Since the phrase "mandatory trigger locks" has become quite popular of late as part of the recent "gun control" furor, I have a couple of questions. First, we know there's a vast difference between "mandatory to be sold along with a gun", and "mandatory to be used by all people at all times". We know both are fairly described as "mandatory trigger locks". We know that any such legislation, if constitutional at all, should be decided at the state, not federal level. And finally, we know that the former is much less intrusive, less violative of the second amendment, and far less likely to lead to search and seizure rights violations than the latter. Questions:
1. Are the current proposals at the fed level, like the Juve Justice bill provisions, mandatory to be sold with, or mandatory to have on the guns in the home? I know there's a House & Senate version, but are they the same or different? Chuckie Schumer on "This Week" this week, after Charlton Heston had his say, accused the NRA of turning all gun control into "swiss cheese" (full of giant loopholes), and that's why enforcement doesn't work, because no real "gun control" had ever passed. Is Chuck meaning to imply, among other things, that the trigger lock provision in Juve Justice is a "loophole" because it provides the "to be sold with" type of mandate rather than "must use at all times" type of mandate, aka "let me get my gun, and then try to get that damn lock off, and [too late, I'm dead]" type?
2. Is there a good way for future discussions to readily distinguish between the two? Any good shorthand name for the malevolent latter type, which must be fought hard against, IMO, because its dangerousness and bad precedent?
1. Are the current proposals at the fed level, like the Juve Justice bill provisions, mandatory to be sold with, or mandatory to have on the guns in the home? I know there's a House & Senate version, but are they the same or different? Chuckie Schumer on "This Week" this week, after Charlton Heston had his say, accused the NRA of turning all gun control into "swiss cheese" (full of giant loopholes), and that's why enforcement doesn't work, because no real "gun control" had ever passed. Is Chuck meaning to imply, among other things, that the trigger lock provision in Juve Justice is a "loophole" because it provides the "to be sold with" type of mandate rather than "must use at all times" type of mandate, aka "let me get my gun, and then try to get that damn lock off, and [too late, I'm dead]" type?
2. Is there a good way for future discussions to readily distinguish between the two? Any good shorthand name for the malevolent latter type, which must be fought hard against, IMO, because its dangerousness and bad precedent?