TRIGGER LOCKS---why not?

C

Covert Mission

New member
TRIGGER LOCKS---why not?

I started to post this on another thread (the airbag thread) regarding preventative devices and measures:

I don't understand in the slightest anyone's opposition to a law requiring triggerlocks be sold with every firearm. The logic (lack of it?) escapes me. Even built-in locks, like the one on the new Steyr M40 pistol, which is completely optional to use or not, seems good. It's passive, and almost invisible (I'm buying one). To me it's a no-brainer for these reasons:

* You don't have to use it, although locking one's guns up in some way makes complete sense to me (mine are in a 400 lb safe). You can buy pistol safes that offer almost instant access with a touch-pad lock...faster than a triggerlock. I worry not only about keeping guns safe from kids' prying hands, but as/more importantly, keeping them out of thieves' hands. Gun safes do both.

* It would earn the NRA, GOA, etc tremendous credibility among "soccer moms" etc, at little real cost. Give a little, gain a lot. It would say to the non-gun world "Hey, these people aren't nuts after all." I think the NRA should lead a campaign for gov't subsidy of pistol/gun safes, available at nominal cost to the public. How many tax dollars have gone to fund vehicle research, public safety, etc, not to mention the billions wasted on other things. The NRA would look like heroes.

Feel free to continue this on another thread, or maybe I'll post it. Flame me if you like... I know all the arguments against: less gov't interference, freedom to choose, etc. I still don't understand the problem. It is a safety issue that doesn't encroach in the least on the OWNERSHIP of guns. Last, let me say that I am NOT in favor of this "smart gun" BS the MD Atty Gen'l and MA AG are pushing. Not proven, and not necessary, imo.
 
I have no problem with removable trigger locks. I draw the line at "permanent" ones. I'll just pull them off the gun & toss 'em in the trash. What's the big deal?

But I'll NEVER buy a "smart" gun. Ever.
 
I also don't have a problem with a $5 dollar lock being included with a gun I purchase. My concern is that once they get that passed, then they'll want a law requiring that all guns be locked. Remember: incrementalism.

My guess is that the NRA is going to use the trigger lock provision as a bargaining chip to be given in exchange for the private transaction ban (otherwise known as "the gunshow loophole"). My hope is that they're not forced to surrender even one chip. Of course, that's up to us and how loudly we protest.

Dick
 
I think it's great if trigger locks are sold with guns. When mine are in storage, I'll put them on. I like how it's voluntary though and I think 100% of manufacturers should supply them. A law mandating it is stupid. How about a tax credit for instituting the program? For the borderline morons who happen to have and buy guns, perhaps the availability of the lock will make them think about using it. Not everyone will use one though and a law won't change that fact.


On the other hand, here in Massachusetts, we have a manditory trigger lock USE law. Anytime a firearm is not in your direct control, it must be locked. I see this as an unenforceable law. It leaves them room to make an example out of you if your firearm is stolen from your house. You're supposedly clear if it had a trigger lock and your up the creek if it didn't. How do you prove that? Granted, around here you put the locks on because they are inexpensive and I like not being in prison.
So, anyone care to guess how many times I've gone to the range and couldn't shoot a particular gun because I didn't have the right friggen key? Pain in the ...


"Go back to Massachusetts, Pinko!!"
-Homer Simpson
 
Why legislate something that someone is already doing of their own free will? Most, if not all, gun mahufacturers are including the triggerlocks on their own. Why do we suddenly need to force them to do it?

If the Gov't goes to the trouble of forcing the locks to be included, then you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll include a provision making it a crime not to have the locks on the weapon under some squirrelly conditions.

Then, they'll go ahead and expand those conditions, and expand them more. It's the nature of government.

Pretty soon, if you choose not to put a trigger lock on that weapon, you will be committing a felony. And that, my friend, is bull****.

I loathe and despise built in locks. My weapon, the weapon that I am betting my life on, the weapon someone else may be betting on, needs to be as simple as possible.

