seems they are having a firestorm of complaints from both consumers and gun manufacturers from this new MD law which took effect Jan. 1, 2003.  

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56389-2002Dec30.html[/url]

what say you? lets hear it....

If you're only ever going to take the gun to the range, then I'm ok with it, but if you ever even envision the remote chance you're going to defend your life with it, it's one more item that can malfunction and cause you to get killed instead of being able to fire your gun.  And a component designed specifically to not allow a bullet to be fired unless mechanical sensors give the ok, is asking for failure.

DF,
i was reading your post, got confused and realized i linked to an older article. fixed it now.

Simple:

It's a pain in the ass. It's bound to jack up gun prices.

How many people do you think are actually going to use this device?

I think it's ridiculous.

Do you ever wonder why in EVERY law written to make built in trigger locks mandatory....the Police and Military are EXEMPT??

Makes you think that perhaps they know something....

I think they should mount revolving red lights on top of the barrel too...some one might put their eye out on the gol-darn thing if they walked into it and it would help you find it in the dark too. Maybe some safety tags hanging off it to to explain how dangerous they are. Punch cards to show that someone took safety courses and are up to date on safety.[BD]

deadeye- All the handguns sold in Mass already come with a mandatory tag explaining how many kids each year commit suicide with an unlocked gun, how many accidental deaths a year from non-properly stored guns, etc...  I'm not kidding.

And BTW, every gun in Mass has had to be sold with a new trigger lock, at your expense. Also, they must always be stored in a locked container, even in your house.

[b]What's the BIG DEAL with built-in gun locks on guns?[/b]

Well, for starters, it endorses the myth that guns can be made idiot-proof, regardless of the idiot handling it.

It implies that guns can be safe for a child to handle, regardless of whether or not the child has been taught to respect firearms.

It is an untrue affirmation that guns in their present form are "unsafe" — a nod to gun-banners.

The fact that these gun locks are mandatory implies that there is no circumstance where they shouldn't be used, or where their use should be left up to individual judgement.

Finally, the ability of the government to impose these restrictions on us (and our submission to them) sets a precident for further restrictions. The government gets used to issuing edicts, and to expecting us  to blindly accept them.

Batteries fail
keys break
magnetic rings get misplaced


Scott

They can also damage your gun.

I'm sending my USP back to HK and asking them to take the damn thing out.

Their ultimate plan is to have a gunlock that is remotely operated by satellite and any time you want to shoot the weapon, you'll have to call ATF for permission to unlock your gun.  I swear it's true--my best friend has a buddy who works for the FBI...nevermind.

To be honest, I really have no problem with an internal locking system (such as the type found on S&W 686's) or external trigger locks. I also have no problem with things like background checks and safety training for CCW or background checks for persons buying a firearm through an FFL... I think those are reasonable. However, as long as the anti-gun crowd continues to propose and insist on outlandish, pervasive, abusive and overly restrictive legislation such as the AW ban, ammo taxes, "smart guns", ballistic finger printing, one gun a month, etc, then why should we as gun owners agree to [b]anything[/b] the antis want? Even if it might actually be a good idea?

It never ends with these people. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. If I thought for one second that by letting them have their safety locks, background checks and safety training that that would be the end of it, then I'd have no problem. But, I know realistically that will never happen. So, until they come to their senses I say screw them and [b]any[/b] gun-control measures they can cook up, even if I happen to think it might actually be a sound idea.

Edited to add: by having safety locks on guns I only mean that firearms be sold or equipped with them... not mandated that they be used. That should be left to the discretion of the owner.

Aside from the fact that having a trigger lock is one more step towards the 'gun as sports equipment' mentality (i.e. make them useless as weapons), there are a few more

1) Eventually, the excemption for older guns will go away (Let's ban those dangerous, obselete weapons), reducing a shooter's choice of weapons to currently marketed guns... So you can get a Colt M2004 .45, but not a WWII-era 'true' M1911A1.

2) The 'new' guns will probably have more problems, due to engineering locks into previous designs. Again, using the 1911 example, it was NOT designed to have a lock. When you add the lock, what do you shove aside and compromise to get it in there?

3) No amount of engineering makes up for a stupid operator. It doesn't matter if we're talking cars or guns (again, the 'Ban Corvettes, they're unsafe' argument is a good comparison. The Corvette is a very safe car in the hands of a good driver. It's 'fatality record' is due to the propensity of IDIOTS to buy fast cars and crash them!), operator headspace cannot be legislated...

Edit: I don't mind external (trigger) locks being sold with guns. I do mind legislating it (regulation, on principle, is usually bad), and anything that requires internal changes: :(...

btt. lets hear some more arguments.

I absolutely refuse to allow a device on a weapon that would prevent it use by my non-shooting hand or the hand of a person I trust in a crisis.

Yes it is stupid.

In the mean time, just don't use the lock.

That little lock on my Remington 870 never gets touched.

However, its slippery slope people.  Slippery slope.

That's my biggest complaint about the newer Springfield 1911s.  Good thing you're changing out that MSH now, because I'd bet the next step will be legislation prohibiting the deactivation or modification of "internal safety devices".



I couldn't agree more.



Again, I agree completely with you.  
It seems to me that pretty much all recent gun legislation is designed to help Sally Soccermom believe that she is [i]so[/i] much safer now.  With these new safety devices, crime will plummet, just like in England. [rolleyes]

What's the big deal?  a few kiddie suicides thwarted?  Is the planet running low on people?

I know more people that have been hit by cars than shot.

-HS

I think a lot of you folks are missing the point of the built-in gun locks. The anti-gunners & govt are preparing the people for the next generation of gun locks. The antis are pushing for the  "personalized gun lock(only they call it a "safety")," i.e. "only the authorized person can fire the gun" technology is being developed as we speak. Unfortunately/forunately(?) this type of Buck Rogers(he's the older version of James T. Kirk to you younger guys) type of technology does not exist at this moment, but will be available in the future. In anticipation of this feature, the antis are mandating key-type locks at the moment. In the future when you transfer a gun with this personalized lock to a new owner, the new owner must take it to someone authorized by the govt to be reconfigured for the new owner, and of course registered the owner with the gun and the  combination. And when you get hit with a restraining order, etc, the govt can deactivate your gun by a radio signal. This technology is already being used to shut-off air conditioning compressors(which require permission of the owners at the moment) when there is an electrical shortage or potential black-outs. WELCOME TO THE BRAVE NEW WORLD!

The exemption for LE and the military is used to gain their support for this idea, but at somepoint these folks will become civilians again, and the new law will also apply to them.

I recently bought a Taurus 850 CIA. It's a DAO hammerless backup revolver.

It has an internal locking mechanism. I've never even touched the key. If I had children, I might lock it.

The biggest reason I have against it is that the military and law enforcement are exempt. If it is such a great idea and the only effect this technology has is to make firearms [b]safer[/b], then why is the gov't exempt from it?

Hmmmmm.

Could you explain this about the air conditioners ? I didn't hear this one yet.

Our electricity provider South. Calif. Edison(SEC) has a voluntary program where they attach a special electrical/electronic gizmo to my air conditioning compressor, during a brown-out SCE can shut down the A/C compressor for an alotted amount of time, I think mine is something like 4 hours at a stretch, and no more than two 4 hour session in an 24 hours span, and of course they give me a break on my electricity bill. I've had it for 10 years, and I think that only in last electrical crissis brought by the deregulation debacle did SCE actually shut down my A/C compressor. Up until that point for me, other people, and a lot of business on this program, we got a free ride.

i have seen a built in lock fail to unlock before sevral minutes of tinkering.

Direct hit on the political philosophy side.

On the engineering side, a personal defense handgun is supposed to be the most reliable device in the world. If it doesn't work right the first time, you could be dead, and your family too. There's no time to fiddle around with it to make it work. It has to work right even after lying in a drawer untouched for 20 years or being dragged though the mud or dropped down the stairs or any other abuse you can come up with.

So why should we take a device with a greater reliability requirement then anything in the world and add something that is designed to interfere with its operation under certain conditions? Guns are plenty complex already even with only the parts required to make them operate correctly. Why add more cost, more complexity, more weight, and a reliability risk without getting anything in return?

Does anyone really think that it'll stop a criminal anyways? If the gun is stolen, he'll just take it home and pound away until it sorta works, and then use it just like before. We all know that a full size gunsafe is the only thing that stands a chance of stopping a burglar, and even that isn't certain.

Does it matter if a kid can't commit suicide with it? Kids commit suicide because of severe emotional disturbance (possibly related to excessive emphasis on self-esteem), not because a gun was lying around. If the gun won't work, he'll just jump off a building or slit his wrists instead.