NRA against gun owners now?
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
Charles L. Cotton
- Site Admin
- Posts in topic: 11
- Posts: 17787
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
Continuing the S397 thing...
"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."
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
- Site Admin
- Posts in topic: 11
- Posts: 17787
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
That's a valid point and a threat we must be constantly addressing. We saw it as we improved the Texas CHL statute and we'd better do it in the federal level in spades!30Carb wrote:Where we are missing each other is the "mission creep" element, . . .
You are absolutely right! We lost the BCRA fight in the Legislature and in the Supreme Court, primarily for the reasons you stated. Everyone thought the NRA was using Chicken Little's line "the sky is falling" and ignored our warnings. It wasn't that House Members and Senators had turned on us, but they thought we were over-reacting. I couldn't count the times I was told "it'll never pass; if it does Bush will veto it; and if he doesn't the Supreme Court will strike it down." Well they were wrong and we lost the battle. Of course, we also became the "media" and our message went out anyway. That’s why McCaine wants to amend BCRA to “close some loop holes.� Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?30Carb wrote: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.
We agree again! The entire COTUS has been under almost constant attack since the Roosevelt court packing plan in the 1930's and the expansion of the Commerce Clause is in my opinion the greatest threat. Justice O'Connor's statement that the Supreme Court must look to opinions from courts of other countries to render opinions more in line with world opinion and values is terrifying. Even more terrifying is the fact that the U.S. House didn't immediately start impeachment proceedings and that my colleagues in the Bar didn’t raise our voices in unison against this absurd notion. There is but one standard for U.S. Supreme Court justices - the United States Constitution. (Sorry, this is a real hot button for me.)30Carb wrote:Even now, I consider the 2A (and the COTUS) to be in deep trouble, highly compromised.
I do the same thing and didn't mean to imply you were trying to hide anything.30Carb wrote:I kept my PDO name for use on this board because it simplifies bookkeeping and I'm not trying to hide anything.
I respect that and fully agree.30Carb wrote: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."
Regards,
Chas.
Latest from GOA on the topic H.R. 800 vs S. 397 and beyond
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...
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...
-
Charles L. Cotton
- Site Admin
- Posts in topic: 11
- Posts: 17787
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
S397 was never dead; GOA is wrong again, proving it doesn't have a clue what's going on in Washington. What GOA either doesn't realize, or chooses not to disclose, is that there is too little time left to push H.R. 800 through the House, then to a conference committee, then back to the House and Senate. If S 397 does not pass the House, then the American firearms industry will not get the protection it needs and gun owners will suffer.
Chas.
S397 hardly "leads gun owners to the verge of mandatory trigger lock usage." This would require an entirely new statute, but we've already covered this in detail.Worse, the amendment leads gun owners to the verge of mandatory trigger lock usage, . . . 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.
Chas.
-
stevie_d_64
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 7590
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
- Location: 77504
This is still an amazing and dynamic discussion...
Y'all still better be friends, or as someone said to me the other day...
"I'm going to turn this car around!"
It is neat how an issue, on a piece of legislation in Oregon, can get this much playtime in Texas...
If anything its a learning experience...
Y'all still better be friends, or as someone said to me the other day...
"I'm going to turn this car around!"
It is neat how an issue, on a piece of legislation in Oregon, can get this much playtime in Texas...
If anything its a learning experience...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
-
Charles L. Cotton
- Site Admin
- Posts in topic: 11
- Posts: 17787
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
Charles and I are on the same side of the fence. The only difference is I'm paranoid and pessimistic, and he is neither.stevie_d_64 wrote: Y'all still better be friends, or as someone said to me the other day...
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.
-
stevie_d_64
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 7590
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
- Location: 77504
Thats a good analogy...30Carb wrote:Charles and I are on the same side of the fence. The only difference is I'm paranoid and pessimistic, and he is neither.stevie_d_64 wrote: Y'all still better be friends, or as someone said to me the other day...
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.
BTW, whats the opposite of paranoia and pessimism???
Niaetivity and optimism??? Chas??? Nahhhhhh...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
-
Charles L. Cotton
- Site Admin
- Posts in topic: 11
- Posts: 17787
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
-
stevie_d_64
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 7590
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
- Location: 77504
Delivered with the intent to cause "pause" in the process...A "mental double-take" does wonders for the cause...Charles L. Cotton wrote:That's a great analogy! I'm going to use it in D.C.stevie_d_64 wrote: Thats a good analogy...
Chas.
I find myself more often these days really wondering why there is this continued "hack" at this very basic principle we hold so dear...And desire to the core of our beliefs to protect it...
As an individual its hard to do...Being part of a group or organization its like getting left behind sometimes and getting the juicy tidbits of information very sparingly...
I for one would love to be able to sit in and participate on some of these "hearings", and ask some very politically uncorrect questions of our elected officials...I don't care what they think of that either, or that I may not understand "how things really work" attitude...
I think the way things are working now is almost completely wrong...Sure there are some victories in some of the battles, but for the most part we should be doing things from a position of strength, not from a position of apologetic apathy...
blah blah blah Steve...You don't know squat...
The best remedy I have for this poor attitude I have sometimes, is a box through my favorite handgun...Kinda calms me down...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
This guy says it like I'm thinking it.
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."
"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."
-
dws1117
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 1759
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:54 pm
- Location: Spring, TX.
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?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.
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.dws1117 wrote: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?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.
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.