Massachusetts: A leader in gun safety ???

Dark Avenger

New member
A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL
A leader in gun safety

f all the different ways to make handguns less likely to be accidental killers, then-Attorney General Scott Harshbarger came up with one of the most ingenious in 1997. Massachusetts law, he said, gave him authority to regulate the safety of consumer items - such as guns. To pass muster, guns sold here would have to be built with trigger locks, child-safety devices, tamper-proof serial numbers, and indicators showing whether they are loaded. They couldn't be cheap, accident-prone Saturday Night Specials.


For three years, the gun makers fought the rules in court and lost. Last month, the deadline for a final legal appeal passed, and yesterday Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly announced that the rules are now in effect for all guns sold in Massachusetts, whether manufactured here or elsewhere.


At the least, the new rules should go far toward reducing Massachusetts' share of the 40,000 gun deaths that occur nationally each year. In 1996, 138 children under 14 died in gun accidents nationwide. A study by the General Accounting Office found that fully 30 percent of all accidental shootings could be prevented by indicators or devices making it more difficult for adults or children to fire inadvertently weapons they think are unloaded.


But the national impact of the Harshbarger-Reilly rules could be even greater. At least 30 other states have laws giving attorneys general powers similar to Reilly's. Once his counterparts see Massachusetts successfully setting safety standards, many will likely move in this direction, too.


Congress, in a customary kowtow to the gun lobby, has specifically exempted the firearms industry from regulation by the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission. But if enough states follow Massachusetts' lead, such safety measures could become virtually standard nationwide.


Much besides safety measures must be done. Reilly is fending off legal challenges of the state's 1998 gun-control law that would, among other things, make gun owners responsible for the safe storage of their weapons. That law, combined with the safety rules, will make this state a leader in reforming Shooting Gallery America.


This story ran on page A22 of the Boston Globe on 4/4/2000.
© Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Almost everything that they are trying to make "illegal" via backdoor methods are already actionable through pre-existing liability, consumer protection, criminal law, and tort law. This is Law for Idiots. If you can't get someone convicted without getting every possible permutation of behavior covered by a statute, then you don't belong in the courtroom.

Massachusetts is quickly becoming "Massive Two Sh*ts"

(Oops the single malt is talking there).
 
But if enough states follow Massachusetts' lead, such safety measures could become virtually standard nationwide.


Yeah... that's what worries me. :(
 
I thought "cheap Saturday night specials" were dealt with way back when RFK was assainated...and THAT gun control act (1968?) made them illegal.I may have the date wrong.But lately...I keep hearing the anti's talking about banning them. I thought they were banned! Help me..puhleese! :)
 
Are there any reasonable ideas buried in the Massachusetts and Maryland gun control packages? These seem reasonable to me: (1) That semi-autos should have loaded chamber indicators (or they shouldn't fire with no magazine inserted). (2) That owners should be liable for negligent storage of firearms resulting in death or injury (I can't imagine that we aren't now). (3) That there should be tax credits to encourage the purchase of gun safes.

Locks? Trigger locks are unsatisfactory in just about every way, but if the soccer moms will feel better knowing they're provided with guns, then fine, throw one in. Manufacturers already are, anyway. I don't have any experience with the Taurus-type of built-in lock, but in pictures it looks OK. The important point is that nobody has to actually use any kind of lock, subject to liability concerns, and the extra cost is trivial.

I don't know what is meant by a "child safety device," if that is something different from a lock.

Tamper-proof serial numbers? I couldn't care less.

The smart gun technology that Gov. Fumble wants within 3 years is a complete unknown. If something is developed but doesn't work, nobody will buy it. If it works, but costs too much, nobody will buy it. If something is developed that works and doesn't cost too much, some people will buy it. If nothing is developed in three years, the time limit will be extended.

But the pressure will be constant to DO SOMETHING to keep guns out of the hands of kids and lunatics. Locks and smartguns are attempts to do that. If we don't like those methods, then we have to come up with different ones. You can't fight something with nothing for very long.

