[The KG9 Kid]

"... It would still require that a firearm be disassembled, unloaded and trigger-locked in the home but would tweak the current law to allow an exception for self-defense."

Brilliant.

Congress should move to retract 'home rule' from DC. I haven't seen one single human being in a leadership position in the DC government that isn't either an obtuse cretin, a dingie blonde, an inner city graft machine, a race-baiting poverty pimp, or a doddering old crackhead.

These people are too stupid to have such responsibility for our nation's capitol. Remove it from them.

[Myrddin]

This proposed change only addresses the "keep" part of the 2nd amendment. The "bear" part of the amendment means the "arm" must be usable for its intended purpose. A disassembled, unloaded, trigger locked firearm is suitable for nothing but a paperweight or a club. Unless that provision is removed, the city law is still in violation of the 2nd amendment.

[justlurking]

t would still require that a firearm be disassembled, unloaded and trigger-locked in the home but would tweak the current law to allow an exception for self-defense.

Go directly to Jail, do not pass Go or collect $200.

The Court explicitly ruled that laws mandating disassembly and/or trigger locks were unconstitutional.

Frankly, I think we need a Federal law that makes it a crime to vote for a law that is blatantly unconstitutional.

[Eastbound]

"It would still require that a firearm be disassembled, unloaded and trigger-locked in the home . . . "

Note to all: The Second Amendment does not have any provisos or qualififications attached to it. Why don't all you gun-grabbing nuts who just can't give up the notion that you were born to insure the proper handling and distribution of guns just silently crawl back in the slimy holes you were spawmed from and let the people manage their own affairs? You won't really be missed. Honest. Thank you very much.

[jack_napier]

"I am not conceding that...we make an open-ended exception" for trigger locks, Cheh said.
Open ended? I'm not sure what she means here, but Scalia was pretty direct about them not being acceptable. As a DC resident, I *would* enjoy seeing them ground into dust, but the money spent losing cases to the NRA will be funded by my tax money.

[nonsporting]

Scalia writes (p.3):

...Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Since ALL firearms are capable tools to be used for self-defense, any requirement to render any inoperable is unconstitutional.

[mr_hammer]

Honestly, you would think these people had the authority to write whatever law they liked and the Constitution be damned.

Somewhere along the line someone is going to have to be pinched for a civil rights violation.

[wastedyears]

A Democrat??? In DC???