Chairman... The three commissioners set policy for CPSC.
So what we have is the US Senate giving another federal agency, run by political appointees, essentially unlimited power to ‘tax’ handgun purchasers. If the CPSC establishes a 6,000 pound, $10,000 steel safe as a “product safety standard for [handgun] locking devices,” guess what? Everyone purchasing a new handgun will apparently have to buy one – for each and every new handgun they buy! This amendment could conceivably put every handgun-manufacturing company in the United States out of business.
‘The power to tax is the power to destroy’ – and this amendment is ‘the power to tax’ (and destroy) in spades...
;>)
It doesn't. I was using your comment as a lead in to the text of the amendment. My apologies for insinuating that the link was contrary to your assertion.
The GOP-controlled Senate voted 70-27 to require all handguns sold in the United States to have child safety locks, adding the measure to the legislation providing the gun industry immunity from suits when a legally sold gun is subsequently used in a crime.
Why is this a problem?
Your post
Because this is not "commerce among the several states". It is, in nearly all cases, commerce between you and your local gun dealer.
I don't know what you are talking about. Where did "commerce" come into what I asked?
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.