Do OEM frame locks count as a trigger lock for the firearms act purposes?

Claven2

Claven2

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
405   0   2
Location
Onterrible
Anyone know if using the built-in safety locks on guns counts in place of a trigger lock for restricted handgun transport?

For example, on a modern Smith & Wesson revolver, can you rely on the frame locks in lieu of a trigger lock to comply with transport requirements, in addition to being in a locked transportation case?
 
Fwiw, the regulation under the firearm act says "rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device".

This is different than the RCMP brochure that specifies a device needs to be attached to the firearm as part of the act of securing it, which is an interpretation, not what the act and regulations actually say. That show a pictogram of an external trigger lock.

The regs do say under definitions that a secure locking device has to be applied to the firearm to prevent it from being discharged, but I'm thinking the manufacturer applied internal locks to the gun when it was made. Not sure if it holds up to legal interpretation though.
 
Logically yes it should count... the question is what is your risk tolerance? I could certainly imagine a scenario where a cop disagrees and that could lead to a lot of wasted time and money to clear things up.

Personally I'd just use an external trigger lock to avoid any potential problems from an overzealous or ignorant cop.
 
Those little $1 plastic clamp locks are accepted. The factory internal lock should be superior.

A lot of people, both shooters and law enforcement think that "trigger locks" are mandatory.

I would suggest that these factory internal locks, or the Remington J-Locks should be acceptable. And, of course, my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.
 
Claven2 said:
Anyone know if using the built-in safety locks on guns counts in place of a trigger lock for restricted handgun transport? For example, on a modern Smith & Wesson revolver, can you rely on the frame locks in lieu of a trigger lock to comply with transport requirements, in addition to being in a locked transportation case?
Click to expand...

Good question.

I think that the phrase 'applied to' is important. What does 'applied to' mean, anyway?

secure locking device means a device

(a) that can only be opened or released by the use of an electronic, magnetic or mechanical key or by setting the device in accordance with an alphabetical or numerical combination; and

(b) that, when applied to a firearm, prevents the firearm from being discharged. (dispositif de verrouillage sécuritaire)

<https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/page-1.html#h-1019904>
Click to expand...

Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations (SOR/98-209)
<https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html>
 
Suther said:
Logically yes it should count... the question is what is your risk tolerance? I could certainly imagine a scenario where a cop disagrees and that could lead to a lot of wasted time and money to clear things up.
Click to expand...

I think that is a key point. The internal lock may be deemed acceptable. But you could go through the ringer testing out the hypothesis depending on circumstances. Or you remove all doubt and just add the external lock. It is like the lock box vs safe/vault debate.

Ambiguity between the language in the regs and guidance is not helpful, but in the end it is the reg that matter.
 
I'm a big advocate of focusing on the proper terminology (i.e.: 'secure locking device') and the actual legal definition of said things, and I encourage everyone to do the same.

That said, here in the real world, many people, including many people who matter, are of the firm opinion that: a.) they know the law, and; b.) a trigger lock is what the law requires, and; c.) "...guns needs to be triggerlocked."

Anticipating a real-world interaction with a person such as this, one can either plan to argue with them or... plan ahead (with a trigger lock), and just give them what (we already know) they'll want.
 
I believe the intent of the internal lock would be investigated in order to create an origin for argument.

Lawyers would ask Smith and Wesson why the internal lock became a part of their design (it's important to understand this is in the American context). Should Smith respond that the locks were engineered as a result of internal legal advice regarding children or others accidentally discharging found firearms, and the potential liability Smith and Wesson could bear if it is found that they are willfully neglecting to prevent such accidents by failing to introduce some minor engineering to the product. (The lock is "cover your azz" insurance for Smith and Wesson in USA context).

So, the lock being intended for safe-er storage...does that intent jive with the transportation regulation? Was a "device applied" for transportation purposes?

Practically speaking, yes. However, the law at times likes to send "policy" type messages to certain industries, so, depending on the circumstances that brings the issue to court will depend greatly on the message being sent.

I'd just trigger lock it, if I were you, or, when I am you.
 
Painkillers said:
...However, the law at times likes to send "policy" type messages to certain industries, so, depending on the circumstances that brings the issue to court will depend greatly on the message being sent.
...
Click to expand...

When an obviously bad guy may get off or get a light sentence, courts sometimes will accept a strange opinion to make sure the bad guy gets punnished. But in doing so, they set a BS precident that Fu-ks us all.
 
Andronicus said:
When an obviously bad guy may get off or get a light sentence, courts sometimes will accept a strange opinion to make sure the bad guy gets punnished. But in doing so, they set a BS precident that Fu-ks us all.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Law and its interpretations are intentionally fluid to allow judicuries to apply whatever policy they deem appropriate. All that is black and white is actually intentionally grey, the black or white of the issue is decided in court. Wise men stay out of that venue if at all possible.
 
A very interesting question , aka a very expensive question ...

What's your gambling and PITA tolerance profiles?

One's actions are based solely on that ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom