Buying a new gun and having special lock

Haides · May 13, 2018

Do revolvers have to have these locks too? And is it new purchases only, or do transfers from a private seller need them too?

swinokur · May 13, 2018

Only applies to sales and transfers at a dealer and includes all handguns with the date exceptions already mentioned. Applies to handguns mfg after Dec 31, 2002

danb · May 13, 2018

Some revolvers like Taurus and S&W made after 1999ish have the "integrated mechanical safety device" aka Clinton hole and do not need a lock. Not 100% sure when they started putting these on S&W revolvers, but all revolvers are better before this date.

KJackson · May 13, 2018

Not a revolver, but I believe that the S&W M&P 22 has the integrated lock as well. Guess it may be a S&W thing.

whistlersmother · May 13, 2018

the Ruger Mark III and probably Mark IV have an integrated safety which requires a special tool (allen wrench?). Don't remember because I've lost my tool.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Mark75H · May 13, 2018

whistlersmother said:
the Ruger Mark III and probably Mark IV have an integrated safety which requires a special tool (allen wrench?). Don't remember because I've lost my tool.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Jake Barnes is not impressed

steveh326 · May 15, 2018

the question I have is what is the reasoning that a cable lock is not sufficient? I understand it's the law, but what was the argument when the law was implemented that said cable locks were no good? and can we get this amended to be able to use the simpler locks? (Maryland I know, so zero chance of getting the law amended)

j.smooth4 · May 15, 2018

steveh326 said:
the question I have is what is the reasoning that a cable lock is not sufficient? I understand it's the law, but what was the argument when the law was implemented that said cable locks were no good? and can we get this amended to be able to use the simpler locks? (Maryland I know, so zero chance of getting the law amended)

I agree this is one of the stupidest gun laws in md I love telling my out of state friends about this B.S. the looks on their face is priceless.

Everyone knows handguns come with a locks already most times they go right into the safe. Why make an already expensive item even more expensive.

They want buying guns to be a burden and difficult as possible and they want to tax and punish us gun owners for another 15-30 bucks.

mvee · May 15, 2018

steveh326 said:
the question I have is what is the reasoning that a cable lock is not sufficient? I understand it's the law, but what was the argument when the law was implemented that said cable locks were no good? and can we get this amended to be able to use the simpler locks? (Maryland I know, so zero chance of getting the law amended)

Maryland originally attempted to require all pistols(built after a certain date) to be integrally locked. Very few pistols were on the market with such locks. I recall that after the law went into effect, it was determined that the removable bore locks would satisfy that lock requirement.

Prior to the integrally locking requirement, pistols were required to be sold with conventional trigger or cable locks.

I believe the law was originally written to further reduce the choice of guns to Marylanders.

rbird7282 · May 15, 2018

steveh326 said:
the question I have is what is the reasoning that a cable lock is not sufficient? I understand it's the law, but what was the argument when the law was implemented that said cable locks were no good? and can we get this amended to be able to use the simpler locks? (Maryland I know, so zero chance of getting the law amended)

It’s Maryland so logic and reason have nothing to do with it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Blacksmith101 · May 15, 2018

Maryland laws are all about infringing on "the Peoples" god given right that is clearly protected by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. The liberals, Democrats, Progressives, and political hacks of Maryland want to infringe the right out of existence through the "1,000 cuts", just a little at a time until it is all gone.

Gun locks then special gun locks then biometric gun locks then special biometric gun locks which require police permission to unlock etc. etc.

swinokur · May 15, 2018

AKA “Boiling the Frog”

Oddway Otts · May 15, 2018

Wife had an unpleasant experience with the tampon lock with her second handgun purchase, right before the O'malley law went into effect. Actually, it was her first purchase, but because the dealer wouldn't release it during the background check delay & back-up, she bought & got her second handgun, first. Anyway, she bought the pistol at a Timonium Show, from a dealer located on Back River Neck Road. He said that he had to include a $20.00 lock in the price, but if we brought our own lock when she picked it up, he would refund the $20. Yeah, right. Nothing on the receipt referenced the lock. Months later, when he released the gun (about three days before the law changed), the old fart "knew nothing" about any refund. Now, he said that because we had a lock, he wouldn't have to charge us an additional $20 to get the gun. Damn crook taking advantage of a first gun buyer. :mad54:

Biggfoot44 · May 15, 2018

The law required integral locks . The intention was to have a near total ban on handgun sales . For a while Md dealers sought out NOS guns from distributors with mfg dates prior to the implementation, but that would have run dry after a while . The approval of Tampon locks as alternative allowed the retail gun biz to survive in Maryland.

IronEye · May 15, 2018

Biggfoot44 said:
The law required integral locks . The intention was to have a near total ban on handgun sales . For a while Md dealers sought out NOS guns from distributors with mfg dates prior to the implementation, but that would have run dry after a while . The approval of Tampon locks as alternative allowed the retail gun biz to survive in Maryland.

Agree. The intent was to reduce the number of gun models available for sale in Maryland. This was done under the guise of gun safety.

The approval if chamber locks as "integrated locks" was not anticipated by lawmakers.

Same applies to the HQL. The hope is that many, many people will find out what the requirements are and decide it just is not worth it. Pay $200 just for a license to buy a home defense handgun? Too much money for many non-gun people.

These "stupid" laws suddenly make sense if the actual purpose is to discourage buyers.

Just my opinion.

danb · May 15, 2018

See here:

https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=79715

Buying a new gun and having special lock

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Peace through strength

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

In a State of Bliss

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

dont be a dumbass

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics