Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
San Diego City Council: Guns Must Be Locked or Disabled in Homes
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="inactive" data-source="post: 3253453" data-attributes="member: 7488"><p>Yup.</p><p></p><p><em> 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).[<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#F28" target="_blank">Footnote 28</a>] ...</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em> In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, <strong>as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. </strong></em></p><p></p><p>This ordinance does not pass muster. It'll be dead. Eventually.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="inactive, post: 3253453, member: 7488"] Yup. [I] 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).[[URL='https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#F28']Footnote 28[/URL]] ... In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, [B]as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. [/B][/I] This ordinance does not pass muster. It'll be dead. Eventually. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
San Diego City Council: Guns Must Be Locked or Disabled in Homes
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom