PDA

View Full Version : Are gun locks now required regardless of Safe ownership?


zefflyn
10-21-2006, 3:42 PM
It's been at least half a year since I last bought a handgun, and the clerk told me that a gun lock is required to be sold with the gun (it is used) regardless of whether I own a UL-listed safe.

Did they replace the Safe Affidavit with mandatory lock sale for every purchase? I don't remember seeing any bills changing that. :(

tenpercentfirearms
10-21-2006, 4:05 PM
It appears your FFL replaced it. I am an FFL and the safe avidavit is as good for me now as it ever was. You might want to call BS on them and/or take your business elsewhere.

762cavalier
10-21-2006, 4:05 PM
Did they replace the Safe Affidavit with mandatory lock sale for every purchase? I don't remember seeing any bills changing that.

Short answer: NO the clerk at the store obviously doesn't know what he is talking about.Just trying to sell you one of his uber-expensive cheapo locks:rolleyes:

M. Sage
10-21-2006, 4:18 PM
I don't think I've been charged for either of the two CA-required targets... err, locks, that I've been handed along with the guns I've bought here.

I'll post pics of what 7.62x25 does to a cable lock when I get back from my trip. If the Tokarev round doesn't do spectacular damage, I'm sure that 7.62x54R will. :D

socalsteve
10-21-2006, 6:17 PM
NO lock not required if you have the safe affidavit

some clerks just don't know and some want to sell locks

mike100
10-21-2006, 7:36 PM
I think some Big 5 stores will accept returns on their locks. Other than that, I eventually got a safe. It gets old if you are trying to buy more than one firearm.

taloft
10-21-2006, 8:09 PM
Also, even if you don't have a safe many makers ship a free CA. DOJ. approved gun lock with the firearm. Don't let the clerk sell you another if you know for sure that one comes free with the firearm. Doing your homework can save you money on this one.

Scarecrow Repair
10-21-2006, 8:35 PM
A friend buys them at Target? Kmart? Big5? with a gift receipt, then returns it with the gift receipt after the gun purchase, not even opened.

zefflyn
10-22-2006, 7:26 AM
Right on, thanks for the confirmation. I had bought a nice big safe over the summer, and was really looking forward (:rolleyes:) to just doing the safe affidavit.
It's a used gun, so doesn't come with an approved lock.

I'll give them a call and refer them to Cal-DOJ for confirmation.

Santa Cruz Armory
10-22-2006, 7:31 AM
A friend buys them at Target? Kmart? Big5? with a gift receipt, then returns it with the gift receipt after the gun purchase, not even opened.


+1 on that. Before I had a safe that's what I did. I had plenty of other locks laying around, I didn't need to spend 10-15 bucks a pop on locks. The store clerk is the one who turned me on to that. Good Idea!

halifax
10-22-2006, 2:53 PM
A friend buys them at Target? Kmart? Big5? with a gift receipt, then returns it with the gift receipt after the gun purchase, not even opened.

The receipt needs to show the model number of the lock. Do Target, Kmart, Big5 have the actual model number listed on the receipt? I've not bought one from these retailers ever, I am just curious.

jumbopanda
10-22-2006, 7:09 PM
Hmm...but what happens if a store doesnt sell you a lock when they are supposed to? When I went to DROS my lowers, the guy asked me if I would bring him receipts for locks or purchase from him. I have no safe, and didn't see the point in searching other places for locks, so I said I'd buy them from him when I came to pick up the lowers. He ended up forgetting to sell me the locks. :D

slick_711
10-22-2006, 7:58 PM
You're all wrong on all counts. :D

I guess I should explain further?

No you do not have to purchase a lock with your gun if you have your safe-affidavit, that hasn't changed. So you can call BS on your vendor for that. However, even with your safe-affidavit, for any gun, now INCLUDING long guns, you must have a lock for the firearm to leave the store.

This is not a CA law, it is a new Federal law that happens to overlap with the CA laws already in place.

CA law = one of the following: you must purchase a lock, gun must come with a lock, you must do safe-affidavit, or you must have a lock with a reciept in the last 30days.

Federal law = any and all firearms must be accompanied by a lock when leaving their place of purchase. It isn't specified that the lock needs to be applied, simply with the gun; it also need not be a CA approved lock, although we all have tons of them lying around.

