MMM and trigger locks: This warrants a closer look

F

Futo Inu

New member
OK, when Cokie was interviewing Rosie, one topic that cam up was (paraphrasing) "Rosie, why don't you support a bill that has just [trigger locks mandate], instead of holding out for a bill that has [trigger locks and more]?" She said this as though everyone on both sides of the Congress, support mandatory trigger locks, and that passing it alone would be no problem at all. This was strongly implied by the way the questions were asked.

HOLD THE PHONE! The reality of a trigger lock mandate really sunk in this weekend.

First off, these talking heads never discuss the oh-so-critical distinction between "mandatory to sell with a firearm" and "mandatory to keep on all your firearms". But, let's assume, as I believe is the case, that the MMM and antis believe they have support from a majority in Congress, for the latter, thousand times more sinister type. And put aside for a moment that even if it were a good idea, it most certainly should be done at the state level, not federal.

Folks, if this passes, I WILL BE MADE INTO AN INSTANT CRIMINAL at that point in time, because I will not comply with keeping locks on firearms I use for self-defense purposes!!! So far, I have "swallowed" the radical infringements of the 1994 law, as have many (I don't make "assault weapons" by putting pre-ban uppers on post bans lowers, etc., even though it's my clear constitutional right to do so). But if a law is passsed that says "all citizens must keep trigger locks on handguns when not in use", this will push me over the edge, because I won't do it, and if the gov't tries to enforce it, I will fight back with deadly force to defend my rights. This could be the turning point in the gov't pushing its subjects into revolt, because most people I know who keep firearms for self-defense, will not comply with this utter silliness that will render us just as dead as if we had no firearms, in a self-defense emergency. Guys, this is serious, serious business, IMO, unless there is something I'm missing. Any thoughts?
 
IMHO, A better way to address this issue is a law like Florida's that makes it a crime for a gun owner to allow unsupervised access to a minor. Some parents here are up on charges now because their preteen kid took their loaded .380 to school to be "cool". Again IMHO, they should be up on charges. If they can't manage the weapon, they ought not to have it.

Instead of mandating locks, demand responsibility.
 
Futo Inu,

I'm already practicing civil disobedience. If madatory installed trigger locks becomes law, it will just be one more that I refuse to obey.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
Rosie said last week that she wants all handguns banned

Requiring triggerlocks on you carry piece at all times is a step in the right direction for Rosie

dZ
 
David, of course you're absolutely right. RIGHT NOW, I am the attorney in a personal injury case where a 9-year old girl is my client (the plaintiff) suing, in addition to the shooter (a 15-year old boy), the parents of the boy who supplied the firearm, under a state law that provides more or less strict liability (civilly) on the parents when they are the cause of the gun ending up in a minor's hands and causing harm (in a negligent way - this would not include a theft of the firearm, as happened for example with the Jonesboro, Ark school shootings). This civil penalty is strict and certainly not unique to this state. This is in addition to criminal penalties that the DA might charge for homocide (if death occurs), or even child neglect/negligent battery, where the negligence was gross/reckless. So there are already plenty of laws in place to handle these situations (imagine that). Once again, it's ENFORCEMENT of the existing laws that is needed (in this case, common law and statutory law of negligence). Incidentally, the boy (shooter) is serving 3 years in juve hall, so the system is working fine, though perhaps he should have gotten more for playing "other person Russian Roulette" with an unwilling 9-year old girl. The girl did recover from her wounds, fortunately.
 
Folks, take pen to paper and tell your elected officials where you stand on the destinction. (Or type it...)
 
The MMMer in Phoenix (our counter march stomped 'em) was shown on TV calling for "Mandatory Trigger locks and the legislation to back them up [put some teeth into it]. Meaning, a DC-style law were guns must be locked except for sporting purposes, and self defense isn't a sporting purpose.

Rick
 
Futo,

Thanks for proving my point with a real life case. Whatever else anyone thinks about gun control or RKBA, it is just plain stupid, irresponsible and shoddy parenting when a kid strolls off with Mom or Dad's gun and plugs somebody. I hope your client makes a full recovery, and I hope you and her whack the socks off 'em in court. You might just convince other parents to take precautions, and eventually save a life.
 
