Posted: 2/28/2004 11:27:39 AM EDT
|
They're saying that this amendment passed and it requires us to buy a gun lock with our handgun purchases as well as, assume liability if our guns aren't kept locked up. Is this right? did it pass? I thought Boxer's amendment passed requiring the manufacturer to send a lock with the pistols and for dealers to keep them on and that was it. Someone please help me to understand this! Also, why something like this could pass with such a unanimous vote?! Thanks, Musenic |
|
Quoted: From what I know what his amendment did was remove the penalties from the boxer amendment. It ahs been talked about in one of the many S1805 threads. Look through a couple of those and you'll find more info. Don't worry. Those penalities will be added in at a later date tacked onto a budget bill. |
|
I just don't like the part where we're responsible for some thieving bastard that first rapes us of our property, then shoots someone with that same stolen property. What the hell is the world coming to that criminals aren't held responsible for their actions?!? The only reason they would try to pass such an provision is at best to kill the bill, and at worst to hold law abiding citizen's responsible for criminals instead of the manufacturers/dealers. Can we go back to holding people responsible for their own actions please?!?!?!?!?! I refuse to keep my guns locked up (especially the ones I use for self defense) because it defeats this purpose. There are no kids in my house, and burglars aren't allowed either! How about the part where LE doesn't have to abide by the gun locks?! This bill is to supposedly protect the children...I didn't realize that all of LE was childless! [rolleyes] |
|
Quoted: I just don't like the part where we're responsible for some thieving bastard that first rapes us of our property, then shoots someone with that same stolen property. What the hell is the world coming to that criminals aren't held responsible for their actions?!? The only reason they would try to pass such an provision is at best to kill the bill, and at worst to hold law abiding citizen's responsible for criminals instead of the manufacturers/dealers. Can we go back to holding people responsible for their own actions please?!?!?!?!?! The interpretation that you have is exactly accurate. GOA's trying to spin the amendment to make the NRA look bad. Here's what's really going on. The NRA has been working this type of legislation at the state level for several years now. If you remember after S&W folded under pressure of the lawsuits the anti's then started trying to sue firearm owners who had their guns stolen and used in a crime. There were several stories out of Michigan during this time. When Michigan was passing it's CCW law it had an amendment put in to require gun locks for every purchase...in exchange for protection from lawsuits for everyone who securely stored their firearms if those firearms were stolen and then used in a crime. Like you said it sucks that we are the position where we can be sued if someone steals are guns and commits a crime with it. But that is how things already are, the amendment isn't creating this, instead it's doing the opposite. If your guns are securely stored, then stolen, and used in a crime it's specifically stating that you are not liable. I'm not sure what the definition of securely stored is or what the burden of proof is for proving that. When Michigan was passing their law most of the manufacturers were already providing a gun lock with all new guns. If they didn't, all you had to do was bring a gun lock or a receipt showing that you purchased a gun lock and you were exempt from having to purchase an additional lock. |