Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/1/2005 2:08:50 PM EDT
Jul 2005
Senate Passes Gun Control Amidst Protection For Gun Makers
-- Now the House has to clean up the Senate's mess
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
Friday evening, July 29, 2005

The U.S. Senate passed legislation (S. 397) protecting the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits by a vote of 65-31 this afternoon.

It should have been a joyous occasion for the entire gun community. But just when it seemed that the majority party was about to deal a knockout blow, the Republican leadership dropped their gloves and allowed anti-gun Democrats to land a hard uppercut on the chin.

As a result of that lack of resolve, America will be saddled with mandatory trigger locks unless the House of Representatives acts in a more responsible manner.

True, the underlying bill is significant legislation, supported by GOA, which will help the firearms industry defend itself from the slew of frivolous lawsuits you've been hearing about for years. It's not great protection, but it's a nice first step.

However, "nice first step" should never be an excuse for the passage of more gun control. By the way, you will no doubt be reading news reports touting the bill as a great victory for gun owners, while dismissing the trigger lock amendment as "minor." Wrong, and more on that later.

But first: how did this thing blow up in our faces?

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD, THEN IT WENT BAD

Remember that Gun Owners of America had asked its members and activists to lobby Majority Leader Bill Frist to use whatever means possible to block anti-gun amendments? At first, his office had been telling us this couldn't be done.

Frist's office told us there was no Senate rule allowing the majority party to block bad amendments.

But after GOA members and activists applied the heat, Frist took another look. He then used parliamentary rules to "fill the amendment tree," which is exactly what we asked him to do. "Filling the amendment tree" is a technical term which explains how the majority party can offer amendments in such a way as to block the minority party from offering other amendments.

So far so good. But then... Frist blinked. You see, there were a handful of "moderate" Democrats, mainly from pro-gun states, who had cosponsored the original bill -- enough to make the measure filibuster-proof. Fearing that the other side would get those guys to bolt from the bill, Frist caved and allowed people like decidedly anti-gun Senator Herb Kohl to offer amendments.

Frist should have stood firm and let any rats jumping ship go home and explain to their constituents why they didn't support needed tort reform.

But he did not, and the trigger lock amendment passed. Those who think it's no big deal will tell you that even though the provision requires gun dealers to include the sale of a "lock-up-your-safety" device with every handgun sold, there are no penalties for the gun owner if he or she does not use the trigger lock. Right. NOT YET.

Remember seat belts? First they had to be installed in every new car sold. Then, it became mandatory that you wear them. You can almost hear the debate in the next Congress: "It does no good to provide trigger locking devices if gun owners aren't required to use them. We need to punish any gun owner who fails to lock up his or her handgun!"

Remember also that some us don't like a "tax" on the price of our next gun, which we have to pay to get a piece of equipment we know can endanger our lives should we install it.

IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE

At least your hard work convinced Frist to fill the tree in the first place. Otherwise, any anti-gun Senator could have added anything including the word "firearm" and who knows what we would have ended up with. It's an utter shame that Frist lost his nerve right when total victory was in our grasp.

Even worse, perhaps, 70 Senators went along with the trigger lock amendment when they could just as easily have voted "No" and passed a clean bill thereafter. Were your Senators among those who need to be spanked for toying with your rights? Go to http://www.gunowners.org/cgv.htm for a complete run-down of the trigger locks vote.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

The bill now moves to the House. Some pro-gun spokesmen have been promising that the trigger lock amendment can be stripped out in a conference committee. As mentioned in a previous alert, this is a dangerous strategy which frequently does NOT work -- such as when we got stuck with the Feinstein semi-auto ban in 1993-94 and the Incumbent Protection Act in 2002.

Actually, a clean bill already exists in the House. Why not pass that one?

Congress is in recess during August. But the back-room deals are certain to continue inside the Beltway.

To counter those expected compromises, GOA will need your help at specific times over the remainder of the summer. Please stay tuned... gun owners will need to pressure their Representatives with one simple message: a vote for ANY bill, should it contain new gun control, is NOT something we're prepared to swallow without a fight.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:13:24 PM EDT
Hep me. Are the "Trigger Locks" refered to integral to the firearm, or are they the ones I already have a collection of in the garage?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:13:40 PM EDT
US Senate passes gun control

What a fucking newsflash.....talk about alarmist bullshit.


Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:13:42 PM EDT
for crying out loud, the trigger lock amendment isn't that bad! It just says FFLs gotta give out a lock with handgun sales. Guess what!! They already come with locks!!! On top of it, the amendment gives you complete and totally protection from liability if you use the god damn lock!
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:14:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 2:15:08 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By callgood:
Hep me. Are the "Trigger Locks" refered to integral to the firearm, or are they the ones I already have a collection of in the garage?



Can be either.... Both.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:15:31 PM EDT
Whew! Thought they were about to screw up Glocks and Sigs.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:16:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:16:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:
for crying out loud, the trigger lock amendment isn't that bad! It just says FFLs gotta give out a lock with handgun sales. Guess what!! They already come with locks!!! On top of it, the amendment gives you complete and totally protection from liability if you use the god damn lock!



Maybe you need to go look at that again.......
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:17:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NH_AR_Shooter:
US Senate passes gun control

What a fucking newsflash.....talk about alarmist bullshit.



+1. GOA must have hired some fucktard from the NRA.



Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:17:52 PM EDT
The points made are VERY true...


Letting the gun lock ammendment get added is VERY bad way down the road.

When does the House start their bill ? We should man the phones and really turn up the
pressure on this.


LB
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:19:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:19:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
99.9% of factory guns already come with integral as well as external locks. someone tell me where the problem is here.



They come with locks now because of some state requirements and the manufacturers stick it in there
to cover the states. You make it Federal and the next question will be exactly as described above:

"We need a law requiring people to USE the locks we mandated they purchase".

You know better than this, you never accept a compromise when you can avoid it.

That is what happened in 1985. Well, the machinegun ban will be OK, no one needs machineguns......
It's just a small compromise.......

What is the point in voting in these people and them having a majority if they don't have the stones
to USE that power in the short time they have it?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:20:09 PM EDT
Well, if trigger locks are the cost of shutting down the lawsuits, I say go for it (assuming the House doesn't shoot it down).

At least it's not another AWB. Don't like it, but it could be far far worse.

I'm wondering why the dims didn't push for something harsher?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:22:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Well, if trigger locks are the cost of shutting down the lawsuits, I say go for it (assuming the House doesn't shoot it down).

At least it's not another AWB. Don't like it, but it could be far far worse.

I'm wondering why the dims didn't push for something harsher?



They did... Frist stopped them using Senate rules.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:23:24 PM EDT
Jeez! I hate gving an inch of ground to the antis as much as anyone else here, but sometimes a person has
to compromise a wee bit in order to get things done.... that's how the leigislative system works.


We handed the anti-gun crowd the ball and allowed them to kick a field goal... in return we won the Super Bowl.

If it's voted out in the House it has to go to a joint conference committee and they'll have to hash out the differences. It just ties the bill up more. Leave the fucking thing alone, let the House vote on it as is and let Bush sign it so we can move on to more important RKBA legislation.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:23:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Well, if trigger locks are the cost of shutting down the lawsuits, I say go for it (assuming the House doesn't shoot it down).

At least it's not another AWB. Don't like it, but it could be far far worse.

I'm wondering why the dims didn't push for something harsher?



They did... Frist stopped them using Senate rules.



Ah!

Good man!

I hate those assholes!
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:23:58 PM EDT
What happens when this passes and the Gun Gestapo checks up on you in your house and your guns are not locked?

This law might not be "that bad" but think about how people will USE a current law LATER to make our lives miserable.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:27:31 PM EDT
Maybe they'll allow new MG sales to be legal with the trigger locks?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:29:42 PM EDT
This will be good. Tag.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:30:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By phatmax:
What happens when this passes and the Gun Gestapo checks up on you in your house and your guns are not locked?

This law might not be "that bad" but think about how people will USE a current law LATER to make our lives miserable.



Nothing there is NO requirement to use the locks and there is nobody to check.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:32:28 PM EDT
I can't remember the last time that I bought a gun and wasn't given a trigger lock. In fact, when I lived in Michigan and went to the FFL for interstate transfers they made me either bring a lock or buy one. They wouldn't let me leave the store with a gun unless it came with a lock.

