View Single Post
  #28  
Old 12-12-2014, 10:06 PM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 833
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
I can't understand why the petition even argues that "the Court has already answered the question that this case presents." The SC spent all of one paragraph on the trigger lock/disassembly requirement, and the problem with the requirement as decided by the SC was that it applied at all times:



The SC was approving this argument from the Heller respondents' brief:



That was the only argument the respondents made about the trigger lock/disassembly requirement: the requirement was unconstitutional because there was no self-defense exception. The SC didn't go any farther than that and never decided that a trigger lock requirement with a self-defense exception (like SF's) was unconstitutional. Why would you tell the SC it did something that it didn't do? The argument is not credible.

Anyway, if the SC doesn't grant cert, I wouldn't read it as the SC being done with 2A cases but instead that the SC doesn't have a problem with "safe storage" laws with self-defense exceptions.

While at home heller provided for an operable firearm?
from the heller syllabus pg 3

"3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.”

“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. “

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf





your reading of safe storage I’m a little confused by but it may be my bias or laymen’s reading of things?

in reading this ordinance it appears the city is requiring storage of the arm or locking of the arm while you are at home if you can not holster it at all times on yourself.

even if a self defense exemption exists, the expectation or requirement of the arm always being upon the person while at home vs within reach while and functional in the home is the debate? is it not or am i missing something?

it seems that the second statement from the heller ruling indicates that “the requirement that any lawful arm in the home.....” being required to be rendered useless defeats the purpose of accessibility within the home.? and thus they ruled unconstitutional

So wouldn’t that second quote above that i pulled indicate the court did decide on trigger locks, and requiring storage within the home while an individual is there? making the distance between SF’s narrow self defense exemption and required deactivation of the arm and the heller ruling much closer to each others as the petition is claiming?


Thank you
DD

disclaimer* I’m having computer talent issues and couldn’t seem to recall how to put the fancy blue box quote around my heller quotes maybe it’ll come to me later
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc

Last edited by ddestruel; 12-12-2014 at 10:39 PM..
Reply With Quote