[LAR-15]

"In any event, even if the lack of a specifically enu-merated self-defense exception were enough to render the trigger-lock requirement unconstitutional, the proper remedy would be for this Court to disapprove only that limited application of the trigger-lock re-quirement and leave the remainder of the District’s laws intact. Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 546 U.S. 320, 328-30 (2006)."

From the Heller brief.

Sounds like they expect their trigger lock law for rifles to be invalidated

[Double Naught Spy]

The D.C. you are referring to here is the lawyer for the district, right?

As I read it, he isn't admitting anything, but setting up a contingency. Even if admitting he thought the locks were going, it doesn't matter. His admission would carry no legal weight and often is the case that lawyers guess wrong on how cases will turn out. What matterts is what the Court finally decides, not what somebody who isn't a SC justices thinks about it.

[LAR-15]

It seems to me D.C. is admitting ,with this blurb, their trigger lock requirement might very well be unconstitutional because it lacks a self defense excemption for non police.