Sure, it's more government regulation which automatically means I'm against. But in this case it is a very small price to pay. Besides, as someone else stated it completely eliminates liability for misuse of the gun.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:38:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By phatmax:
What happens when this passes and the Gun Gestapo checks up on you in your house and your guns are not locked?

This law might not be "that bad" but think about how people will USE a current law LATER to make our lives miserable.




There is nothing in this law that requires you to use the locks, throw them away in the parking lot if you feel they are hurting your liberty.

The child lock admendment was a fob to get a few fence sitters on our side, without them, the entire Gun maker lawsuit protection would have failed.

Some of you would rather see the American firearm industry sued out of existance, rather than have a few extra locks laying around in a drawer.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:40:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By phatmax:
What happens when this passes and the Gun Gestapo checks up on you in your house and your guns are not locked?

This law might not be "that bad" but think about how people will USE a current law LATER to make our lives miserable.

Screw that Fatalistic / Negativistic nonsense.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:40:24 PM EDT
It seems that in the last few years, everything that comes out of the GOA is alarmist bullshit.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 3:00:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:
for crying out loud, the trigger lock amendment isn't that bad! It just says FFLs gotta give out a lock with handgun sales. Guess what!! They already come with locks!!! On top of it, the amendment gives you complete and totally protection from liability if you use the god damn lock!




Take a look at your God Damned avatar! We had to have trigger locks, then they made it law that we had to use them, at one point EVERY firearm in Canada had to have a trigger lock on it, ALL THE TIME except when it was being actively used, meaning during hunting or at the range, only. We finally got that mostly stripped, but if someone breaks into my place tonight and steals my firearms, I get charged for improper storage, no matter how they were stored. (1/2" steel cable through the trigger locks of all rifles, handguns in a locked case)


at least I don't need to buy 100 trigger locks for all my guns, though I have to have them to transport any restricted weapons to the range and back (they also hve to be cased, restricted is ANY handgun, including modern repros of C&B or flintlock, and any semiautomatic rifle with a barrel less than 18", removeable mags, and/or an OAL less than soem magic number)


you guys let this in, prepare to fight off hte next step the traitors will try to saddle you with, it is harder to get rid of laws than to keep them from becoming laws...
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 3:05:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TacticalPenguin:

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:
for crying out loud, the trigger lock amendment isn't that bad! It just says FFLs gotta give out a lock with handgun sales. Guess what!! They already come with locks!!! On top of it, the amendment gives you complete and totally protection from liability if you use the god damn lock!




Take a look at your God Damned avatar! We had to have trigger locks, then they made it law that we had to use them, at one point EVERY firearm in Canada had to have a trigger lock on it, ALL THE TIME except when it was being actively used, meaning during hunting or at the range, only. We finally got that mostly stripped, but if someone breaks into my place tonight and steals my firearms, I get charged for improper storage, no matter how they were stored. (1/2" steel cable through the trigger locks of all rifles, handguns in a locked case)


at least I don't need to buy 100 trigger locks for all my guns, though I have to have them to transport any restricted weapons to the range and back (they also hve to be cased, restricted is ANY handgun, including modern repros of C&B or flintlock, and any semiautomatic rifle with a barrel less than 18", removeable mags, and/or an OAL less than soem magic number)


you guys let this in, prepare to fight off hte next step the traitors will try to saddle you with, it is harder to get rid of laws than to keep them from becoming laws...



We aren't Canada. Whole different ballgame here. Feel sorry for you though.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 3:07:41 PM EDT
I would rather buy a POS trigger lock than have all of the gun manufacturors be put out of business by lawsuits.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 3:08:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
It seems that in the last few years, everything that comes out of the GOA is alarmist bullshit.



Because this is how an ineffective and irrelevant organization tries to raise money.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 3:11:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 3:32:50 PM EDT
Guys, don't worry. It's too easy to allow slippery slope fallacies to cloud your judgement. Essentially, the GOA is saying that a trigger lock requirement is bad by comparing it to the early requirement that manufacturers merely install seatbelts. They argue that because seatbelt USE became mandatory, trigger lock USE will become mandatory. This is a classic logical fallacy. The two are not even remotely related.

