San Diego City Council: Guns Must Be Locked or Disabled in Homes

[RugersGR8]

HUH?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...l&utm_term=down-range&utm_campaign=20190718dr
San Diego City Council: Guns Must Be Locked or Disabled in Homes
AWR Hawkins 16 Jul 2019
2,848

 

[Louro]

Stupidity at his finest. I bet all those people that voted leave in a nice neighborhood with low crime rate. They should something about the homeless population.

 

[druryj]

Nope. I don't think so. Not gonna do it.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

Wasn’t that part of the problem when Heller v. DC went to scotus?

 

[ignerntbend]

This isn't going to change anybody's behavior, it's just another way for embarrassed representatives of the gument constabulary to charge you with something when there's nothing else to charge you with.

 

[John6185]

Control, control control and money. This decision won't save lives but it may very well cost lives.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

All the idiots have to do is look at the crime rates of England and Australia. As soon as guns are banned, criminals move to other weapons. Look at the statistics. Gun violence goes down, but knives go up. England is trying to ban a variety of knives now. Besides, what do they care if the gun they are using for criminal activities are legal or not?

 

[Glocktogo]

The correct answer is: “NO”

 

[inactive]

Wasn’t that part of the problem when Heller v. DC went to scotus?

Yup.

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 self-defense. 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).[Footnote 28] ...

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

This ordinance does not pass muster. It'll be dead. Eventually.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

I think we may be missing the point. Do we really want Californians with loaded firearms?