LickitySplit
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 83
In it's decision, the court ruled that laws requiring trigger locks, safe storage, firearms in a break down configuration were unconstitutional.
The courts reasoning for this was that it "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense".
Logically speaking, a person only requires one (two at the most... a handgun and a long arm), firearm at a time for the "lawful purpose of self-defense".
By that reasoning, if a person owned multiple firearms (more than two), would a "safe storage" requirement pass muster if it required all remaining firearms to be kept locked up and/or disassembled?
The courts reasoning for this was that it "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense".
Logically speaking, a person only requires one (two at the most... a handgun and a long arm), firearm at a time for the "lawful purpose of self-defense".
By that reasoning, if a person owned multiple firearms (more than two), would a "safe storage" requirement pass muster if it required all remaining firearms to be kept locked up and/or disassembled?