House Republicans wage war on trigger locks

[AlonzoMourning23]

WASHINGTON -- The House on Thursday passed legislation that would suspend a new requirement that gun dealers provide a trigger lock with every handgun they sell.

The development came on the heels of a 230-191 vote late Wednesday to block the Justice Department from enforcing the trigger lock law. The vote came during debate on a spending measure funding the department's budget.

Despite the vote, suspension of the trigger lock mandate is not at all ensured. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., the top GOP negotiator on the underlying Justice Department spending bill, voted against the idea. The Senate voted more than 2-1 to impose the requirement and has yet to act on the bill.

The requirement mandating trigger lock sales has been in place since April and passed last October as part of a bill to block gun crime victims from suing firearms manufacturers and dealers for damages.

The Senate had voted 70-30 to impose the trigger lock sales mandate, which proponents said would prevent gun accidents and save lives, especially those of children who discover a parent's handgun.

But gun-rights advocates, led by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., countered that the new requirement is "equivalent to a tax on citizens who purchase firearms."

Forty-two Democrats joined with about one-fifth of House Republicans to pass Musgrave's amendment.

"This was an effort to reduce the number of Americans, thousands each year, who are killed or injured because guns are not locked up," said Sarah Brady, founder of the Brady Campaign to Combat Gun Violence. "Americans should ask representatives who voted to repeal the safety lock law why they've lost their senses."

A foe of the amendment, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., said that the $5 to $7 that a trigger lock costs is a small price to pay for preventing some of the 30,000 gun deaths that occur in the United States each year.

"Responsible and law-abiding gun owners do not need the government to tell them to be safe," countered Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Congress_Gun_Locks.html

Tell me, am I missing something here? Is the thought of people, say........... not killing themselves threatening?

[RightWingJuggernaut]

Wear your seatbelt.
Don't run with scissors.
You can't have that it's too big/fast/loud.
That shirt offends me.
He hit me, then sued me when I hit him back.
Don't spank your kids, they'll tell and you'll go to jail.
Put your helmet on.

The locks are just another in a long line of bullshit being crammed down everyone's throat that alleviates us from personal responsibility, choice and freedom.

Should I have to lock the doors on my car and hide the key while it is in my garage because someone could steal it and use it in a crime?

[Old Corps Gunny]

I don't think trigger locks are meant to keep people from commiting suicide, Alonzo.

RightWing, I look back on how many times i have read or heard of kids accidentally shooting someone with a pistol or rifle they have found, or taking a gun to school and shooting someone, and thinking if it had a trigger lock that tragedy might have been avoided. When I had kids in the house, I had trigger locks on my firearms, even though most of my firearms were unloaded. Now I keep my rifles and all but one of my pistols in a gun safe. Providing a trigger lock does not force a gun buyer to use it, he still has the choice to throw it away when he gets home. It does provide the owner of a firearm the option to exercise personal responsibility.

[RightWingJuggernaut]

Trigger locks are readily available from a number of sources. I shouldn't have to pay for a lock, unless I want it.

I have no kids (I'm 32, married and have figured out there is no place in my life or career for children), I have an 1100lb safe, not much need for a trigger lock in my house and yet I still have to pay for them because some folks think everyone needs them.

Gun owners have always had the option to excercise personal responsibility and the inclusion of a lock in their gun box is not swaying one or the other. The gun owners that feel the need to have them will buy them, but forcing the rest of us to buy them is rather ridiculous.

Make the lock an option. You want a lock? Take the "B" model. You don't want a lock? Here's an "A" model.

I still think it's another in a long list of ploys to make us all head-bobbing, good little citizens that make the sheep in our society feel better so they can sleep at night.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I don't think trigger locks are meant to keep people from commiting suicide, Alonzo.