762cavalier
10-25-2006, 3:51 PM
Slick- Could you please post the new federal statutes so that we may all look at them. I had not heard of new Fed legislation in this regards and like to keep myself current (and hopefully out of jail):D

Mssr. Eleganté
10-25-2006, 4:30 PM
Slick- Could you please post the new federal statutes so that we may all look at them. I had not heard of new Fed legislation in this regards and like to keep myself current (and hopefully out of jail):D

I think he is probably talking about the the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This was the firearms industry lawsuit protection bill that Congress passed and the President signed. It had a gunlock provision that was added in order to get a few needed votes. Unfortunately there is no safe exemption with this law.

It only applies to handguns sold by Dealers, Manufacturers and Importers and only if they sell them to a non-licensee. Also, C&R handguns are exempt from this Federal law. The locks required by this law do not have to comply with Califonia's definition of gun lock. But if they don't comply with California's definition then you will still need to get a CA approved lock or have one of the California exemptions.

Since most new handguns already come with a safety lock, this should really only effect sales in California of used handguns that are less than 50 years old and private party transfers of handguns that are less than 50 years old.

The last I heard, the House has recently passed another law that would end the gunlock provisions of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but I don't think the Senate has passed it.

Dr. Peter Venkman
10-25-2006, 11:14 PM
Doubtful.

Proof of ownership of a safe is enough.

Mssr. Eleganté
10-26-2006, 12:05 AM
Doubtful.

Proof of ownership of a safe is enough.

It's enough to satisfy California law.

It is not enough to satisfy Federal law.

ohsmily
10-26-2006, 10:09 AM
Doubtful.

Proof of ownership of a safe is enough.

Brilliant.... :rolleyes:

zefflyn
10-26-2006, 11:19 AM
No you do not have to purchase a lock with your gun if you have your safe-affidavit, that hasn't changed. So you can call BS on your vendor for that. However, even with your safe-affidavit, for any gun, now INCLUDING long guns, you must have a lock for the firearm to leave the store.

Ah, that's about what he said. He said I could bring in any of the gun locks I have lying around the house and that'd work.

Which didn't make sense when applied to the CA law, but seems to match the Federal statute described.

I wonder if a locking box would suffice?

Dr. Peter Venkman
10-26-2006, 12:28 PM
It's enough to satisfy California law.

It is not enough to satisfy Federal law.

How can it not be enough to satisfy federal law? I have not seen anything that states it is in violation of federal law to not buy a gunlock at the time of purchase.

Provided that federal law and the laws of both the dealer's and purchaser's states and localities are complied with:

* An individual 21 years of age or older may acquire a handgun from a dealer federally licensed to sell firearms in the individual's state of residence
* An individual 18 years of age or older may purchase a rifle or shotgun from a federally licensed dealer in any state

It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm unless the federal firearms licensee receives notice of approval from a prescribed source approving the transfer.

Sale of a firearm by a federally licensed dealer must be documented by a federal form 4473, which identifies and includes other information about the purchaser, and records the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. Sales to an individual of multiple handguns within a five-day period require dealer notification to the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Violations of dealer record keeping requirements are punishable by a penalty of up to $1000 and one year's imprisonment.

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=60

1998 - July
An amendment requiring a trigger lock mechanism to be included with every handgun sold in the U.S. is defeated in the Senate.

But, the Senate approves an amendment requiring gun dealers to have trigger locks available for sale and creating federal grants for gun safety and education programs.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm

Mssr. Eleganté
10-26-2006, 1:18 PM
How can it not be enough to satisfy federal law? I have not seen anything that states it is in violation of federal law to not buy a gunlock at the time of purchase.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.

The Federal trigger lock law was part of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act). It was in Section 5 of the act and is now on the books in Title 18 United States Code, Section 922(z).

922(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE-

(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.

While a gun safe is included in the Federal list approved safety devices, the law requires that the Dealer provide you with a safety device when he sells you a handgun. So a gun safe only complies with the Federal trigger lock requirement if you buy it at the same time as the handgun.

The House of Representatives has already voted to cut funding for enforcement of the trigger lock law. Language to cut off funding was added to an appropriations bill, HR5672, that passed earlier this year. But the Senate has not voted on this bill yet. If the Senate passes it and the President signs it, then the Federal trigger lock law will still be on the books. It will just be against the law to spend any money to enforce it.

MikeK
10-26-2006, 1:35 PM
If the Senate passes it and the President signs it, then the Federal trigger lock law will still be on the books. It will just be against the law to spend any money to enforce it.
Talk about the wuss was to defeat a law. :rolleyes:

Mssr. Eleganté
10-26-2006, 2:04 PM
Talk about the wuss was to defeat a law. :rolleyes:

If you mean wuss way to defeat a law then I'd have to agree. But come on, when you are trying to repeal the "Child Safety" section of a law you have to tread lightly. ;)

Congresswoman Musgrave took a risk going on record as trying to stop enforcement of "child safety" laws. Read the testimony she gave on the floor of the House to get other Representatives to vote for her amendment...

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will prohibit any funds in this bill from being used to enforce the burdensome trigger lock law that was passed and that went into effect on April 24 of this year. I believe this law is needless and equivalent to a tax on citizens who purchase firearms.

The law states that all licensed manufacturers, licensed importers and licensed dealers must provide a trigger lock with every handgun they sell. This is not a cost that will be absorbed by the gun industry; it is a cost that will be passed on to lawful gun owners.

Trigger locks do not stop gun crimes or accidental shootings. Mandating gun buyers to pay for a gun lock is not making America safe; it just is making guns and self-defense and personal protection more costly.

Mr. Chairman, should the government mandate safety devices for every possible household danger? Lawn mowers can be dangerous. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, approximately 9,400 children younger than 18 years of age receive emergency care for lawn mower related injuries every year. Should we mandate that all lawn mowers be sold with a blade lock?

Medicine cabinets contain dangerous substances. According to the Center for Disease Control, in 2000, over 1 million children younger than age 6 were exposed to poison, with some of the most common exposures being cosmetics and personal care products.

Should we make medicine cabinet locks mandatory? Knives, electrical outlets, power tools. I could stand here and list hundreds of household mechanisms. Safety needs to be a priority in all households; we all know that. I believe that parents should be responsible and store and manage household products in a safe manner.

But should lawn mower dealers be required to sell blade locks with every lawn mower sold or every cabinet maker sell a cabinet lock with every cabinet sold?

Mr. Chairman, my point is that many things around the home are dangerous when used without proper instructions or supervision. But it is not the government's job or responsibility to mandate every conceivable protective mechanism imaginable.

Responsible adults do not need the government to force them to purchase protective mechanisms for their homes or businesses. Responsible gun owners who need a trigger lock would have purchased one on their own without a government mandate. A government mandate is not the answer.

Forcing gun buyers to purchase gun locks will not make guns more safe; it will only result in gun lock manufacturers making larger profits and increasing costs for all lawful gun owners.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow Members to vote in favor of my amendment.

I like how she spun the "gun lock manufacturers making larger profits" angle, maybe to get a few more votes from some of the "profit is evil" Dems. :D

Dr. Peter Venkman
10-26-2006, 3:25 PM
Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.

The Federal trigger lock law was part of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act). It was in Section 5 of the act and is now on the books in Title 18 United States Code, Section 922(z).



While a gun safe is included in the Federal list approved safety devices, the law requires that the Dealer provide you with a safety device when he sells you a handgun. So a gun safe only complies with the Federal trigger lock requirement if you buy it at the same time as the handgun.

(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE-
(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.

A gun safe, already bought, installed, and operating, should fit the 'provided' requirement. If a gun dealer was to be out of gun locks, what would happen? The buyer would have to be a gunsafe instead, even if he already had one?

MikeK
10-26-2006, 3:37 PM
If you mean wuss way to defeat a law then I'd have to agree.
lol

Yes, That is what I meant. :D

Mssr. Eleganté
10-26-2006, 3:54 PM
If a gun dealer was to be out of gun locks, what would happen? The buyer would have to be a gunsafe instead, even if he already had one?

No, the law says that if the Dealer is out of gun locks at the time of sale, then he has to "deliver to the transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of the delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun storage or safety device for the handgun"

Otherwise the Dealer can have his license suspended or revoked, or he can be fined $2500.

fractionalflyer
10-26-2006, 10:13 PM
You're all wrong on all counts. :D

I guess I should explain further?

No you do not have to purchase a lock with your gun if you have your safe-affidavit, that hasn't changed. So you can call BS on your vendor for that. However, even with your safe-affidavit, for any gun, now INCLUDING long guns, you must have a lock for the firearm to leave the store.

This is not a CA law, it is a new Federal law that happens to overlap with the CA laws already in place.

CA law = one of the following: you must purchase a lock, gun must come with a lock, you must do safe-affidavit, or you must have a lock with a reciept in the last 30days.

Federal law = any and all firearms must be accompanied by a lock when leaving their place of purchase. It isn't specified that the lock needs to be applied, simply with the gun; it also need not be a CA approved lock, although we all have tons of them lying around.

Federal Law? That's not true.

I just purchased a handgun this week, and didn't need a lock, nor did it come with one. The lock thing is definitely a PRK issue.

fractionalflyer
10-26-2006, 10:23 PM
Brilliant.... :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

How smug of you

Mssr. Eleganté
10-26-2006, 11:20 PM
Federal Law? That's not true.

I just purchased a handgun this week, and didn't need a lock, nor did it come with one. The lock thing is definitely a PRK issue.

Welcome to Calguns fractionalflyer!

So are you saying that The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act didn't really get signed by the President???

Or are you saying that the handgun trigger lock provisions of The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act don't really exist?

Or are you saying the trigger lock provisions now contained in the United States Code don't really apply to all of the United States?

Do you think that it might be possible that the law really does exist, just like it is printed in the US Code, but your local gun Dealer accidently broke the law because he didn't know about it?

xenophobe
10-27-2006, 1:00 AM
It appears your FFL replaced it. I am an FFL and the safe avidavit is as good for me now as it ever was. You might want to call BS on them and/or take your business elsewhere.

As a firearms dealer, I have not had any ATF or DOJ correspondence relating this information to me.

How I currently see it:

California law is more strict than Federal law and shall supersede it until I have been sent an ATF Bulletin requiring it along with the California lock requirement.

A safe-affidavit is exemption enough for me at this point in time.

As for manufacturer provided trigger locks that are not California approved? I must remove them from the packaging and I may not sell or deliver those to customers or I can receive a $500 fine.

Mssr. Eleganté
10-27-2006, 1:31 AM
As a firearms dealer, I have not had any ATF or DOJ correspondence relating this information to me.

Here is the letter that ATF mailed out earlier this year...

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/031706openletter-safetylocks.pdf

In it they say that they haven't yet worked out all of the details of the regulations, but that the law is in effect and must be complied with.

If you look at what ATF has posted in the Federal Register about this so far, there seems to be a chance that they will allow some kind of safe certification in the future.

ohsmily
10-27-2006, 9:41 AM
Federal Law? That's not true.

I just purchased a handgun this week, and didn't need a lock, nor did it come with one. The lock thing is definitely a PRK issue.

Your logic is flawed. Just because you didn't have to do it doesn't mean it isn't current law. You ignore the very strong possibility that your FFL didn't comply with law b/c he either doesn't know about it or ignored it. Have you COMPLETELY ignored all of the actual evidence in the form of documents that "Amendment II" has been posting for the last few pages? It is almost laughable that your argument hinges on "I didn't do it, so it must not be true"...that is a very handicapped argument.

WokMaster1
10-27-2006, 11:40 AM
I just picked up my Mosin at Big 5 today. I only had to sign a safe affidavit. No locks required.

Here's my $0.02. Just get a California approved gun lock. It doesn't hurt anyone because you can just bring it with you when you go to pick up your firearm. No dealer can force you to buy his "CA-approved lock" if you already have one with you (keep the receipt in your OLL document folder).

We all can agree that it is the law & the dealers are complying with it. What you do with your lock when you leave the store is no one's business but your own. We're all sensible adults here...., I hope.

It may be a pain in the a**, but compared to all the anti-gun laws that we have, this one actually makes sense.

CalNRA
10-27-2006, 1:06 PM
It may be a pain in the a**, but compared to all the anti-gun laws that we have, this one actually makes sense.

