Replies

Not only are trigger locks a bad idea on weapons for defense, the Supreme Court ruled that provision unconstitutional. So, the D.C. government is trying to stick it to the Court.

This is a "civil right." The D.C. government should be hit with damages and attorneys fees and costs for messing with the civil rights of D.C. residents.

Congressman Billybob

First three in the series, "American Government: The Owner's Manual" are here, and also on FR

Latest article, "Smart as a Whip, Dumb as a Hoe Handle"

According to SCOTUSBlog:

However, any gun kept in the owner’s home would have to be kept unloaded and disassembled or else disabled by a trigger lock. The only time that requirement is not in force, under the proposal law, would be when the gun was “being used to protect against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person” within that person’s home.

That provision, officials told reporters, was meant to allow a handgun owner to get the gun and load it — for example, if a burglar were at the door. It would not allow the gun to be loaded or assembled or unlocked at all times it remained in the home.

I am sure that nice burglar will wait at the door until the homeowner is loaded, unlocked and ready. I predict another Supreme smackdown for these folks.

The tests smack ironically enough of the poll tax and other ingenious regulatory schemes Southern states employ to deny blacks their full voting rights. The government CANNOT condition a right on your having to meet or pass any kind of test or to pay any kind of fee or tax. If that's present, its a privilege, not a right. Guns are in a different category from motor vehicles. There's no constitutional right to drive a car while there is a constitutional right to bear and keep arms. The courts understand the distinction while DC's government pretends not to.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

Yes, from the ruling itself (I don't have a link as I saved the pdf file locally):

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this

Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
Syllabus

prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. 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. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64. 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.