TexasCHLforum.com

dws1117 wrote:

If gun locks become standard issue, how long will it be before the anti-gunners whine that although everybody gets issued such a lock, not everybody USES them faithfully. So then they'll urge us to pass a law requiring their use, perhaps even on guns that the owners want to have quickly accessible for home defense, and they might add some kind of monitoring or home inspection clause so that cops can come into your home to check for the safe and secure storage of your guns.

Wouldn't that require registration? How would the cops know what houses to search for safe and secure storage of guns or would they just do random home searches? Where have I heard this story before. Is history not tought in public schools anymore?

Think "RFID". Does making the lock be RFID capable require an act of Congress or just a statement from the BATF? I surely don't know. Anyway, the cops just drive past your house and pick up an RFID signal from a firearm lock and the next thing you hear is a knock on the door from your neighborly leo. I mean, who could claim that making a lock RFID capable was an infrigement on your right to keep and bear arms? For Pete's sake, its a lock not a gun we're talking about here.

More likely, since the gun was most definitely sold with a lock after some legally specified date, if there was a questionable shooting with that firearm that should/could have been locked up, charges will probably be made that the gun was unsafely stored: its not like the owner didn't have a lock, don't ya know. And since many states (Texas included) already have secure storage requirement laws, the owner clearly must have been knowingly negligent.

So one unintended consequence of all this might be that the gunowner wears his gun at home too, thus satisfying the needs of safety, safe storage, and avoidance of possible charges and lawsuits. Folks, its gonna be a mess.

from gunsm0ker on http://www.packing.org/community/laws_p ... tview/3548 :

"I used to say that there was no down side to trigger locks or internal disabling locks being issued with all guns. If you don't want to use those features, then don't. If you want to disable your gun when leaving it unattended around the house or in your car, fine. Engage the lock.

"Now I see two drawbacks to locks or disabling features generally. 1--- You can easily forget to re-arm or ready your weapon for use when you once again expect it to be available for self-defense. I have found myself "packing" my Taurus PT111 with the internal security lock / disabling lock engaged.
"2-- If gun locks become standard issue, how long will it be before the anti-gunners whine that although everybody gets issued such a lock, not everybody USES them faithfully. So then they'll urge us to pass a law requiring their use, perhaps even on guns that the owners want to have quickly accessible for home defense, and they might add some kind of monitoring or home inspection clause so that cops can come into your home to check for the safe and secure storage of your guns.

"If the latter suggestion sounds totally unreasonable, remember that anti-gunners are not reasonable, and politicians don't care one whit about reasonableness or morality or justice so long as they get the votes for re-election. And if anti-gunners spin the publicity right, they can impose this upon us in the near future."

stevie_d_64 wrote: Y'all still better be friends, or as someone said to me the other day...

Charles and I are on the same side of the fence. The only difference is I'm paranoid and pessimistic, and he is neither.

If S. 397 is the bill finally selected, then us gun folks can only hope and pray that when we celebrate the victory of legal protection for the firearms industry, that we have not become Troy celebrating the victory of capturing the Trojans' Horse.

URGENT! URGENT! URGENT!

Change In Status Of Gun Bill
-- Immediate calls needed to your Representative

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Monday, October 17, 2005


Last week, a bill containing a mandatory trigger lock requirement
looked to be dormant on Capitol Hill. The prevailing wisdom was that
the bill was dead for the year.

However, given the mercurial nature of legislation and legislative
bodies, one can never be certain of what is going to happen as long
as Congress is in session. One event that can always shake up the
legislative calendar is experiencing a leadership change -- such as
when pro-gun House Majority Leader Tom DeLay stepped down from his
position recently.

What we do know at this point is that the bill is before the Rules
Committee today, and will most likely reach the House floor sometime
this week.

The underlying bill would help protect the firearms industry from
frivolous lawsuits brought by cities, municipalities, and radical
anti-gun interest groups.

Unfortunately, the bill was amended on the Senate floor in July by
anti-gun Democrat Senator Herb Kohl (WI), who added language
requiring licensed gun dealers to supply a trigger lock device with
every handgun sold.