Byron
 
Dear Mr X,

Never fear, Larry is here!
To answer your query!

Satireday night specials were banned in 1968 and again in 1986 and yet again in 1997,1998 and 1999 :

The reason for five bans of Satireday night specials is because the anti civil rights gun grabbers
keep changing the definition of satireday
night specials to suit their whim so that they can keep including more and more previously legal sidearms under that catch all phrase in order to facilate their unconstitutional, anti civil rights, honest, law abiding victim disarmament policies, as well as their armed criminal enablement policies.

Their plan is to disarm the law abiding while doing nothing to prevent any criminal from getting any number of whatever crime guns they want.

In fact,the socialist's victim disarmament policy makes it far safer for armed criminals to invade your home because their intended victim,you,will be as disarmed and helpless as the colimbine victims were and will die waiting for the police to save
abd protect you, just like the Colimbine victims died.

Why else would they aim their anti civil rights victim disarmament laws at the honestand law abiding good guys while ignoring the criminals?

------------------
GUN CONTROL puts THE CONTROL
in the hands of THE CRIMINALS.

--------------------------------
You all have my permision to
use any of these"signatures"
here, if you like!
---------------------------

-They call 'em POLUTE-TICIANS because they POLUTE the MINDS
of OUR CHILDERN with their ANTI civil/firearms RIGHTS SOCIALIST
political agendas. We of the older generations know B.S.
when we hear it.
-----------------------------------------------
In 2000, we must become politically active in
support of gun rights or we WILL LOSE the right
& the freedom.
-------------------------
NO FATE BUT WHAT WE MAKE!!!
----------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
not to take live but to preserve life,....limb & family
.Gun Control Democrats would prefer that they are all disarmed
and helpless and die victims of felony violence,instead.

Protect your gun rights, go to:
http://home.xnet.com/~gizmonic/TheMarch.html
and sign up as a helper or attendee or state organizer.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"!
http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
Dear Byron,

You should cultivate the habit of looking beyond the obvious first step taken by a anti civil rights gun control bill and
employ forsight to ferret out the next odious
infringment that the people control/victim disarmament crowd is looking foward to saddling us with next.

Here in Conn. where I reside, we have had trigger lock law since 1993.

If we fail to lock our firearm and some one steals it,loads it and harms himself or others, the owner of the stolen firearm is criminally libal for the hospital bills,pain & suffering,loss of income through out the remainder of expected lifetime and nursing home care of the affected victim.

Judgements here in Conn.
have run into the millions of dollars against just one lawfull fire arm owner who did not use a trigger lock on his 30/06 bolt action rifle.

He lost his farm and farm house, his car,all his bank accounts and had his pay attached as well as having his rifle confiscated.

With these entities, you must always expect the very worst motives and then you will never be disappointed and always be right.


Governor Fumbles of Maryland who needs 3 minutes and the help of a trained police officer to remove a so called "simple trigger lock" , wants a "smart gun" bill for Maryland.

Niel Knox reported that Gov. Fumbles reciently dumbed down his smart gun bill by
allowing the continued sales of normal guns after the smart guns were available on the market.

Gov. Fumbles just said that to make passage of the bill into law easier.
He never meant to adhere to that.
He means to ban sales of normal guns once smart guns are available.

The anti civil rights elitests were furious with him.

What should be, but I fear, is not obvious
here is that once smart guns are available for sale:

1. no member of the firearms community in their right mind would pay the
extra 600.oo for a gun which could not be depended to work in a life threatening situation where as little as 3 seconds
spell the difference between life and death.

What happens if you drop the gun and the
electronics fail?

What happens if the batteries go dead?

What happens if the batteries fail to make proper comtact?

What happens in the rain when the circuits get wet?

Because none of us are stupid enough to ever buy one of these overpriced junk guns of our own free will,
our government will force us to buy this overpriced and unwanted junk against our
free will by banning and outlawing the sale of normal guns.