"Stupidity" is the greatest campaign contributor to the Democratic party.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now joing the GOA!
 
David Scott et al:

No one will argue that parents should not be responsible with their guns. But, where does it end? If your young teen (or child) gets your car keys and takes off in your car and kills someone, are you to be jailed for not locking your keys up? It has happened more than a few times, so I am not using a red herring example. Or, if your teen gets into your liquor cabinet and gets his friends drunk, possibly has sex with a drunk girl, are you responsible for getting teens drunk, and are you responsible for rape? Where does it end? Do we have to lock up everything in our house, and if our kid gets a hold of any dangerous item and hurts someone, we are responsible for the damage because we did not lock everything up?
80% of knife homocides are commited with kitchen knives, so should we chain our kitchen knives to the counter with a two foot chain so that they cannot be used for anything but cutting at the counter? ("If it saves just one life it is worth it"...?) We would have to lock up every single thing in our home in order to insure that our kid did not get a hold of it, hurt someone, and then get us thrown in jail for it.
No one will argue that parents do not hold responsibility and need to take reasonable measures to keep dangerous objects away from their kids, but where exactly does it all end?

Far more children die from drowning in small open buckets than from guns. Do we prosecute the parent who left the toilet seat up and his kid fell in the toilet head first and drown? Do we prosecute the mom who ran and got the phone "just for a second" and her child fell in the pool and died? Do we make mandatory cabinet locks because far more children die of poisoning every year? and how do we enforce that rule? Do we go to every parent's home and check to make sure they have a cabinet lock on the kitchen cabinet? Make sure mom locks up her iron pills because so many kids die of iron poisoning? (and the iron pills don't even offer a "safety lid" like aspirin, which is another thing that kids kill themselves with many times a year.)
Do we make laws that these things have to be locked up? How do we enforce the laws? Send social workers to every parent's home to go through with a "safety checklist"? Throw parents in jail if their kid is running with scissors they found and stabs their friend in the liver on accident?

And, what about neighbors and relatives? If we send social workers to safety-check every parent's home, then what about their neighbrs and relatives? Kids will eventually be visiting these people, so we will need to have their homes safety-checked too. That means that even if you don't have little kids, that you will be getting a visit eventually from a federal safety agent to go through every corner of your home to do a safety inspection "for your own good and for the good of the children".

And lastly, since all these things threaten kids far more than guns do, then how come the Million Moms have no interest in making laws concerning these things like drownings and poisonings? Could it possibly be because the media has them whipped up into an emotional frenzy by reporting gun incidents 740% more than they used to, even though all gun crimes and gun accidents are at an all time LOW?

[This message has been edited by CassandraComplex (edited May 15, 2000).]
 
After the revolution we'll reign in the press. LOL

You are, of course, correct. I can go along with civil liability for the misuse of someone's dangerous property. I cannot go along with criminal liability though.

[rant]
American jurisprudence has been stood on it's head by these warm, fuzzy, feelgood measures that an overzealous public demands and overzealous prosecutors are willing to bestow. Consider the following:

1. There are no accidents any more. everything must be assigned a blame.

2. Someone must be charged and prosecuted regardless of intention or participation.

3. Motive has all but been eliminated from American jurisprudence. American jurisprudence used to be predicated on three things for a successful prosecution: means (or method), motive (or intent), and opportunity. These days, means and opportunity suffice for a successful prosecution. No longer is motive necessary. Examples?

Gun laws. You are walking down the street peacefully carrying a concealed firearm for self defense. If arrested, you will be arrested and prosecuted on means and opportunity only. Yes, you had the means (the firearm); and yes, you had the opportunity (the people around you). But what was your MOTIVE? There was none but maybe the folks will send you smokes while you're away in the pokey.

Another good example is zero tolerance. Every day, kids without motive are dismissed from school for having simple things like nail clippers (means) in school (opportunity) but they have no MOTIVE. How do mwe get these kids back once they have been declared abberant in the face of no desire to do wrong?