Not sure where I said that. The point I was making is the one you made below:

RightWing, I look back on how many times i have read or heard of kids accidentally shooting someone with a pistol or rifle they have found, or taking a gun to school and shooting someone, and thinking if it had a trigger lock that tragedy might have been avoided.Â*Â*When I had kids in the house, I had trigger locks on my firearms, even though most of my firearms were unloaded.Â*Â*Now I keep my rifles and all but one of my pistols in a gun safe.Â*Â*Providing a trigger lock does not force a gun buyer to use it, he still has the choice to throw it away when he gets home.Â*Â*It does provide the owner of a firearm the option to exercise personal responsibility.

[RightWingJuggernaut]

I don't think trigger locks are meant to keep people from commiting suicide, Alonzo.

Not sure where I said that. The point I was making is the one you made below:


You said it right here, it's the only thing you said when you started this thread.



Tell me, am I missing something here? Is the thought of people, say........... not killing themselves threatening?

[AlonzoMourning23]

That comment was totally unrelated to suicide. It had to do with kids getting ahold of guns and people accidentally firing them.

[RightWingJuggernaut]

That comment was totally unrelated to suicide. It had to do with kids getting ahold of guns and people accidentally firing them.


A trigger lock isn't going to prevent a child from getting its hands on a gun and about 60 seconds with a drill eliminates that lock pretty quickly.

If you don't want kids to get your guns, you lock them up where they can't get to the firearms or you could teach them about guns and not make them mysterious or magical.

Funny, I grew up with guns before gun locks and none of my grandfather's guns were locked up but I'm alive.

An accidental discharge has nothing to do with a trigger lock. Your chances are greatly increased of having an accidental discharge if you store a loaded gun with a trigger lock on it.

I don't know why you would keep a gun loaded with a live round in the chamber if you are going to lock the trigger. Stupid and dangerous.

You need to change your name to crawfish.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I have a trigger lock but in the case of shotguns cable locks are better.

They're not all that much, $10 for a trigger lock or $20 for a cable lock.

Should they be mandatory by legal fiat? No. I would think in this litigous society that gun makers would include them to lessen liability.

[Nathan Brazil]

The law forces the sale of a trigger lock with each weapon.

Where does the law require the use of a trigger lock?

If the law doesn't require the use of a trigger lock, what's the point of requiring the sale thereof?

The penalties for permitting a child to have unsupervised access to firearms are more than severe, so that responsible gun owners do what's necessary to ensure firearm safety. Besides, the responsible ones aren't worried about getting punished if something goes wrong, they don't want their guns used to outside of their control.

What changes will any trigger lock law do to make irresponsible people responsible? Nothing at all, they're irresponsible people and that's all there is to it. If someone is dumb enough to leave the bullets with the gun, and to leave the gun where a child can find it, is he smart enough to lock the trigger?

Ergo, the trigger lock law exists to satisfy people afraid of inanimate objects that the object will remain inanimate, even though the reality of the situation is that the trigger lock won't do a damn thing, since the essence of gun safety is in the practice of gun safety by responsible gun owners, not by legislating toys and gadgets.

What's next, after the trigger lock law fails to reduce the death rate? Signature guns?

The ultimate goal of the gun freaks on the left is to price guns out of the reach of all but the publishers of anti-gun rags like the New York Times.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The whole point is that the trigger lock is essentially free with a gun purchase. No responsibility, no extra cash, is required to have one. It ensures that if you have a gun, you have a trigger lock for itit. If you change your mind and decide to use it, it will be right there for immediate use. Unless you threw it out or lost it that is.

[Nathan Brazil]

The whole point is that the trigger lock is essentially free with a gun purchase. No responsibility, no extra cash, is required to have one. It ensures that if you have a gun, you have a trigger lock for itit. If you change your mind and decide to use it, it will be right there for immediate use. Unless you threw it out or lost it that is.




No its not. The trigger lock has a price, that price is included in the sale price of the gun, which has been raised to account for the trigger lock.

"Essentially free"... what the hell kind of nonsense is that?