And then, the anti civil firearms rights socialist gun grabbers will claim that our constitutional rights have not been infringed, yet again, because we still have the right to keep & bear arms because we will still be allowed and permitted to purchase smart guns.

Please read the digital angel smart gun danger thread if you have not already.

It tells of how a GPS locater, your id,serial# make & model, date & time transmitter with satalite programing and deactivation of firing circuit can easily be incoporated into smart gun circuitry.

Digital Angel can preform a Brady check before activating your smart gun firing circuit.

But then, who wants to wait 10 minutes for their gun to recieve the activation code from your-- police state-- monitor?

Digital angel is existing technoligy just waiting to be incorporated with smart gun technoligy.

enjoy! An beware, be vary wary! The tricksters are out to dis arm us.

[This message has been edited by ernest2 (edited April 05, 2000).]
 
APnews


At least safety locks keep Bozo's finger off the trigger!
 
Looks like Tom Reilly looks uncomfortable with that big goober pointing that "safe" pistol at him.

The rest of my thoughts about that photo I will leave to your imagination.
 
BYRON:

Addressing your three points -

1. A load indicator would be a nice addition to a pistol. However, better training is best. As always you should not assume any gun is not loaded unless you personally have checked the chamber. Relying on a gadget to do it for you is not the best idea. Forcing the public into this mindset is foolish.

2. Yup. I am sure that any attorney worth his salt could sue for negligence, and the Commonwealth could prosecute for about 10 different levels of criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, etc. But that would not be enough since these law are specifically targeting - (gasp) GUNS!

3. All for tax breaks for safes. No argument there. However it is still not the job of government to be spending my money on safes.
 
Ernest2: There is no question that the gun haters/grabbers are out to disarm everyone any way they can, without regard for truth, justice, or the American Way. But they are extremists who don't represent very many people, at least so far. Because of a cooperative media, HCI is able to make noise that far exceeds its membership, which is pretty damned small. My fear is that if we take a bitter-end approach we will tip a lot of people over to their side, because we will make them appear mainstream. They are obviously trying to appear that way lately, with their constant use of terms like "reasonable" and "commonsense", and their abandoning of public statements about what their long-term goals really are. These are smart tactics on their part; whatever else these people are, they aren't necessarily stupid. The great majority of people are somewhere in the middle on this issue, like on most issues, their attention to it comes and goes depending on events, and they are turned off by extremists of any persuasion. If something is a good idea, supporting it is not a compromise. I don't think you and I have any disagreement about what is going on here; this is only about tactics.

Dark Avenger: Yes, but there are two problems with training. First, most people don't get any. None. Second, people who are well trained, being human, will still screw up. Haven't we all? I know I have. If a safety indicator will provide that marginal edge, then we should be for it. Every accident is another arrow in HCI's quiver.

A guy here in Albuquerque just yesterday put a bullet through his own finger and into his friend's face, killing him, because he "didn't know the gun was loaded." I haven't seen full details, but I'd bet $100 right now he was operating a semi-auto on which he'd dropped the magazine. A friend of mine, who is about as well trained as it is possible to be, made the same mistake one day at the range and could have shot me with his .45 Springfield. This no-mag-but-loaded error is one I've observed repeatedly and committed myself, I'm sorry to admit. On a dangerous device built to be used by fallible human beings, it's a design flaw, IMO. (Sorry, Jeff Cooper.) In the hands of an untrained person, or a momentarily careless or distracted trained person, a semi-auto without a chamber indicator or, better, a magazine disconnect, is an accident waiting to happen. This may be something we just disagree about.
 
Byron, we certainly can disagree about such things. But we cannot compromise, because every time we do they come back for more. We're in a battle, and compromise is like letting one enemy into your foxhole with the promise that more won't join him. Soon you're overrun. We may not win every battle, but we can't back down. If we do, they'll just gain more ground.

BTW, someone should send that bozo in the photo a copy of the four rules of firearms handling.

Dick
 
Back
Top