Are gun locks now required regardless of Safe ownership?

[Mssr. Eleganté]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Wow, I just learned something new. Of course I always make sure a lock comes with the handgun. Always.

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.