It simply needs to go bang! whenever and wherever my tactical judgement deems it necessary to go bang!

Nothing more, nothing less.

Any extraneous mechanisms, especially one that is designed to interefere in the operation of that weapon, do not simplify this process in any way, shape or form.

In addition, Murphy hating me personally, and given the perverse nature of inanimate objects, that damn lock will engage under the most inopportuen time. If this happens with the safety currently on the weapon, I merely disengage it manually, as it is designed for.

If, God forbid, the key lock decided to engage itself, I'll have to call off the war so that I can go find the ****ing key and unlock the damn weapon.

This is totally and completely unacceptable.

LawDog
 
Hoppy:

you have my DEEP condolences. May God see that you can leave that friggin' state of MA. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun... (old old old, i know)
---

Maybe an incentive, rather than a law, is the way to go w/triggerlocks. Hmmmm... I can't imagine why any manufacturer wouldn't include one (and as we know, most of the good ones do, voluntarily)

I personally like the idea of having a gun (one) like the Steyr M series, with an integral lock (operated either by a proprietary key, or the LEO model, which uses a handcuff key .. any cop could unlock it for you in a pinch). The reason: mainly for traveling, or staying at someone's home, where I don't have my pistol safe or gun safe. Or, on the rare occasion when keeping it in the car trunk, it's at least deactivated if stolen. If you don't use it, you'll never know its there. It operates much like a Glock otherwise. I suppose though, that I could just use a trigger lock (though with the Steyr, you can lock the gun w/ a round in the chamber... not advised with locks that install on the trigger itself).

I will NEVER buy a "smart gun". It won't be smarter than me, and I'm not even that smart (read my other posts!
wink.gif
)
---


[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited April 20, 2000).]
 
The trouble with trigger locks is that they are only effective if they are used!
That implies some basic degree of responsibility on the part of the owner to begin with.
In an interview with National Review,

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory040300b.html

John Lott addressed the matter:

"Finally, the studies out there that have looked at either the accessibility of guns or storage rules for guns don’t find an impact on accidental gun deaths. The main reason for that — in particular with regard to the storage law--is that the type of people that these laws would affect, law-abiding citizens, are the ones for whom the risk of an accidental gunshot involving a child is essentially zero to begin with. The types of families where you are likely to see something bad occur are the ones which have drug problems or other criminal activities going on. I don’t really think you are going to be able to affect their behavior very much by passing these laws."
John Lott 4/3/00

IOW, the people whom trigger locks would supposedly help the most are also the least likely to avail themselves of their use, mandated or not.

"I'm not at all sure that even a callous, irresponsible drug dealer with a 6-year-old in the house wouldn't leave a child trigger lock on a stolen gun."
bill clinton 3/9/00

Who do you think actually knows what he's talking about?



[This message has been edited by Karanas (edited April 20, 2000).]
 
Covert Mission:

Please view this page:
http://www.donath.org/Rants/OnTriggerLocks/

It was was created by a TFLer, and it spells out the problems with trigger locks- namely, that on many kinds of guns- like glocks, and 1911s- trigger locks can make a gun more dangerous by pressing against the trigger. There is no space behind the trigger for the post on many, many firearms. A post in front of the trigger presses up against it, with an obvious safety hazard. Sadly, politicians are far to stupid to even realize this simple fact. If they cared about safety, and had half a brain, they would advocate lockable boxes (which would probably be much better) or cable locks instead.
 
BTR: I agree, and I think i said that... external trigger locks can SAFELY be used on very few loaded guns (if any), which means you end up with an unloaded, locked-up gun in an emergency. I don't think so. I think the small handgun vaults are MUCH better... can keep the gun loaded, and access it asap.

Good point about the type of people who need them, and are least likely to use them. that quote by Klinton was a doozy... I nearly swallowed my tongue. Can a Rhodes Scholar be so ignorant? Can he really thing we are (rhetorical question there).
 