As it stands, the Congress could legislate that all firearms be locked when not being actively used. You've said it yourselves: It's just a 99 cent trigger lock. Whether they legislate it in the future is not related to whether or not manufacturers were previously required to provide them. They could do this 10 years from now, whether this ammendment passes or not. This is NOT a slippery slope.

We're winning. This is a bullshit ammendment.


Link Posted: 8/1/2005 3:34:53 PM EDT
Couldn't the President use the line-item veto?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 3:41:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kaizoku:
Couldn't the President use the line-item veto?



There is no line item veto.

Link Posted: 8/1/2005 3:47:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LoginName:

Originally Posted By kaizoku:
Couldn't the President use the line-item veto?



There is no line item veto.




Okay, just looked it up...ruled un-Constitutional in 1998...
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 4:38:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:
for crying out loud, the trigger lock amendment isn't that bad! It just says FFLs gotta give out a lock with handgun sales. Guess what!! They already come with locks!!! On top of it, the amendment gives you complete and totally protection from liability if you use the god damn lock!



Maybe you need to go look at that again.......



Maybe YOU need to go look again. You know the lockable hard case that comes with most brands of handguns? Guess what, it fulfills the requirement of this amendment.

Fucking alarmist bullshit.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 4:41:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By phatmax:
What happens when this passes and the Gun Gestapo checks up on you in your house and your guns are not locked?

This law might not be "that bad" but think about how people will USE a current law LATER to make our lives miserable.



Goddamn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is not what the fucking amendment says. It say nothing, NADA, ZERO, about you USING IT!

More alarmist bullshit.

I don't like compromising, but the requirements of this amendment are already covered by locks and lockable cases that the manufacturers provide with new pistols.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 4:50:56 PM EDT
Some people get so obsessed with the ideal that they lose track of reality.

I agree with you 100%, Larry. I didn't see anything new, and if we can protect the gun industry, then we don't lose anything but gain BIG TIME.

Upholding the RKBA is a great thing, but if we become needlessly alarmist, we'll end up crying wolf and losing credibility.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:00:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By phatmax:
What happens when this passes and the Gun Gestapo checks up on you in your house and your guns are not locked?

This law might not be "that bad" but think about how people will USE a current law LATER to make our lives miserable.



Goddamn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is not what the fucking amendment says. It say nothing, NADA, ZERO, about you USING IT!

More alarmist bullshit.

I don't like compromising, but the requirements of this amendment are already covered by locks and lockable cases that the manufacturers provide with new pistols.



I think he's trying to say that eventually they will pass another law that will require the gun owners to actually use the lock at all times or something to that nature.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:01:59 PM EDT
The trigger lock thing is already a part of local laws where I live. I think this doesn't mean shit either way, just more crap to fill the CFR with and an attempt by congress to win over people, as well as something else for the lawyers to play with.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:03:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ctprelude:

I think he's trying to say that eventually they will pass another law that will require the gun owners to actually use the lock at all times or something to that nature.



Utterly unenforceable, and hardly a reason to call the bill which passed a failure.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:03:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Fucking alarmist bullshit.



But, Larry Craig and the NRA fucked us BIG time with the AP ammo study.

Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:32:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 5:48:53 PM EDT by LoginName]

Originally Posted By ctprelude:

I think he's trying to say that eventually they will pass another law that will require the gun owners to actually use the lock at all times or something to that nature.



And how can they do that?

Using the seat belts analogy, there is a federal regulation that requires all cars sold in the US to be equipped with seat belts by the manufacturer.

There is no federal requirement that they have to be used... that falls within the powers of the states.

There are already states that require gun locks to be included with any firearms purchased from an FFL. There are some that require that it actually be used under "safe storage laws".

There are states that have seat belt laws on the books, but can only enforce them as a secondary offense (meaning the cops can't pull you over for not wearing a seat belt, but if they pull you over for some other offense and you're not wearing one, you can be cited).