4. In a country that was founded on the principle that the sins of the father shall not be visited on the son (corruption of blood), why are we so anxious to visit the sins of the son on the father?

This is what the British oppressors did to us when they threw the entire family in jail for a crime committed by any member of that family. I thought we threw off that yoke 220+ years ago but here we are, ready to stick our shoulders under it again in the most "Yes, Master" way.

I see that many of you have bought into this "Prosecute 'em! prosecute 'em all!" attitude. That is wrong. If there is no culpability, why send someone to jail? The answer to that is to assuage the passions of the <enter choice>

victims
constituency
press
agenda organizations
all of the above

Although I see many structured, thoughtful posts on these boards, sometimes I wonder how intelligent people can buy into these things that are stripping our country of its former glory and sending her down a road to fifedom from which she shall never return.
[/rant]

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CassandraComplex:
David Scott et al:

...If your young teen <commits any of a variety of illegal acts using your property>... Where does it end? Do we have to lock up everything in our house, and if our kid gets a hold of any dangerous item and hurts someone, we are responsible for the damage because we did not lock everything up? [/quote]

All of the other objects you mentioned have legitimate, peaceful day to day uses. Firearms are designed for one purpose, to kill. (I know we have shooting sports, but they're an outgrowth of weapons practice). Since a firearm is a "killing device", yes, it should be the owner's responsibility to ensure that it is stored and used safely. I would put similar blame on a parent who left rat poison where a toddler could eat it. Not storing your weapons securely is culpable negligence.

In general, I support the idea that parents should share responsibility when their minor children commit criminal acts. It's a parent's responsibility to raise a child properly, and don't tell me they can't compete with peer pressure and the media. That's a cop out. I know; my wife and I have raised a good citizen who's now a self-supporting, law abiding member of society as well as a good husband.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>And, what about neighbors and relatives?
Neighbors and relatives are responsible for the safety of their own guns. No one's talking about having social workers get warrants to safety-check people's homes, but if my kid found a loaded, unsecured handgun while visiting a friend's house and got shot with it, I would hold that gun owner accountable for his negligence.

Jimpeel, I take your point about the difference between civil and criminal liability, but I'll have to think about that one. The problem with civil liability is that it can only extract money from the guilty, and it can be insured against, making it a low-impact thing for people with enough money. The problem with criminal liability is that the record could stick with a person forever, no matter what lessons they learn or how much they regret what happened. I also agree with you that there's too many people trying to shift blame via lawsuits. It's important to apply the "prudent person" test. A "prudent" person does not chug a case of beer and try to drive, so drunk driving is the result of imprudence and therefore culpable. I believe a "prudent" person does not leave a firearm loaded or unsecured; it's either in his physical possession or it's locked up.

And lastly, since all these things threaten kids far more than guns do, then how come the Million Moms have no interest in making laws concerning these things like drownings and poisonings? Could it possibly be because the media has them whipped up into an emotional frenzy by reporting gun incidents 740% more than they used to, even though all gun crimes and gun accidents are at an all time LOW?
Click to expand...

I think you're quite right here, I think they're well meaning moms who have mixed up priorities and the wrong end of the stick when it comes to solutions.

PS: Before I get jumped on for my definition of a firearm as a "Killing Device", I should say that I don't consider this a negative. There are times when killing is necessary, and you may as well have the best tool for the job.
Click to expand...
 
You said:

"All of the other objects you mentioned have legitimate, peaceful day to day uses. Firearms are designed for one purpose, to kill."

Excuse me, but my guns, and the FAR majority of guns, have a very legitimate, PEACEFUL, day-to-day use. How about your guns? Are your guns not peaceful? Or, maybe they are just inherently evil objects waiting to be unleashed to wreak havok and death? Do your guns not have a day-to-day use? I carry mine legally every day to protect my family, just like citizens in 31 other States. I don't know about you, but my guns have brought me a lot of peace, and have brought this country a lot of peace. And, I use my gun(s) every day to fullfill that daily peaceful, legitimate use of protecting me as well as bringing me pleasure. I don't know what you are doing with your guns, but if they are not "legitimate" and "peaceful", then you should get rid of them, because that means you are using our guns for things other than peace, and that means you are one of the few violent criminals that misuses guns and gives the rest of us a bad name.


