Handgun Control Incorporated and Parris Glendening are willing to get you killed so they can be “right” about trigger locks.
#17 in a series of information leaflets from The Stentorian (www.stentorian.com)
(C) 2000, William A. Levinson. Permission is granted to print, copy, and distribute hard (non-electronic) copies of this page freely and without royalties of any kind, provided that it is not altered in any manner. The page is formatted so it will fit on a single 8.5 by 11 inch sheet. It may be photocopied, folded in thirds, taped to form a letter-sized piece, and mailed to anyone whom you think it would interest- and they are encouraged to similarly copy and distribute it.

Handgun Control Incorporated and Maryland governor Parris Glendening have a new idea: make gun owners use trigger locks to prevent access by children. It sounds like a good idea up front.

Before I get started, I’ll say up front that voluntary use of trigger locks is often prudent and reasonable. A trigger lock can keep a child (or an adult thief) from getting an immediately-usable firearm.

Locked firearms should be unloaded. Do not rely on the lock to prevent firing.
A thief will be able to remove the trigger lock later.
If you do not rely on the firearm for self-protection, a lock is certainly appropriate.
If you rely on the firearm for protection, a lock can get you and your family killed.
Guess who proved this. It wasn’t the National Rifle Association or a gun manufacturer. It was Handgun Control Incorporated’s own lawyer, Dennis Henigan, and Maryland governor Parris Glendening– people who had every reason to show that locking devices work.
“At a recent antigun conference in Chicago, Mr. Henigan, who is the top lawyer with Handgun Control Inc., the country’s largest gun control organization, waved a version of the [Saf T Lock], extolling how easy it is to operate. Then, punching in what he thought was the correct combination, the lawyer failed to unlock the gun, much to the evident discomfort of the sympathetic audience.” He excused his failure with the words, “Even if a klutz like me fumbles on the first try, the benefits of having a lock outweigh the risks.” (Barrett, “A Simple Invention Points Up Complexity of Gun-Control Suits,” Wall Street Journal, 4/23/99, A1).

“Yesterday, the Maryland-National Capital Park Police announced that its officers would begin using one version of the locks, locking magazines, on their Glock pistols when they are off-duty. At a photo opportunity at the department’s Silver Spring headquarters, Glendening had an extended struggle to remove a locking magazine from one of the pistols.” –”Dumbing Down Smart Guns: Md. Senate to Vote on a Weakened Version of Bill.” Daniel LeDuc, Washington Post Staff Writer, Thursday, March 23, 2000; Page B04

Sorry, Mr. Henigan and Mr. Glendening. You don’t get a second try. If you had been facing a real assailant instead of a friendly audience and camera, you would be dead– along with any family members who were relying on you for self-protection. So why are you still insisting that people use these locks?

My advice (this is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer) to anyone who is prosecuted for disobeying a trigger lock law would be to subpoena the videotape of Governor Glendening as evidence– especially in any Maryland courtroom. A reasonable jury should laugh the prosecutor out of court.