House leadership is now being pressured to quickly adopt the Senate
version of the bill instead of taking up its own bill, which contains
no gun control.

While it is imperative that the Congress pass legislation to protect
the firearms industry, this bill should not be used as a vehicle for
a misguided gun control proposal.

The Kohl amendment would effectively impose a "gun tax" on all
handgun purchases.

Worse, the amendment leads gun owners to the verge of mandatory
trigger lock usage, which would actually endanger lives by rendering
self-defense firearms useless. While the amendment does not require
that gun owners use trigger locks at this point, it is easy to see
how trigger locks, like automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets,
can quickly become compulsory.

Mandatory trigger locks has long been part of the agenda of anti-gun
zealots. Though masquerading as a modest step, the amendment will
inevitably serve as a stepping-stone to more onerous legislation.

The House bill, introduced by Florida Congressman Cliff Stearns,
could potentially help protect the gun industry, but it would do so
without saddling American gun owners with yet another gun control
law.

H.R. 800, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, garnered
well over 250 cosponsors and would pass the House easily if the
leadership would bring up this bill rather than its Senate
counterpart. In that case, the bill would either go to a joint
House-Senate conference, where the different bills would be
reconciled, or back to the Senate, forcing that chamber to either
pass a clean bill or explain to voters their refusal to protect the
beleaguered gun industry.

ACTION: Please ask your Representative to urge the House leadership
to take up H.R. 800, which contains no gun control proposals, rather
than its Senate counterpart. As GOA is the only national gun lobby
insisting on a completely clean bill, it would be very helpful if
you would circulate this alert widely throughout the pro-gun
community.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a
pre-written e-mail message such as the one below.

Or, you can call your Representative toll-free at 877-762-8762.


--- Pre-written letter ---

Dear Representative:

I am saddened that the House is on the verge of passing gun control
in the name of protecting the gun industry. The House should ditch
S. 397 and use its own bill, H.R. 800, instead.

H.R. 800, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, garnered
well over 250 cosponsors and would pass the House easily if the
leadership would bring up this bill rather than its Senate
counterpart.

But S. 397 is gun control pure and simple. The Kohl trigger lock
amendment would effectively impose a "gun tax" on all handgun
purchases. Worse, the amendment leads gun owners to the verge of
mandatory trigger lock usage, which would actually endanger lives by
rendering self-defense firearms useless.

While the amendment does not require that gun owners use trigger
locks at this point, it is easy to see how trigger locks, like
automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, can quickly become
compulsory.

Mandatory trigger locks has long been part of the agenda of anti-gun
zealots. Though masquerading as a modest step, the amendment will
inevitably serve as a stepping-stone to more onerous legislation.

Please tell the Speaker and the Majority Leader of the House that S.
397 is unacceptable to gun owners. Instead, send H.R. 800 to the
Senate or tack it on as an amendment to some "must pass" legislation.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXX

====
I still believe the GOA is right on, and given a choice between the two pending bills, H.R. 800 is a no-brainer hands-down superior choice. Anything less is to fall into the anti's trap. Then all that's left is to crank up the spin about how we won the big'un (but really lost our ass).

Hmmmm..... come to think of it, seatbelts were NOT mandatory at the time of introduction. Neither were Social Security numbers, or driver's licenses, or innoculations, or automobile insurance, or hunter education courses prior to obtaining a hunting license, or...

"If that's the best argument that can be made against S397 [mandatory sale of gun locks with sale of gun], then I think most folks will feel pretty good. I still don't see any facts as to how S397 is going to lead to an ammo ban, which is the primary complaint by anti-NRA forces."

I don't argue that point. Nor do I claim, w/r to gun locks, that there is anything more in S397 than the requirement that gun locks be included in all sales of new firearms. Clearly, including gun locks with sales of new firearms is the only thing the bill addresses w/r to gun locks. Charles, you and I are on the same page with that.