I don't mind if trigger locks are included with firearms. I don't mind paying an extra 5 bucks or whatever. I'm opposed to a law requiring them for the reason Monkeyleg states: How long will it be before you are required to use them? I live alone. Nobody else has a key to my home. There are no kids around. My guns are kept in a safe when I'm not home. Why should I be required to unload my defense gun, fasten the trigger lock on and then put them in the safe every time I leave the house? Its a hassle that serves no purpose. Mandatory trigger locks lead to mandatory use. The fanatical, raving, irrational antis will NEVER quit. Give them nothing. You can't compromise with a fanatic.

I have to respectfully disagree with Lawdog. Kahr, Ruger, and Colt do not include trigger locks. They include pathetic little padlocks to the lock the plastic cases. S&W is the only firearm I've bought with a true trigger lock. If they're going to include locks, the trigger lock with the S&W is far superior, from a security standpoint, to the little padlocks and plastic cases IMHO.
 
Ever read about Cecil Rhodes and his vision? There could be no better explanation for the conduct of this president.

As for trigger locks, I use them -- voluntarily. Mandates are anathema to the defensive use of firearms. I open it every night before repose and lock it again in the morning. I leave it on my keychain so I can't forget because the 1/4 pounder attached leaves no room for error.

------------------
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.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited April 20, 2000).]
 
I wrote the page that BTR referred to.

Basically, a common trigger lock is a defective-design product (a wrongful-death lawsuit waiting to happen). It places a post immediately in front of the trigger - Rule #3 of firearms (per Cooper) is "Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target"...well, that post is an artificial finger touching the trigger when your sights are not on the target.

The sides of the lock cover this serious problem, but do not make the problem go away. Most people seem to have trouble understanding this simple mechanical disaster-waiting-to-happen. Their faith in the lock is nonetheless misplaced.

Given a Glock and a normal trigger lock, I can reliably load, cock, and fire the gun WITH A TRIGGER LOCK ATTACHED. Other people have done the same with other guns. Sure it's harder than with no safety (real or alleged) device attached, but the point is to make the gun _really_ safe, not make an _illusion_ of safety.

Now...does it make sense to legally require the sale of a defective-by-design product that places a deadly weapon into a dangerous condition? A cable lock inherently disables the weapon. A safe inherently forestalls unauthorized access. A trigger lock, however, is a fox tending the henhouse.
 
Lawdog is correct and this is why we should fight government required trigger locks.

Isn't it pretty stupid to pass a law on something that people have the option to use. Let's try this...
Everyone has to by a motorcycle helmet but it's up to you if you want to use it. This is pretty dumb so how do we fix it. I got it! let's pass a law that recquires them to wear the helmets.
There's a big difference between helmets and trigger locks but the point is the same.
The government doesn't create a law they can not enforce. In order to fix this loop hole they will pass another to enforec it. Then because WE ALL SCREAMED TO ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS they will most definatly enforce it just to rub our nose in it.

Now, here's the kicker. How do you enforce something that is contained in someones house...
By going in the house right?

When the liberals do anything it's always to open the door for the next thing, and the next and next.

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
 
I'll accept a trigger lock law if these following provisions apply:

1. Another means is just as acceptable, a safe, locked cabinet, quick access safe etc.

2. The NFA, GCA of '68, the 1989 and 1994 "Assault Weapons" Bans, and other such laws are repealed.

No further federal gun control legislation can ever be passed.

See, we can compromise and because trigger locks are the solution for almost all gun problems this will be a safer country. We gun owners will be happy and free and the gun controllers wil have made the nation safe "for the children." Afterall, thats all they want, don't they?

Fred
 
Trigger locks first , then enforcement. Pretty soon they'll be able to conduct safety checks & search the house if they suspect non-compliance. They'll be able to charge gun owners with child abuse if the lock is found off & take their children, impose prison sentences ect. Pretty soon you'll have to put yourself & yours at such considerable risk to even keep a gun 90% of owners will give them up.

