Heller and safe storage/trigger locks.

[LickitySplit]

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?

 

[Mr_Rogers]

What about firearms in multiple locations? Two at home, two in the car, two in the office, two in the workshop?

 

[everallm]

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".

 

[Rmeju]

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.

 

[everallm]

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.

 

[LaEscopeta]

This is what Heller says on the trigger lock part of the DC gun law, on page 58 of the decision (bold added):

We must also address the District’s requirement (as
applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the
home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This
makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
The District argues that we should interpret this
element of the statute to contain an exception for selfdefense.
See Brief for Petitioners 56–57. But we think
that is precluded by the unequivocal text, and by the
presence of certain other enumerated exceptions: “Except
for law enforcement personnel . . . , each registrant shall
keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled
or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless
such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while
being used for lawful recreational purposes within the
District of Columbia.” D. C. Code §7–2507.02. The nonexistence
of a self-defense exception is also suggested by
the D. C. Court of Appeals’ statement that the statute
forbids residents to use firearms to stop intruders, see
McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A. 2d 744, 755–756 (1978).

 

[akodo]

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!'

 

[subknave]

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.

 

[ServiceSoon]

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.