Where we are missing each other is the "mission creep" element, the sprigboard element, that becomes the basis for extended or additional legislation that would not have been possible otherwise. Yes, absolutely, I know that other and additional legislation would be required for the "parade of horribles" to occurr. You and I are already on the same page with that too. S397 may not be a prerequisite, but it will surely be a step that does not have to be taken should things go against us. Why make life easy on the anti's? I don't think we should give them a damn thing.

As for the NRA winning "virtually every battle we’ve fought for years!", I wish it were so. But you did put that word "virtual" in there [in essence or effect though not in actual fact]. BCRA (McCaine-Feingold Act) comes to mind. Many organizations fought against this unConstitutional bill; lots of folks didn't because they thought the courts would strike it down later: it was part of their "strategy". Of course, it was no strategy at all: it was a hope. And a hope is a feeling, not a strategy.

Like, the "strategy" of accepting the two amendments in S397 on the "strategy" (read "hope" here) that it will be stripped it conference committee. That's a hope, not a strategy. And the reason its a hope is because the outcome is not predetermined or under the absolute control of the pro2A forces.

In my limited education and experience in the 2A arena (I only woke up about six or seven years ago), it seems to me the NRA was not always in the business of politics. It was in the business of supporting shooters, gun owners, competitors, developing safety standards, developing ranges, etc. Coming late to the politics game, they had to play catch-up. How else could it be, if on the one hand we have this highly touted steam roller of a lobby, and on the other hand, the Bush Sr./Dems/Clintons nearly destroyed the 2A? Even now, I consider the 2A (and the COTUS) to be in deep trouble, highly compromised. And yes Charles, you and I are on the same page yet again, that it will take as least as long to get it back as it took to lose it.

I kept my PDO name for use on this board because it simplifies bookkeeping and I'm not trying to hide anything. Also, I have referenced a thread of this board on PDO regarding the traveling with a handgun here in Texas. I used your logic and presentation of the topic, because that was the first time I understood the bill at all (... I hope!).

I'm just a little (lot?) more hardheaded than most folks, and am not willing to compromise much at all. So I tend to fall into the absolutist "all or nothing" crowd. However, we can argue amongst ourselves about the route and the strategy all we want or need to, so long as we have the same goals: "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

30Carb wrote: ...then why were't they defeated in S397?

They weren't defeated because they were proposed as a procedural block. Please re-read my explanation.

30Carb wrote:If its all so easy, then pass HR800.

There's not one thing easy about passing lawsuit prohibition legislation on the national level! No other industry has this kind of protection, but then no other industry (even the tobacco industry) is the target of efforts to obtain in the courts that which cannot be obtained in the Legislature.

Of course the NRA is working to pass HR800 and we will work to pass it without amendments. It's a different world in the House than in the Senate, but nothing is guaranteed. If HR800 passes without amendments, then a conference committee will be appointed and efforts will be made to clean up the conference report and present it for an up or down vote in both the House and Senate.

30Carb wrote: Truth is, there IS danger in accepting S397.

I respectfully disagree. This is nothing more than unfounded speculation and a "parade of horribles;" a scare tactic used for years by anti-gunners. While I've seen this opinion offered in other forums, I've never seen one person explain how S397 poses a danger and precisely how its provisions could/would be used to infringe on the Second Amendment. All I've ever seen is nonspecific, general condemnation of S397 and the NRA.

What is a proven fact is that lawsuits filed to achieve a political goal will drive most firearm manufacturers out of business, unless protection is achieved at the federal level. While several states, including Texas, have passed lawsuit preemption legislation, many have not and will not. All the anti-gunners need is one or two states in which to file suits and all of the protection provided by states like Texas will mean nothing. Contrary to popular opinion, the American firearms industry is very small, roughly $2 billion annually from what I’ve seen.

30Carb wrote: And shutting it down in the future may NOT be easy: who can guarantee a pro2A majority in Congress?

Even if S397 is passed in its current form, there is nothing to "shut down" in the future! S397 doesn't ban ammo, nor does it create a basis for doing so without future legislation, as some have claimed. If we loose a pro-second amendment majority in both the House and Senate, then we're in trouble and the anti's won't need S397 to do their worst. Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer and Clinton will be drafting all sorts of anti-gun legislation and they won’t need S397 to do it! One of the best ways to aid an anti-gun take-over of the House or Senate is to weaken the NRA with false attacks and claims of the NRA supporting gun control legislation.

30Carb wrote: NRA should be lobbying for HR800 and not for more gun control.

Of course the NRA is supporting HR800. If S397 is a gun control measure, why then is the Brady Campaign and every anti-gun Senator and House Member going berserk trying to kill it!?

Respectfully,
Chas.

"They weren't defeated because they were proposed as a procedural block. Please re-read my explanation. " I was well aware of the procedural block that you refer to when I made this comment. It detracts nothing from my point. The pro2A forces were in reactive mode, reacting to anti2A innitiatives: "avoid a Kennedy or Schumer amendment on AP rounds, 50 cal. ban, and gun show loop-hole." The anti's brought up these amendments to elicit exactly the response the pro2A forces gave them. If its easy in the future (no one can offer assure to anyone for a claim like that), it must surely be easy today with a pro2A Senate, House, and President. The future is unknown. I stand as stated.

If the NRA is supporting HR800 over S397, why is it that all I hear about is NRA's support of S397? All the hardcore pro2A groups are going crazy everytime they mention S397, and no one documents NRA's committments to HR800. I certainly would like to see references to NRA's unbridled support of HR800 over S397. Perhaps you could ease my mind.

"There's not one thing easy about passing lawsuit prohibition legislation on the national level!" I agree completely, but that was not my subject. I was referring to the bills that YOU said would be "easy" to kill.

"This is nothing more than unfounded speculation .... While I've seen this opinion offered in other forums, I've never seen one person explain how S397 poses a danger and precisely how its provisions could/would be used to infringe on the Second Amendment." Its provisions ARE an infringement to the 2A. Not a could/would. ARE. If you cannot buy a gun without buying a lock, that is an infringement. Being able to buy a gun with or without a lock would not be an infringement. Its not speculation; its fact.

"Even if S397 is passed in its current form, there is nothing to "shut down" in the future!" Of course there is. Like: since you have the locks, now you have to use them. Or: since you have the locks, if you are found to have the gun without the locks, you are in violaiton of safe storage (whether the gun is locked or not). Or: you cannot sell a gun without the lock. Anything could be added to extend the lock provision. Is this a scare tactic? You darn tootin it is! Because any crack in the door for an anti to slip through scares the bejeeses out of me, and it ought to scare the pants off of you too. If we lose the pro2A majority, we should at least not provide our enemy a head start.

I am interested in a strong, hard-hitting NRA. No bull. Active, like working with SAF to shutdown the arms confiscation from lawful citizens in New Orleans. Now, THAT is action! And THAT is what I like.

I'm an NRA member, have been for five years, and will continue to be a member. As a member, I feel free to criticise, if not obligated, to criticise. We need a strong NRA and if criticism and housecleaning is what it takes, so be it. If boardmembers cannot stand the criticism, they need to step aside to make room for those who can listen and learn from the people they represent.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The gun lock provision requires only that all newly manufactured firearms be shipped with a lock. This is already being done by many manufactures, so it simply requires them to keep doing what many are doing already. More importantly, the argument that this will make it easy to extend the law to requiring the use of gun locks is ludicrous. That would take an entirely new bill that would be easily defeated.

Also, the "study" is only to determine whether a uniform testing procedure is feasible. We know it is as this type of AP testing has been done for years. Just as with trigger locks, the idea that this provision could/would be used to prohibit any particular type of ammo is without any merit. This too would require a completely new bill that also would be defeated....

...then why were't they defeated in S397? The anti's will not be empty-handed next time either. If its all so easy, then pass HR800.

Truth is, there IS danger in accepting S397. And shutting it down in the future may NOT be easy: who can guarantee a pro2A majority in Congress? NRA should be lobbying for HR800 and not for more gun control.