Another side effect of legislation like this is the govt increasingly wears us down by forcing compliance in many different little ways, effectivley seperating us from the understanding of freedom, you HAVE to wear your seat belt, you can't ride a bike w/o a helmet if you're young, No helmetless motorcycling, you have to have exactly the correct number of life jackets in a boat, you MUST have a license to fish, or hunt, ect ect. Everywhere we look we have to have permission to be "free" or we have to comply in some way with a imposing law. Once people are conditioned to accept these alledgedly sane laws they are that much closer to being passivly ruled by a totalitarian state. When you can be searched / harassed for even the littlest thing then we are already there and that is not freedom it's just feel good tyranny.

That said,
I do think safety locks could be good for homes w/ kids in some cases just by no means should they be mandatory - even for the manufacturers to include, because if it is included mandatorily in the manufacturing process it will become a mandatory law. It is a shame that we have to worry about crap like this being used against us but our alledged leaders are scum with an agenda.



[This message has been edited by scud (edited April 21, 2000).]
 
The arguments against trigger locks are:

1. technical but that would be easy to solve
2. It is a slippery slope attack on the RKBA
as the locks would be mandated to be used
and it would lead to the next law by
encouraging the antis.

For locks:

1. It is trivial issue if not mandated for use
and passing such a law removes it as a
one of the endless nibbling attacks on the
RKBA. Thus, we fight on the real use of
banning and confiscation of all guns

2. We can trade for a forward step - as in
national CCW reciprocity or some law
guaranteeing all citizens a right to
have firearms (which the 2nd as yet to
actually do!)

As far as trading for a private sales loophole at gunshows. I think that one is a lost cause.
The NRA and GOP are against. Trade it for something worthwhile like being able to buy hi-caps again with a NICS check.

Since it is a matter of time that gunlocks
will be mandated to be sold - do it now on our
terms and trade. Same with the NICS checks at the shows.

OK - Enough, enough, line in the sand, my dead hands, compromise, ugah buggah - those arguments keep leading to losing positions.

If one reads polling data most people support gun ownership but will also want some new laws. If one gives up a small loss for a bigger gain do it.

National CCW would gain us much more than
we would lose from locks having to be sold
(note - not mandate use).

So would getting a law that with a NICS check anyone can buy - even in NYC or DC - great trade for a NICS on private sales.

Now, could we do it? Don't know but worth a try better than just losing all the time.

So if it looks like such a law is coming to pass as it does - add this stuff now and fight for it.
 
I am for VOLUNTARY inclusion and use of trigger locks. As many posters pointed out; first its mandatory to have them, next its mandatory to use them. Ala. safety belts. Think back. First cars had to have them. Then they had to have shoulder harnesses. Then we had to wear them. Now we have to have random safety-belt road blocks. What do you think will happen with guns? Same $hit different day. Today we have to have them. tomorrow we have to use them. Your kids will have to show to random BATF**kers that they actually use them. SCREW that idea. Also I seem to remember that when we mandated child proof bottles on medicine and other such things, accident rates actually went up for a while, cause parents assumed that they were safe. It is impossible to childproof the world. Instead just take the time to raise your kids in the manner ou want them to behave. Much easier and less hedaches for everybody.

------------------
"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes."
-R.A. Heinlein
 
After reading the other posts, I have to concur that if the post of a trigger lock will not fit behind the trigger (ala a 1911) then they are way dangerous and the little locks and plastic boxes are better. The only gun I've ever put a trigger lock on is my S$W 686. On the 686 the post fits behind the trigger. I can see no way the weapon could be discharged when locked in this manner.
 
If one reads polling data most people support gun ownership but will also want some new laws.

If one reads polling data one concludes that most people answering polls have little or no idea what they're talking about. Asking an ignorant person for advice is foolish; asking a thousand ignorant people for the same advice is equally foolish. Better to ask the few people (experts and authorities on the subject) who actually know what they're talking about. This mad obsession with making and obeying "polls" is a result of that badly mis-understood '60s quote "Question Authority".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top