Cable locks can be installed on any handgun and work much better than trigger locks. But we all know these gun control laws weren't about "saving the children."
These laws are about simply putting more and more restrictions on handguns until you have a mile of paperwork to fill out and 50,000 regulations to comply with. No one will want to hassle with the laws and regulations and therefore no one will buy guns. This is the ultimate objective of all gun control groups:
complete destruction of our 2nd Amendment freedoms.
Notice, not a word about the CHILDREN being left unattended, which puts them at risk for injury or death from a wide variety of things, not just guns. Children who have proper adult supervision have no opportunity to pick up a gun and fire it at a playmate, anymore than they have the opportunity to drive off with their parents' car and run down a pedestrian.
What happens when a State mandates the construction of something that is sold nationwide, to be different in the particular State, is that the seller of the device is now constrained in some manner by State A, in the construction of a device which is sold in State B. This applies not just to firearms regulations, but to automobiles, and (in the other case which occurred to me recently) of the application of its sales tax by State A to Internet (or mail order?) sales of materials in State B.
My point (and I do have one...) is that it occurs to me that the States are progressively encroaching on the Constitutional power of the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce.
Of course, the sword cuts both ways - asking for Federal regulation of something is, well... asking for < < gulp > > Federal regulation. But can't it be argued that the States have no right to enforce legislation passed in one state upon the citizens of another State - as for instance in the case of products built by companies which are de facto constrained by an individual State's laws (such as when Commufornia, by requiring more stringent pollution controls on vehicles, thereby - in those cases where it is economically infeasible for a manufacturer to build two varieties of an automobile - dictating the construction of cars sold in other States) ?
I.e. if Maryland forces all the gun manufacturers to add trigger locks to their guns, thereby forcing their laws upon the citizens of other States, why can't it be argued that this constitutes regulating interstate commerce, and thereby violating on the Federal Government's constitutional prerogative in that area??