S.1805 - Senate OKs Handgun Locks Legislation

[Kennedy 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040227/ap_on_go_co/gun_lawsuits_12

Quote

Senate OKs Handgun Locks Legislation
Thu Feb 26, 7:19 PM ET

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

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.

"If we were to pass this legislation and it became the law of the land, the number of children involved in the number of accidental shootings would go way down," she said.

Kohl said the bill "is not a panacea. It will not prevent every single avoidable firearm-related accident. But the fact is that all parents want to protect their children. This legislation will ensure that people purchase child-safety locks when they buy guns. Those who buy locks are more likely to use them. That much we know is certain."

The Senate in 1999 passed similar legislation but the House refused to approve the measure.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the sponsor of the gunmaker immunity legislation, argued against the measure, saying gun manufacturers already are working on the problem. Craig said the amendment would be an intrusion of the federal government into people's private homes.

"For the first time, the long arm of government will reach into the private place and suggest to the average American how they will store an object in that private place," he said. "I'm not arguing about the care and the emotion and the concern and the reality. Not that at all. I understand that. But I don't believe that government ought to be telling the average citizen how they store objects within their home."

Craig and other Republicans, including the Bush administration, also called on senators not to add amendments to the gunmaker immunity bill that could bog it down.

Gun advocates say firearm manufacturers make legal products and should not have to spend millions of dollars fighting off suits. A test vote earlier this week garnered 75 votes for the measure, with Democrats agreeing to vote for the measure after the GOP agreed that firearms makers and distributors would not be immune to suits involving defective products or illegal sales.

The GOP-controlled House already has passed the bill. However, Senate changes will require that House and Senate negotiators agree to a compromise version, which could take months given the strong feelings on both sides.

For example, leaders in the GOP-controlled House already have said they do not plan to approve an extension of the expiring assault weapons ban. But Senate Democrats say they are close to getting enough votes to add that measure to the gunmaker bill.

"Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable," the White House said Tuesday.

The Senate's overwhelming approval of the gun lock amendment shows that senators are not listening to that advice and could be convinced that the assault weapons ban and other Democratic legislation should be added to the package, Boxer said. "Senators are not buying the argument that the bill should be clean."

Democrats are very close to having enough support to reauthorize the assault weapons ban for 10 more years, she said. The ban expires in September.

"We believe we can get to 51," said Boxer, referring to the number of votes needed to add the measure to the gunmaker immunity bill.

Democrats did fail to get enough votes to add a six-month extension of long-term unemployment insurance to the legislation.

Republicans also sought to put on the bill a renewal of a special provisions section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that requires Southern and some Western states get federal approval before making any changes in state voting laws. However, they pulled the amendment after Democrats complained that the issue should be considered separately.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., also offered an amendment to exempt the victims of the D.C. snipers John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo from the legislation so they can attempt to sue gun stores and manufacturers for negligence. The Senate voted down the amendment 40-56.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

This is a terribly writen article, but it had new information.

Quote

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.

I assume this means they must be sold with bike-lock type accessories. This doesn't mention any specifics at all. Yeah, that helps.

You'll also notice they only quoted anti gun senators, except for one quote showing logic that has already been overturned. Fair and balanced?

Quote

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., also offered an amendment to exempt the victims of the D.C. snipers John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo from the legislation so they can attempt to sue gun stores and manufacturers for negligence. The Senate voted down the amendment 40-56.

I'm sorry, I thought that's exactly the thing this bill was meant to stop. Maybe that's just me.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

"If we were to pass this legislation and it became the law of the land, the number of children involved in the number of accidental shootings would go way down," she said.

Okay, Boxer. If we study the results and find (which we will, of course) that mandatory gun locks do NOT make the number of accidental shootings go way down, WILL YOU LEAD THE CHARGE TO REPEAL THE LAW?

Of course, if the results of the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" are any indication, the answer is an obvious NO. We know that that atrocity made no one any safer and saved no lives, and it was among the laws that the CDC could not say did any good -- but the anti-gunners have not avowed the failure of the law and have not supported repealing it: they want to RENEW it.

They are the most dishonest shitheaps in Washington. Even in the face of the failure of their policies, they continue to push those inane policies -- and they forever demand more, more, MORE. "Compromise"? To an anti-gun congressperson, "compromise" means the pro-gunners give up additional rights. There's never a quo to the quid.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kennedy 0]

This is the anti-gun idea of compromise:

---

Anti-gunner: "You have plenty of rights, but people are getting hurt, so give up 10% and everything will be solved."

Concerned Citizen: "That sounds good."

one year [random time later]

AG: "People are getting hurt, give up 10% more."

