Trigger locks eliminate all gun accidents and do not prevent a weapon from being brought into action quickly.
This is why police officers carry their weapons with trigger locks in place.
If Massachusetts (or any other state) can enact a law that makes guns virtually useless as defensive weapons, then the 2nd Amendment is rendered meaningless. I expect the USSC will clarify the matter through "incorporation", which would still allow state regulations consistent with substantive due process (in not restricting Constitutional liberties).
I called a few different municipal police departments, my sheriff, and the sheriffs of the neighboring counties about this. They all seemed amused at the prospect of their officers carrying handguns with trigger locks in place. The most often repeated reason given: officers need to be able to use their guns at a moment’s notice without fumbling in a high-stress situation to unlock it. I’ll ask a few officers I know when I see them tonight.
Your premise is faulty.
This is double bull.
When the trigger lock is removed, you can have a gun accident.
I have several friends that are PA State Police and none of them has a trigger lock on any of their weapons.
Where are these police officers that you refer to?
“...police officers carry their weapons with trigger locks in place...”
Hey, Warrior, you really can’t be serious. I just checked with my son, a Deputy Sheriff in Ohio, and he laughed at me when I asked him if he knew any LEO’s who kept locks on their piece. He says, not if they don’t want to get killed. Not a chance, on duty or off.
Do you carry? Do you keep a trigger lock in place with your piece holstered, on your hip or under your coat? Not likely. Again, I say, you really can’t be serious.