Senate OKs Handgun Locks Legislation

[La_Serpiente]

Senate OKs Handgun Locks Legislation

WASHINGTON - A Senate agreement requiring child safety locks on U.S. handguns gave Democrats encouragement Thursday that renewing an assault weapons ban might also become part of a package to protect gun makers and sellers from gun crime lawsuits.

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.

Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin argued that requiring child safety locks on newly purchased handguns would help reduce the number of children accidentally killed by handguns in the home. Every 48 hours, a child is killed through an accidental shooting, Boxer said.

more...

Senate OKs Handgun Locks Legislation

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Wonder if the NRA

will say this infringes on the rights of gun owners? Or will they be sensible and say that child safety locks on guns make sense?

[MrSandman]

2. If child access prevention devices ...

are sufficient it makes sense. What I wonder is why parents who allow their children to gain access to guns and then cause mayhem are not held criminally liable at all? There have been padlocked boxes and gun safes available for years, but to enforce laws mandating the use would be difficult due to, not the 2nd, but the 4th amendment.

I have to be away due to better 1/2 being diagnosed with cancer yesterday, but I am sure there are others who will continue the debate.

BTW, the NRA is only about 5% of gun owners. There positions are even less representative. Discuss the issues and not the NRA and it will sound more like a debate of ideas.

[slackmaster]

3. I'm not the NRA but I see your comment as a false dilemma

Existence of a trigger lock is not sufficient to protect children, and lack of a trigger lock does not necessarily mean kids won't be safe.

...will say this infringes on the rights of gun owners?

I wouldn't say that, but it does infringe on the rights of gun buyers by forcing them to pay for a device for which they may have no use. As I said in another thread, would we require everyone who buys a car to purchase a child safety seat whether or not they have or expect to have small children? I think that wouldn't be fair, and it seems wasteful of resources to manufacture safety devices that won't get used.

I have a small pile of unused trigger locks that I was required by state and local laws to buy. All told they cost me about $150, which is enough to buy an entry-level gun safe or locker. I feel that my right to spend money as I please has been infringed; and my trigger lock "collection" isn't doing anybody any good (except perhaps people who own stock in the Master Lock Company). Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Mandating sales of locking devices but doing nothing to encourage their use does not seem likely to do much to prevent accidental shootings of children. Wouldn't a public education campaign make more sense?

Or will they be sensible and say that child safety locks on guns make sense?

I can't speak for the NRA but I strongly support keeping kids safe from guns. That's one of the two reasons I own a robust gun safe. The other reason is to protect my guns from theft. How about a federal tax break for people who buy gun safes?

[FatSlob]

4. As Slack says,

It is dumb because it forces the purchase of an item useless to most people.

[jhfenton]

5. I'm trying to find the e-mail alert

sent out in the last couple days, but the NRA did *not* oppose the Boxer amendment as passed. Except for the gun lock amendment and the DC gun ban repeal, the NRA did oppose the other amendments as either unrelated to the purpose of the bill or as anti-gun.

[jhfenton]

6. Speaking for myself, however...

I strongly opposed the Boxer amendment for two primary reasons.

(1) It is unnecessary. As Sen. Craig stated, over 90% of all new firearms sold already come with safety locks. I personally have a box full of unused gun locks. I'll be happy to give anyone who asks half a dozen free. I have a gun safe and other than the ones in use, I keep my guns locked inside.

(2) Under the amendment, the CPSC has to approve the standards for the child safety locks. Under an anti-gun administration, the CPSC could set unreasonable standards that would add excessively to the cost of firearms or prevent sales altogether. It sets a bad precedent to give the CPSC any authority relative to firearms. Bureaucrats should not be regulating firearms.

[Hrumph]

7. It all depends

on the definition of "child safety lock." If the law prescribes that the lock be sufficient to prevent access to the gun, then, well... It's a stupid, unnecessary law and I oppose it on those grounds. You might as well pass legislation that requires that cars be sold with engines. All new guns sold in the U.S. already come with locks.

If, on the other hand, the law requires an INTERNAL locking mechanism that prevents the gun from functioning, then I vehemently oppose any such legislation and will never buy such a firearm. Such devices introduce unnecessary complications to a mechanical mechanism that should be as simple as possible. I require that my firearms go bang when I press the trigger to the rear. Complicating the mechanism greatly enhances the possibility of malfunction. ANY defensive use of a firearm is, by definition, an emergency. That's the wrong time for it to go "click."

Further, allowing barbara boxer to make firearms law is worse than letting the Amish make traffic law.