Rep Marilyn Musgrave won an amendment to a Justice Department appropriations bill that would prevent any money from being spent to enforce a mandate that gun dealers sell trigger locks with the guns that they sell. The article in the Rocky Mountain News is less than flattering for Musgrave. There are several things about this issue that amuse/frustrate me.

1. Why is Musgrave taking the heat for this? Sure, she sponsored it, but the amendment passed 230-191. Why don’t we write articles about the other 230 that voted for it, including Democrat Ken Salazar?
2. How do laws like this get passed without any appropriations attached? Let’s pass a law that we can’t pass laws unless we have a way to enforce/pay for them.
3. Why do we listen to guys like Peter Hamm who only come up with half the facts?

Hamm said that

last year, 2,849 children or teen-agers died from gunfire in the United States, and he believes trigger locks are key to reducing the fatalities.

Lets have some real analysis on these facts Mr. Hamm. How many were gang killings? How many involved newly purchased handguns? How many involved handguns at all? Why are trigger locks ‘key to reducing the fatalities’ other than because you say so?

Personally I’m glad this ridiculous law won’t get enforced (would have saved a lot of time and money if it had never been passed to start with). The liberals in this country know they can’t get the 2nd amendment repealed, so they just keep making it harder and harder for ‘licensed gun dealers’ to stay in business. If they have their way guns will still be legal, but the only way to buy them will be on the black market.

Of cource, Paccione supporters seem to be using this as a rallying issue. Funny, I haven’t read a Paccione press release yet with a strong stance on gun control…