CC: "But it didn't help last time."

AG: "This will solve it, it's all we want."

CC: "OK...."

one year [random time later]

AG: "People are dying, give up 10%."

CC: "Not a chance."

AG: "You don't care about people dying, you evil monster."

---

Yeah, this is fair. Of course, that also leaves out their media conferences stating their ultimate goal is 100% confiscation. ["Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in"]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

This is the anti-gun idea of compromise:

---

Anti-gunner: "You have plenty of rights, but people are getting hurt, so give up 10% and everything will be solved."
Concerned Citizen: "That sounds good."
one year [random time later]
AG: "People are getting hurt, give up 10% more."
CC: "But it didn't help last time."
AG: "This will solve it, it's all we want."
CC: "OK...."
one year [random time later]
AG: "People are dying, give up 10%."
CC: "Not a chance."
AG: "You don't care about people dying, you evil monster."

---

Yeah, this is fair. Of course, that also leaves out their media conferences stating their ultimate goal is 100% confiscation. ["Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in"]

So, would it even surprise anyone if at some time in the future it came down to not just a refusal by gun owners to give up any more of their rights, but out-and-out violence in defense of them? I mean, abused segments of the population can be pushed only so far -- particularly by LIARS and THIEVES and CORRUPT "ACTIVISTS" who know their side is intellectually and factually bankrupt -- before frustration and repeated victimization cause them to push back.

The thing is, those pushing back would be that segment of the population that is pretty damn well armed. And they'd be pushing back against whom? That segment of the population that argues against being armed, and which presumably has no arms with which to fight when the pro-gunners come to claim their lost rights back. The best the anti-gunners could do is either expose that they've been keeping guns for themselves all this time in spite of railing against gun ownership, or they'd have to count on the police authorities to step in and protect them when their uppance comes.

A really good book is John Ross' Unintended Consequences. It's a fictional account of what happens when one honest gun owner gets good and angry at the indignities inflicted by anti-gun scumbags. It's a fantastic read.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Guest]

Quote

A really good book is John Ross' Unintended Consequences. It's a fictional account of what happens when one honest gun owner gets good and angry at the indignities inflicted by anti-gun scumbags. It's a fantastic read.

It's also silly in some places, wildly uneven in others. Some parts read like James Michener; others like Robert E. Howard.

It's still an entertaining read, though, and Ross had guts to write it.

However, it could have done with some better editing...

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

What you said is true.
I think that there was little need for the gratuitous sex stuff, like when Henry took some friends flying and the girl had an orgasm in the plane from the G-forces of his maneuvers? That was plain silly. Some of the book was a bit ham-fisted, but I did enjoy the factual history that was interspersed.

What do you make of that dude Ad Topperwein who was supposed to have been able to hit 2"x2"x2" pine cubes in midair with a BAR?! He supposedly did thousands of them without a miss! Is that factual?

There was also a scene with Henry's girlfriend, the girl who was abducted into sex-slavery by the mafia, where she and a lesbian lover (she liked girls, mostly, after her abduction) played a prank on one of Henry's friends and made sure to be "caught" in a 69 in a shed, just to embarrass him. Gratuitous. Titillating, but gratuitious. Sort of like my continued use of the word "gratuitous."

edited to add: Stuff about the Topperweins of trick-shooting fame

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kennedy 0]

e-mail sent out early this morning by NRA Institute for Legislative Action (ILA)

Quote

RECKLESS LAWSUIT PREEMPTION (S. 1805) DEBATE UNDERWAY: SENATORS AGREE TO SET FINAL VOTE NEXT TUESDAY

On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Senate began to debate S. 1805—the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (formerly referenced as S. 659/S. 1806.) A bi-partisan 75-22 vote allowed debate to proceed, lifting the threat of a filibuster.

The debate continued late into the evening with no substantive movement on the bill and no additional votes were taken. Senators did, however, reach a “Unanimous Consent Agreement” spelling out specific amendments that would be permitted to be offered during the debate in anticipation of a final vote on the underlying measure next Tuesday.

On Thursday, the Senate reconvened and first considered was an amendment by anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that would require all handguns be sold with a mechanical safety device approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC). This amendment was then replaced with a “second degree” amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). The Kohl amendment is much less restrictive and also provides liability protection for gun owners.

The revised amendment passed 70-27.

The Senate next debated an amendment by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) which would permit current and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms off duty in other states. Arguing hysterically against the amendment, anti-gun Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) revealed his deep distrust of gun carrying even by sworn police officers. A vote on the Campbell amendment was deferred until Tuesday.

Sen. Kennedy then introduced an amendment to ban the manufacture and sale of “armor-piercing” ammunition. Kennedy, who actually condemned the 30-30 Winchester cartridge during debate, wants to institute a “performance-based” standard that would grant any future Attorney General sweeping authority to ban any center-fire ammunition, including most common-place rifle hunting ammunition. The standard proposed by Sen. Kennedy was rejected in the 1980s as overly broad and unnecessary to meet any threat posed to law enforcement officers’ safety. A vote on this NRA-opposed amendment will take place Tuesday.

The Senate next debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S.1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was defeated, 56-40. A “law enforcement” exemption offered by Sen. John Corzine (D-NJ) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.

NRA strongly opposed both amendments. One of the strengths of S. 1805 is that it adopts the same rules for all plaintiffs, no matter how sympathetic or unsympathetic, and no matter how notorious or mundane their victimization. Plaintiffs’ rights should depend on settled principles of law, not on emotion or sympathy.

NRA-ILA stands totally committed to enacting S. 1805 without anti-gun amendments, and will continue to vigorously oppose any reauthorization of the 1994 Clinton gun ban and any attempt to ban gun shows.

Please continue to contact your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to support S. 1805 without any anti-gun amendments. Call ILA`s Grassroots staff at (800) 392-8683, or visit ILA`s website at www.NRAILA.org for additional information and to utilize the "Write Your Representatives" feature to contact your U.S. Senators.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Yet another useless law. I've only purchased 2 guns in the recent past, but both of them came with locks from the manufacturer. It's a law making requiring something that's already done voluntarily.

[Kennedy 0]

Yep, she's obviously never heard of Project Childsafe. But she somehow managed to complain about it for encouraging gun ownership....how odd.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

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.

So our pro-gun senators caved-in yet again...

I have a feeling this simply means that an external lock must be sold with the gun, and not an internal integrated type of lock. Which means that gun owners who don't want to use them, will just throw them away. They're just being forced to buy something they don't want to use.

And they'll be force-sold to *everyone*, regardless of whether or not you have children in your home. My kids are grown up and out living on their own. I don't need child safety locks on guns in my home. But the democrats are going to force me to buy them anyway...

Quote

"If we were to pass this legislation and it became the law of the land, the number of children involved in the number of accidental shootings would go way down," she said.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can force careless people to buy gun locks, but you can't make them use them. It won't do anything to reduce child deaths. It will, however, make guns unavailable to people who need them to defend themselves from criminal attack. Thus, the number of adults that die at the hands of criminals, could increase.

So, I wonder when the gun-lock police will start showing up at our doors, asking to inspect our firearms to ensure that they are stored in the government-mandated manner?

[Luv2Fall 0]

My two most recent acquisitions came with the manufacturer's locks also..........yep, done voluntarily.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

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.

So our pro-gun senators caved-in yet again...

I have a feeling this simply means that an external lock must be sold with the gun, and not an internal integrated type of lock. Which means that gun owners who don't want to use them, will just throw them away. They're just being forced to buy something they don't want to use.

And they'll be force-sold to *everyone*, regardless of whether or not you have children in your home. My kids are grown up and out living on their own. I don't need child safety locks on guns in my home. But the democrats are going to force me to buy them anyway...

Quote

"If we were to pass this legislation and it became the law of the land, the number of children involved in the number of accidental shootings would go way down," she said.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can force careless people to buy gun locks, but you can't make them use them. It won't do anything to reduce child deaths. It will, however, make guns unavailable to people who need them to defend themselves from criminal attack. Thus, the number of adults that die at the hands of criminals, could increase.

So, I wonder when the gun-lock police will start showing up at our doors, asking to inspect our firearms to ensure that they are stored in the government-mandated manner?

You mean you WANT children to shoot themselves?

(Just an example of the logic you employed in another thread).

All you do is bitch bitch bitch.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallRate 0]

Can you get a waiver if you show them you have a lock at the time of purchase?

Maybe Masterlock is behind this.

FallRate

[Kennedy 0]

I just found out it's not the locks that work [basically pastic coated bicycle locks]. Those are the ones that go through the action and guarantee an empty chamber and no chance of discharge. Those are the ones that work, not getting used. Nope, that would make too much sense. The amendment added was for trigger locks.

Yes, those would be the ones that have no effect on the action. Yes, that means there can be a round in the chamber that can go off, and the P.O.S. lock will do nothing. Oh yeah, and you can pry it off with a screw driver.

ps - let's not even mention to "raised eyebrows" that might come from unfriendly officials for not using the useless trigger lock.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The amendment added was for trigger locks.

Yes, those would be the ones that have no effect on the action. Yes, that means there can be a round in the chamber that can go off, and the P.O.S. lock will do nothing. Oh yeah, and you can pry it off with a screw driver.