Putting it into perspective with regards to seat belts; seat belts are mandated by federal law for manufacturers to equipt the vehicle with. The feds can say they have to be provided, but they have no authority to say they have to be used.

It's up to the states to legislate if, when and where they are to be used.

Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:53:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ctprelude:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By phatmax:
What happens when this passes and the Gun Gestapo checks up on you in your house and your guns are not locked?

This law might not be "that bad" but think about how people will USE a current law LATER to make our lives miserable.



Goddamn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is not what the fucking amendment says. It say nothing, NADA, ZERO, about you USING IT!

More alarmist bullshit.

I don't like compromising, but the requirements of this amendment are already covered by locks and lockable cases that the manufacturers provide with new pistols.



I think he's trying to say that eventually they will pass another law that will require the gun owners to actually use the lock at all times or something to that nature.



And he does not know that at all. Just more negative, alarmist crap.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:58:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LoginName:

Originally Posted By ctprelude:

I think he's trying to say that eventually they will pass another law that will require the gun owners to actually use the lock at all times or something to that nature.



And how can they do that?

Using the seat belts analogy, there is a federal regulation that requires all cars sold in the US to be equipped with seat belts by the manufacturer.

There is no federal requirement that they have to be used... that falls within the powers of the states.

There are already states that require gun locks to be included with any firearms purchased from an FFL. There are some that require that it actually be used under "safe storage laws".

There are states that have seat belt laws on the books, but can only enforce them as a secondary offense (meaning the cops can't pull you over for not wearing a seat belt, but if they pull you over for some other offense and you're not wearing one, you can be cited).

Putting it into perspective with regards to seat belts; seat belts are mandated by federal law for manufacturers to equipt the vehicle with. The feds can say they have to be provided, but they have no authority to say they have to be used.

It's up to the states to legislate if, when and where they are to be used.




Let's also note that seatbelt usage, or lack thereof, is highly visible when you drive. Whether I am using a gun lock in my own home is hardly the same.

Besides, the ones that I am not carrying on me or taking to the range are locked in a safe (which also satisfies the requirement of this amendment), which any gun owner should already have if for no other reason than protection against theft.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:05:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:07:05 PM EDT
I am against any law that tells me what I can and cannot do with an item after I purchase it.
If I need a lock, I will take that on as my task...I dont need government intervention to 'help' me.

After this goes through, perhaps they can make a law that says all CCW's need to have their issue trigger lock device attached.....we will all have license to carry locked up weapons.....go ahead and tell me Im crazy......what I am proposing is no crazier than the concept of a capacity limit in magazines would have sounded in the 50's
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:12:09 PM EDT
Cool, currently one of my locks is on the dog food holder to keep my black lab out.

The other one is on the gate of my fence keeping people out of my back yard.

I'm all about some trigger locks.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:13:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 6:17:09 PM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By macro:
I am against any law that tells me what I can and cannot do with an item after I purchase it.
If I need a lock, I will take that on as my task...I dont need government intervention to 'help' me.

After this goes through, perhaps they can make a law that says all CCW's need to have their issue trigger lock device attached.....we will all have license to carry locked up weapons.....go ahead and tell me Im crazy......what I am proposing is no crazier than the concept of a capacity limit in magazines would have sounded in the 50's



Jesus H. Christ! Did any of you READ the amendment??????????????? It does not tell you that you have to use it, it just says that the dealer must provide it.

Have you read the posts in this thread??????? Good grief.

Man, oh man.

Do you have a safe? If so, you already meet the requirements for this amendment.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:20:45 PM EDT
Half step back and a big leap forward.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:22:46 PM EDT
Welcome to Electric Lippo Land where logic doesn't exist...


ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=374681
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:25:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:
for crying out loud, the trigger lock amendment isn't that bad! It just says FFLs gotta give out a lock with handgun sales. Guess what!! They already come with locks!!! On top of it, the amendment gives you complete and totally protection from liability if you use the god damn lock!



CRC could fiund the negative side of a hot blonde driving up in a Ferrari loaded with cash - all three his to do with as he will.



Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:42:40 PM EDT
Add me to the list of those willing to hang yet another useless lock up with the rest if it means that the firearm industry can be rid of the bullshit lawsuits.


Woody
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top