So, is a child more dead if shot with a gun accidentally rather than stabbed with a kitchen knife accidentally? Is the parent more responsible?
Knives are designed for one thing: to cut. If a child is cut with a knife s/he found, is the parent a criminal?
What if the knife is not a regular knife but an "assault knife" (a mean looking hunting knife) that is "designed to kill". Then, is the parent criminally charged?

All the cleaning agents in your house are designed to kill. They only kill small organisms in small doses, but what about in large doses? If your child drinks cleaning solution it will do what it is designed to do: it will kill them.

Alcohol is designed to inebriate people. If your kid gets into your alcohol and MISUSES it (like misusing a gun) and gets drunk and kills someone, or rapes a girl he gets drunk, are you responsible?

Cars drive fast, toilets are designed to flush, hot water comes out of our taps and stoves are designed to cook. All will kill a child doing what they are designed to do. Where does your distinction lie on what we prosecute parents for, and what is just an accident?

You said:

"if my kid found a loaded, unsecured handgun while visiting a friend's house and got shot with it, I would hold that gun owner accountable for his negligence."

I would be highly pissed off too! But, I would first point the finger at myself. Why didn't I teach my kid better than that? Why didn't I teach him to leave the area if he sees a gun, and go tell an adult? Just like if my neighbor had an open swimming pool with no cover, I would hope to teach my child to stay away from it.
Sure, I would be angry at that parent, but does that mean that I want the government to pass a law that we all have to have trigger locks on our guns, with criminal prosectuion if I don't? You are saying that even if I am not a parent, if I have a gun under my pillow for protection, and someone brings over an uneducated child that kills itself, then I am a criminal? In fact, you are saying that I am a criminal before the child even comes over because I have an unlocked gun. And, if I am a criminal, or suspected of being one, then that means the gov't can come in my home to make sure I am complying with the law. That means they can come in all our homes to make sure we are complying with the law. In fact, they have to come in and check, in order to enforce the law, especially since we are now telling them to start enforcing gun laws to the highest extent. That means you and me.

I fully agree that around kids these things should ALL be locked up AND the child should be educated, and any parent that does not do this is an idiot and not a good parent, but just take a look at where you are heading with this when you involve the government.
Many of us thought that suing tobacco indistries was a good idea too, except now we realize that we unleashed a power that we can not reign back in. The government is now using that power to sue anyone that they cannot legislate. Any time you open the door to the government, they take that opening and move forward with it. This is not paranoid delusion, or slippery slope arguning, this is FACT, repeated again and again in history. The governments role is to regulate, whether or not we like it, and it always gets more powerful. Look around you at examples and tell me where you see the government giving up power, taking intrusional regulatory programs and closing them down, rather that taking their programs and increasing their power.
If you make parents vulnerable to the State for not locking up their gun, then you are inviting the State to regulate your home. You are opening the door to something that you will regret to have begun.

Running ad campaigns telling parents to make their guns safe is a great idea. Telling the State to prosecute people for it is not. I am all for having people brow-beaten, and even civilly liable for WRECKLESS behavior, but I wll never endorse having the State tell me how to run my home, with criminal prosecution looming if I do not.

I think that the anti's have already gotten to you for your opening line. Guns are not made to kill...and they are tools anyway, not really MADE to do anything by themselves. They are designed to protect good people, feed people, and bring pleasure and they do just that the FAR majority of the time. A gun does it's job every time it is brandished to stop a criminal and NOT fired. If a gun was only good for killing, then every person would have to be shot to death to stop a criminal act. If guns were just designed for killing, then how come we have not had to kill any government agents in order to stop their infringement? The answer is, because the presence of guns stops them, not the killing with guns. Guns don't need to kill anyone to do what they are designed to do.
If a cigarette is used as directed, it will kill you. If a gun is used as directed, it will make you safe and bring you pleasure and it will 99% of the time never be used kill a single creature.

By your logic, only things that are "designed to kill" really kill children and the rest of the things that kill children are just accidents that are acceptable. I am having trouble believing that you are even a male of our species due to the lacking of your logic.


And, why single out the one thing that threatens our kids the LEAST? Why not focus on things that really threaten our kids? How about bathtub safety devices? Mandatory cabinet locks on ALL homes. Regulated water heaters that cannot produce scalding water? Handle-less pots so that toddlers can't pull them down onto themselves? Child safety caps on all products that can be injested and harmful? A "child proof" mop bucket that will stop kids from falling in and drowning? Mandatory pool covers on all pools, and mandatory life vests on all kids around all water all the time.
The point is, why are we picking on guns? If we are going to start regulating, and we are going to invite criminal prosecution for child accidents, let's do something that will really make a difference.


CassandraC

[This message has been edited by CassandraComplex (edited May 16, 2000).]
 
I had hoped my "PS" would avoid Cassandra's kind of response. Let me make myself clearer.

You want to pick on the bit about objects having "peaceful" uses? My point is that if you actually have to USE that gun you peacefully carry, then at that point things are no longer peaceful. Your attempt to characterize me as a violent criminal is not only without basis but a cheap and unconscionable insult.

As for all the other objects, knives and toilets and cleaning solutions etc, it is a parent's responsibility to take care of their kids. That includes teaching them not to play with knives, not to dive into toilets, and not to drink Drano. Until they're old enough to learn these things, the parent is obligated to supervise the child and assure its safety. I am NOT "picking on guns" or asking for mandated gun locks. I AM picking on irresponsibility.

Simply put, the welfare of the child is the parent's responsibility, and to put the child at risk through negligence is culpable. If you can't take care of a kid, you shouldn't bring it into the world.

Accidents do happen. The distinction you ask for is whether a reasonable action by a reasonable person would have prevented it. If so, and the reasonable action was not taken, that's negligence. I contend that keeping weapons away from unsupervised children is reasonable and prudent, just as it's reasonable and prudent to put toddler-proof latches on the cabinet where you keep your Drano.

You persist in misreading me and thinking that I want people to come into your home to see if your guns are secure. Wrong. No one's coming into your home without a warrant based on probable cause, that's Constitutional law, and a good one. Do cops show up on your doorstep now and ask if they may check for marijuana lying around? Do they inspect your Drano storage for toddler proof latches? No.

The state of your guns is only relevant to others AFTER an incident. As long as no one is harmed with your guns, it's your business. If someone is harmed, then you answer for their state of security.

I don't want a mandatory trigger lock law, but I think any responsible person will secure their weapons if there are untrained people around, minors or not. It's kind of like the motorcycle helmet law. As a Libertarian, I support the right of people to ride without a helmet providing they're prepared to cover their own medical costs if they're injured (responsibility for their choices). Even so, I would NEVER ride without a helmet; that's my choice, because I would have died in 1981 if I hadn't been wearing one.

You said: "By your logic, only things that are "designed to kill" really kill children and the rest of the things that kill children are just accidents that are acceptable. I am having trouble believing that you are even a male of our species due to the lacking of your logic".

Two things wrong with that. Number one, it is not a correct interpretation of what I wrote, as I've been trying to explain. Number two, the implication that a person who "lacks logic" should not be male is sexist.

I have to wonder, Cassandra, why you insist on jumping me like this. We appear to agree on the need for education (children and adults) and the responsibility of people to make sure their possessions (guns or toilets) are not misused. You even concede civil liability for negligence, and as I said, I'm uncertain whether civil or criminal liability is more practical, but you didn't explore that one point where you and I seem to have a real difference. Instead you seem to have just skimmed what I wrote for "red flag" words, misinterpreted what I am trying to say and blasted me. If you're willing to drop the personal attacks and discuss issues, I'm game; otherwise, this is my last response to you. Don't take that as a "victory", any more than it's a "victory" when somebody moves to a different park bench to get away from some kid's loud boom-box.
 
Being that your stance and stated views are subtly but vitally different in the above post, in comparison to your first posts, then we don't have much left to disagree on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top