Senate Passes Gun Control Amidst Protection For Gun Makers

I think that any time a buyer purchases a gun that is forced to come with a trigger lock that he does not want, he should GIVE IT BACK to the manufacturer (as in, donate it) who can then recycle it with another new gun that must come with it.

Or, they could donate them to the stupid-ass "free gun lock" drives that some cities have, and take a tax deduction on the donation.

There are ways to benefit from this.

At the very least, we can help the manufacturers decrease their out-of-pocket costs and help keep them in business in this small way.

If you don't plan to use the gun lock that came with your purchase, arrange to send it back to the manufacturer.

Surely we can get the ball rolling on a program to achieve this?

-blackmind
 
Buy the gun, accept the lock, hand it back to the seller for use on the next one he sells, and charge him a nickle (after all, they aren't worth a dime. :D )

Pops
 
Trip20 there are penalties for failure to use a trigger or safety device- it is called manslaughter if an innocent gets killed as a result of a failure to safely store a firearm.
 
The Rabbi
Lawyer Daggit, Lawyer Daggit, Lawyer Daggit. Who is this solon of the legal profession I keep hearing about?
Click to expand...

The original Assault lawyer! He appeared in the movie True Grit.
John Wayne as the character Rooster Cogburn commented of him "she draws and fires him like a revolver!" (IIRC)

Now as to the Lawyer Daggit on this board, I have no idea! :D
 
Loaded chamber indicators....etc. Half of this type of crap is "already" done in some shape or form. Do you want it to become LAW???????????

For **** sake.

I'm done w/this discussion. My opinion doesn't seem popular, that's fine this isn't a contest. But it's becoming a chore trying to get you all to think out of the box.
 
Trip20, you may wellbe done with this thread, and therefore will not read this... But if by chance you do, think of this, please.

I posted the amendment to the bill. It does not read the way you say it does. In fact, it gives the ordinary person an immunity against civil suits, should that person have and use gun locks or safes or some other accepted safety device and their gun is stolen or used without their knowledge.

Is that a bad thing?
 
Antipitas - who are we kidding, of course I'm going to check this thread out some more. Since you specifically addressed me, to NOT opine would be rude ;)

Anitpitas said:
Is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Trip20 said:
[this law is] Definitely more of a win than loss for the gun community at this point
Click to expand...

I did try to make it apparent that I do think this is not a bad law.

For some reason, it appears you (plural) think I'm against the use of gun locks...etc. No, not the case.

I'm against an amendment that requires the manufacturer to include a gun lock with their firearms:

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.
Click to expand...

Will it be no big deal when an amendment is attached which requires all firearms manufactured after October of 2005 to be equipped with a loaded chamber indicator? That would severely piss me off. I dunno about you. I have not purchased one, and now possibly another pistol because of the loaded chamber indicator / coddling of Commiefornia.

The law could read: "all manufacturers must include a dill pickle with all firearms" and it would still piss me off because they're required to do so. And I like pickles.

So, we can leave out the sound legal advice (thanks anyway Daggit), we can leave out pointing out all the other GOOD areas of this law, and we can leave out the reasons why using a gun lock is a good idea - because this was a focus on a requirement, not the actual THING that was being required.

Do you like the idea of legislation which puts un-needed requirements on the firearms industry?

This is the issue I was trying to focus on.

This is a "feel good" bull____. It's about as useful as random searches on the NYC subway system. It's just to make the public "feel good" and also to make the politicians look like they're doing something to address the "problem".
 
No, he doesn't like it, but he certainly likes the enactment of lawsuit immunity that has been denied our nation's gun manufacturers for years, and the prospect for this lock requirement to be stripped in Conference Committee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top