Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Heller and safe storage/trigger locks.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by LickitySplit, Dec 15, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LickitySplit

    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?
     
  2. Mr_Rogers

    Mr_Rogers Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2008
    Messages:
    483
    What about firearms in multiple locations? Two at home, two in the car, two in the office, two in the workshop? :):):):):)
     
  3. everallm

    everallm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,504
    First

    The Heller decision ruled only on the constitutionality of (amongst the important one of 2A) the storage and breakdown rules as pertained solely to Washington DC as a federal enclave with limited self government.

    Unless and until the ruling is incorporated, it has no direct powers over states and individual state ruling on "safe storage.

    Second

    You both misquoted and and misunderstood the finding, it is NOT

    "It makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense"

    It is

    The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
    firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
    traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home


    Two vastly different things, lawful activities include, for example, collecting and displaying, hunting, target shooting and "'cause I want a couple".
     
  4. Rmeju

    Rmeju Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    465
    I am not a lawyer, but I directly spoke to a friend of mine who is. He is interested in guns, read the ruling carefully, and gave me his personal opinion which was:

    I was suprised at the strength of the language the court used to strike down the safe storage requirements. I feel it was very strongly worded that those requirements were ruled unconstitutional.

    @ Ever

    I think it's safe to say that, while not yet incorporated, the OP was asking the question because he wanted to know the ramifications under the assumption that it will one day become incorporated. Nobody can say if it will be or not, but I think the question was a fair one.
     
  5. everallm

    everallm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,504
    Rmeju

    The real issue is a lot of folks have at best browsed the Heller decision and cherry picked those pieces that support their wishes, wants, desires, concerns, prejudices etc and not read the totality.

    The quoted statement is a good example.

    Someone who had not read the whole decision and took the "self defense" statement at face value would be potentially severely off base.

    As it stands the correction removes the entire original OP concern as it is no longer tied to a misunderstanding of the actual ruling.
     
  6. LaEscopeta

    LaEscopeta Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    983
    Location:
    Los Estados Unidos
    This is what Heller says on the trigger lock part of the DC gun law, on page 58 of the decision (bold added):

     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2008
  7. akodo

    akodo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,778
    The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
    firearm for traditionally lawful purposes.


    That's the meat and potatoes with the chaffe cut out.

    I think it would be more clear if it had been worded as:

    #1 The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
    firearm for traditionally lawful purposes.


    #2 The Second Amendment protection is unconnected with service in a militia.


    However, these guys are not writing for the average layman who need stuff taken apart. That's also the argument I used to defend the proper reading of the second when someone tries to argue 'why did they even bother to meniton the militia'. I say 'these guys weren't writing for 3rd graders! It is clear enough if you study it! They want to pack in as much info as possible, if the clutter is confusing to you, TOUGH!'
     
  8. subknave

    subknave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    135
    If you have ever posted on here and had someone either take your comments the wrong way or misinterpret them you can begin to understand the dificulties the writers of the constitution had in making clear language that was not ambigous. A lawyer can make the simplest statement seem totally bizarre. For example Bill Clintons famous line of "That depends on what your definition of IS is." It is virtually impossible to write a sentence and not have it misinterpreted or over interpreted by someone.
     
  9. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,404
    Location:
    Michiana
    You can face criminal charges for negligence for firearm related incidences. Per federal law you are exempt from those types of charges if you use a firearm safe. Why not leave it at that? No other laws requiring safe storage are going to do any good. It isn't like LEO/Fed's/etc can randomly inspect your household to make sure you are complying with these laws. Every law that is passed has a cost on the progression of society.

    Besides, I believe the majority of these laws are to prevent children ages 0-16 from shooting themselves and the fact is more children die from choking.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page