Posted on 10/26/2005 11:57:47 AM PDT by neverdem
`(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun to
`(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and
`(ii) shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.'.
Although the manufacturer, or dealer, must supply the trigger lock, which is a capitulation, and will increase costs, a light price to pay for getting the legislation past thre usual scumbags. The gist of the liability is on the owner, if the firearm gets used in an inappropriate manner, and said use stemmed from the trigger lock not being in place. I suspect most of the readers here, when their firearm is not in their possesion or control, it is secured by a lot more stuff than a trigger lock. The firearms that are in control of the owner, ie carried, or in the home (for immediate usage) in a place under direct control of the owner, do not need the trigger lock in place.
I personally detest such idiot control mechanisms, but after being defanged, the addition to the general bill really poses very little problem with me other than the overall idiocy of the rule. It helps get the legislation past the schumers et al. (ps, i think I may have cropped some of the original text, please check the original above )
Is the triggerlock thing bad?
I'm no good at lawyerese, but it seems to have two parts:
1... guns can't be sold unless then come with some sort of safety device (bad)
2... if you are using a safe storage device on your gun, then your are by law exempt from civil suit (presumably from someone intentionally defeating the safety device and misusing the gun.) (good!)
I don't see where it says that you have to use the device at any particular time.
I have never bought a hand gun that didn't come with some sort of trigger lock. Unless and until it is made mandatory for us to actually use those locks, I see no problem with it.
Actually, this is an improvement. Currently a person could be sued if an unauthorized person stole their gun and used it regardless of whether it had a trigger lock or secure storage. This seems to exempt gunowners from lawsuits if they take those steps. Not as good as a total exemption, but better than the current law. There is nothing here suggesting that you need to keep them locked when others don't have access to them. As a responsible gunowner it does behoove you to to lock up your guns in situations where others would have access to them or you are not home. I always lock mine in a safe when not at home.
the Senate approved the measure 65-31. Last week, the House overwhelmingly passed the bill 283-144.
According to my math, that makes 175 idiots who need deporting.
Every gun issue is an American issue, not something up for play as a political football. Those issues would include crap like: taxes, welfare, the great society, etc.
Yeah, or thinking that outlawing and censoring criticism of incumbent politicians was wrong (CFR,) .who ever thought THAT wasn't conservative!
So you're right, President Bush MUST be a conservative! And if he had signed the bill outlawing certain rifles, then...that, too, would have been conservative, huh?
Ed
A new firearm? Something I do not already own?
I ask myself two questions.
Question #1,,,,,,,Do I know the actual number of guns I now own?
Question #2,,,,,,Have I fired each and everyone of them in the last thirty days?
The good news is that manufacturers can get on with making something that I really need.
They must provide the trigger locks to avoid responsiblity, I'm guessing. You do not have to use them.
HAHAHA. Hanoi John would have put this bill right in the shredder! Kerry did vote against the bill from what i can remember. Anybody know if John kerry ever took that Remingotn 1187 shotgun given to him as a gift to Mass? My guess is that its probably banned there already! If my memory serves me well, didnt Kerry write up a bill that would have banned that gun?
Ahhh God bless the NRA!!!!!!! This weekend is a BANG BANG BANG weekend! I'll mkae sure the guns get a good work out this weekend. At the end of the day i will give them a good cleaning and a nice oiling! God bless the 2nd amendment!
And even better, any existing lawsuits against gun manufacturers are immediately thrown out. HAHAHA!
I think I read somewhere that George Soros was financing one or more of said lawsuits. He must really be sick of losing his money.
I plead the fifth.
I respectfully decline to answer that question under the rights granted me by the 5th Amendment of The United States Constitution.
Are you Tom my next door neighbor????????
No... Are you the guy who put those mags in my closet?
Not I
You bought those mags the same day you bought the 187,000 Small Pistol Primers before the hoarders got to the gun shop.
Where the concern comes in is, if you keep a gun unlocked for personal protection and you are guilty of some sort of crime for that. I didn't read the whole bill, but leave it to some ACLU type lawyer to use that against someone defending their home and person.
In a word, Yes. Remember how mandatory seat belt laws got passed. First manufacturers were required to provide a seatblet in the vehicle ...
Americas First Freedom BTTT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.