[Rio]

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.

[basil]

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.

[Redcloak]

You are correct. There is no requirement to use a "safety" device. What you do get is a pass if a secured handgun is used to commit a crime or if it is involved an in accidental discharge.

The locks and other gizmos now required are already being supplied by most manufacturers. Whatever added expense these gadgets represent is already in the price of a gun; so no real change there.

Of course, what we really get at the end of the day is the ability to actually purchase a new firearm because the gun makers haven't been driven out of business.

[stevio]

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.

[from occupied ga]

Is the triggerlock thing bad?

In a word, Yes. Remember how mandatory seat belt laws got passed. First manufacturers were required to provide a seatblet in the vehicle ...