Trigger Locks Would Have Prevented The Latest Mass Shooting

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Shooter's cited case law is not yet recognised in all states, though it can be, under the incorporation achieved in MacDonald. changing statute takes time. SCOTUS has provided a framework in which any such storage laws can be effectively nullified by an appropriate court challenge thru a party with proper standing.

changing bad law takes time. but it is happening as we speak. for example, maryland law requiring an onerous CCW "approval" process has recently been declared unconstitutional under Heller and Macdonald, nearly 5 years after Heller was determined.

unconstitutional laws exist in every state. cleaning them up by forcing states to rescind them takes time.

I posted this earlier from your link:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

There are two distinct qualifiers in bold, in the second paragraph which show that there is legal wiggle room for laws requiring stored guns in the home be locked up that aren't being actively used for self defense.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Lincolns mullet

[justashooter 430]

I posted this earlier from your link:

There are two distinct qualifiers in bold, in the second paragraph which show that there is legal wiggle room for laws requiring stored guns in the home be locked up that aren't being actively used for self defense.

i don't know what planet you are from, with logic like that.

you might as well say that women need to lock up all the shoes they own, except the pair that they are currently wearing...

[Penny Lane 8,159]

i don't know what planet you are from, with logic like that.

you might as well say that women need to lock up all the shoes they own, except the pair that they are currently wearing...

I don't know what planet you are from, comparing guns to shoes.

[^_^ 5,021]

I don't know what planet you are from, comparing guns to shoes.

It's called Pennsyltucky.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I don't know what planet you are from, comparing guns to shoes.

Those six inch stilletos can do serious damage yanno.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Anyone here against requiring stored guns to have trigger locks? If so, why?

If a member of the household cannot legally have a firearm then yes.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If a member of the household cannot legally have a firearm then yes.

Do you mean, if for example, one of the family members cannot legally have a firearm? Why that exception but not in general?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Do you mean, if for example, one of the family members cannot legally have a firearm? Why that exception but not in general?

Or roommate etc. My views on gun control are such that reasonable actions can be taken to limit access to those whom the state has determined cannot be in possession. That is the line IMO between infringement and reasonable regulation.

[Ontarkie 14,501]

A number of Off Topics and baiting post removed. Stay on topic!

Edited December 17, 2012 by Ontarkie

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A number of Off Topics and baiting post removed. Stay on topic!

I would say you missed most of them.