Uh-huh, would you like to write a thank-you note to the legislature or ATF for a job well done?

a total requirement for a gunlock would ensure smooth passage of laws in the future to require all guns to be lock all the time regardless of if it's unloaded , in a safe or in a car. By then we won't have any rebuttal material since we all are supposed to have a lock for each gun. Is that a good prospect?

slick_711
10-27-2006, 1:36 PM
It seems the flyer/info "Amendment II" has brought forth is probably what I was referring to, I'll have to look into that further. My manager is far from a pleasant person but he usually has his facts straight when it comes to legal issues... but then, everyone is wrong occassionally. At first glance I'd say that ATF flyer is what caused him to demand that we all have a lock present for every gun that leaves the shop, perhaps he didn't read it closely enough.

ohsmily
10-27-2006, 2:57 PM
Here's my $0.02. Just get a California approved gun lock. It doesn't hurt anyone because you can just bring it with you when you go to pick up your firearm. No dealer can force you to buy his "CA-approved lock" if you already have one with you (keep the receipt in your OLL document folder).


The receipt has to be from the last 30 days for CA law...so your wonderful plan fails.

Dr. Peter Venkman
10-27-2006, 3:41 PM
Here is the letter that ATF mailed out earlier this year...

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/031706openletter-safetylocks.pdf

In it they say that they haven't yet worked out all of the details of the regulations, but that the law is in effect and must be complied with.

If you look at what ATF has posted in the Federal Register about this so far, there seems to be a chance that they will allow some kind of safe certification in the future.

This new section makes it generally unlawful for “any licensed importer,
manufacturer, or dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person, other than another
licensee, unless the transferee (buyer) is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for
that handgun.”

When I received my rifle through an FFL, I didn't need a lock. I signed a 'Safe Affidavit'. If I did not have the safe, the Gun Exchange would've needed for me to purchase a gun lock. Xenophobe himself is a dealer and the safe affidavit is proof enough. I think you are misinterpreting the law here. The more logical definition is that if a person does not have a safe, they need to buy a gun lock at the time of purchase.

WokMaster1
10-27-2006, 3:50 PM
Uh-huh, would you like to write a thank-you note to the legislature or ATF for a job well done?

a total requirement for a gunlock would ensure smooth passage of laws in the future to require all guns to be lock all the time regardless of if it's unloaded , in a safe or in a car. By then we won't have any rebuttal material since we all are supposed to have a lock for each gun. Is that a good prospect?


I already did. j/k:D

Kidding & politics aside, the MAIN reason why gun locks are mandatory is keep little curious hands off them..yes..it's for the kids. (where did I hear that before?)

If you have little ones or even teenagers at home, would you leave a gun (loaded or not) out in the open? I would love to trust my kid but I think it would be hella late when someone gets shot with my gun. All the "I'm sorry & I should have, could have" won't change a damn thing.

If to date NO kids have been accidentally shot by someone with an unattended weapon, this would not be an issue. You can thank those idiots who did not lock up their weapon & kids got hurt & killed.

Right now the law says if you don't have a gun safe, you are required to have a gun lock. I am not a fortune teller so I cannot predict what gun laws might come up. But if your worse fears might come true, I'm sure someone here would come up with a contraption that would make you scratch your head & say "why didn't I think of this?"

Anti-gunner will be anti-gunners. You can show them an AK-47 that shoots Evian water & they'll still be foaming at the mouth. We have to compromise somewhere when it makes sense. "Your way, right away" only applies to BK.

Don't forget to vote!!!!! November 7th. Every vote counts. It will make a difference even if we don't win. If we show all our colors, it will show the politicians that we are not to be taken lightly.:)

WokMaster1
10-27-2006, 4:13 PM
The receipt has to be from the last 30 days for CA law...so your wonderful plan fails.


Ohsmily,
How does that make sense? OK, the DOJ is exempt from making any sense, right? So are the law makers!

Hoping that you can shed some light on this! Not the first time I've failed before, so just chalk one more on the wall.:D

tenpercentfirearms
10-29-2006, 8:26 AM
Wow, I just learned something new. Of course I always make sure a lock comes with the handgun. Always. :rolleyes:

That is the dumb thing about all of this, it is so hard to prove you are or are not complying. Just more bull crap hassle.

I have always satisfied the PRK requirements, I will have to be extra careful to make sure I am satisfying the Federal requirements as well.