I saw the language of the Bill. It requires gun dealers to provide a lock with every gun they sell. That means that the dealers will have to raise their prices to cover the cost of the lock. And you have to take it that way whether you like it or not - you have no choice.

Just one more excuse to drive up the cost of gun ownership, to try and price citizens out of the market.

[billvon 3,116]

>Those are the ones that go through the action and guarantee
>an empty chamber and no chance of discharge.

Would you support legislation that required use of those locks on all guns?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>Those are the ones that go through the action and guarantee
>an empty chamber and no chance of discharge.

Would you support legislation that required use of those locks on all guns?

Not a chance Bill, for several reasons.

First, if a firearms is intended for self-defense or home protection, a lock renders it useless.

Second, I fully [and financially] support dealers who provide locks voluntarily and free of charge.

Third, as a rule, I don't support government intrusion into private matters. There is no balance test I can think of that would make it right for federal intervention here [like we have for the first amendment limitaions].

If you think accidental gun deaths are a sweeping plague, then the buckets, bathtubs, and broomsticks analogy is particularly relevant here.

They're fixing what isn't broke with this one [and litmus testing for the chance to add more anti-gun amendments later].

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Would you support legislation that required use of those locks on all guns?

I would not.

First of all, a gun is useless for self-defense if you have to remove a lock first in order to use it.

Second, there are many other ways to secure guns besides these trigger lock gizmos. For example, if someone keeps his guns inside a gun safe, then he shouldn't be required to have cheaper, less effective locks on the guns in addition to the safe.

How someone stores their guns in their private homes is their personal business, not the government's.

[JohnRich 4]

There's a protest underway!

Send in your unwanted gun locks to Sen. Barbara Boxer, to protest her amendment making the purchase of a gun lock mandatory with every gun purchase.

Senator Barbara Boxer
501 I Street, Suite 7-600
Sacramento, CA 95814

Full Story

[Kennedy 0]

While I'm all for the spirit of telling Boxer, Feinstein, et al where to stick it, there are better ways to do it.

Anyone think donating the locks to Project Childsafe might be a better idea? Besides, I'm not putting up postage to send them to Boxer. I'd rather donate to the cause. Or any other worthwhile cause. The things have uses but there's no reason that I should have to buy them with every firearm.

ps - they make good bike locks, too.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Funny thing is, I recently had to temporarily give my glock to the police for safe keeping. I didn't want to get shot during the transaction, so, I removed the mag, put the cable lock in it, left the slide locked back, and put it in the box.

The cop took the gun out, took the cable lock off, put the cable lock back in the box, handed me the box, asked me for an empty mag, put it in the gun, released the slide, and laid the gun on the passenger seat of his car.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Anyone think donating the locks to Project Childsafe might be a better idea?

That's a good project, but most people don't want the darned locks.

News Story

In this particular Childsafe free gun lock giveaway, only 200 locks were handed out.

Here's a quote from the story;

"Cobb pointed out that if a gun is owned for home protection purposes the lock can be removed and the gun can be made ready to fire in less than 30 seconds in most cases."

I'll bet Officer Cobb doesn't lock up his self-defense gun at home! 30-seconds is a lifetime when an intruder is climbing in a window, or kicking down the back door...

* * *

So what do we get when we combine Project Childsafe with the new gun lock amendment on S.1805?

We can get gun locks for free, but Congress is going to force us to buy extras that we don't need! Madness!

[Kennedy 0]

I'm with you for not requiring the locks, but I have no problem with them being given away for free. Some owners like them for firearms not stored in a very large safe. It's also nice to have them in case you need to transport long guns or to secure them temporarily.

I simply don't like the idea of wasting time and money to give them to some senator who will throw them away, rather than, say, give them to inner city kids for their bikes, or something else useful.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Swoopyswoop 0]

I dont give a damn what passed I aint locking up NOTHING. They want to compromise My safety and well being by installing a D.O.J. approved lock on my handguns? BULLCRAP people. Im not gonna say what I really want to in order to prevent a full scale riot in here LOL. But I will not lock my firearms period. I keep a D.E .50 in my bedroom, it is not loaded. I keep a clip fully stacked with it. If a child is left alone in that situation where he or she has enough time to play with the gun, Correctly install the clip into the gun, correctly charge a round into the pipe, then maybe we should look at parenting skills instead of gun locks perhaps? I dunno just rambling, what you think kennedy?

"when I die, I want to go like my grandfather while im sleeping, not like the passengers riding in the car with me
Swoopster
A.S.S. #6 Future T.S.S holder