Gun Control: Supreme's refuse to hear challenge to San Francisco regulations of gun ownership

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Here's the story:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-top-court-rejects-challenge-to-san-francisco-gun-regulation/ar-BBkPW85

From the article:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge by gun rights activists to a San Francisco regulation that requires gun owners to keep their weapons locked up or disabled when stored at home.

By declining to hear an appeal filed by gun owners and the National Rifle Association, the court left intact a March 2014 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the measure.

The regulation, issued in 2007, states that anyone who keeps a handgun at home must either store it in a locked container or disable it with a trigger lock.

The challengers said the regulation violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms.

A trigger lock isn't much to ask in the way of regulation. This seems like overreach by the NRA.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Here's the story:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-top-court-rejects-challenge-to-san-francisco-gun-regulation/ar-BBkPW85

From the article:

A trigger lock isn't much to ask in the way of regulation. This seems like overreach by the NRA.

As I understand it, a "trigger lock" requirement was already struck down by the USSC as being unconstitutional in the Heller case.

[Frog Eater]

Scot,

You think the city ordering me how to store a firearm IN MY HOME isn't overreach?

How very conservative of you

This is the definition of government overreach. Ordering me how I must behave IN MY HOME in relation to a matter that bears no trespass upon another person.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nestor,

I think it was the totality of the DC scheme of firearm regulation that was struck down, not a requirement for trigger locks specifically.

FE,

I'll have to look at the opinion but I suspect you would have to prove you have a trigger lock to get a license to own a firearm in San Francisco. I doubt it is specifically that it must be on the weapon at all times or it is illegal to possess. I'll see if I can find the 9th Circuit opinion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jackson v. San Francisco:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/03/25/12-17803.pdf

The Circuit court denied the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injuction over the enforcement of a regulation that requires weapons, when not on someone's person, be stored in a gun safe or with a trigger lock. I strongly suspect the procedureal status of this case weighs strongly in why the Court's have ruled the way they did. Normally, you need a showing of damage before the court will overrule a law on Constitutional grounds. This was an effort by the Plaintiff's to prevent the law from being enforced at all.

[sologdin]

pretty obviously the court is telling san franciscans to keep their arms on their persons at all times, which arms, being thus 'borne,' are within the four corners of the amendment and therefore subject to no infringement.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Nestor,

I think it was the totality of the DC scheme of firearm regulation that was struck down, not a requirement for trigger locks specifically.

From the opinion of the Court:

"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. "

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nestor,

From the opinion of the Court:

"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. "

Then it must be the procedural posture of this case. Personally, requiring Trigger locks for saftey when not in direct possession of a firearm makes sense to me. It would reduce the number of people accidentally shot because they have no clue what do with a loaded weapon when it is found unsecured.

[sologdin]

heller's trigger lock statute was distinguishable, no? all firearms there vs. just handguns here?

[Survivor92]

Maybe not entirely on-topic but I've always wondered what the big deal is about the right to bear arms. Maybe it's because I'm from Europe and I grew up without that right, but I never understood people from the U.S. who go out of their way to defend this right. Having read 1984, I understand the danger the government poses and I can understand the idea that giving weapons to citizens could potentially prevent a scenario like this from happening. But is it really worth it? And isn't the government already capable of getting lot of power and control (see all the issues nowadays with privacy, cameras, the internet etc.)? Plus how would citizens with pistols/rifles be able to defend themselves against an organized government army with tanks, aircraft and artillery? How does having a pistol or rifle at home make a difference?

From my point of view, it seems like a classical "arms race" scenario. Everyone has guns so any conflict can easier escalate. Here in Europe the chance that I encounter someone with a gun is extremely rare, so most likely I will only have to face a fist coming at my face or maybe a knife. I'm not sure I would feel safe or comfortable living in a country where everyone owns a gun. Here in Europe I'm confident that I can run away if I get in trouble. Or you could take up martial arts training. But any idiot can buy a gun and pull a trigger. Not to mention all the issues with children picking up a weapon in their parents home. This is a topic that is broadly covered here in the media in Europe.

If this is off-topic or not the point of this topic, then I apologize and please ignore this post. If not, I'm genuinely interested in hearing the opinion of someone who disagrees with me, maybe someone from the U.S.? Having a discusson would perhaps be futile since we grew up in such different environments and could at best agree to disagree, but as I said, I'm genuinely interested in hearing a civil opinion on why the right to bear arms is important.

[Seli]

Scot,

You think the city ordering me how to store a firearm IN MY HOME isn't overreach?

How very conservative of you

This is the definition of government overreach. Ordering me how I must behave IN MY HOME in relation to a matter that bears no trespass upon another person.

Could you be sure a bullet fired by someone else from an unsecured weapon would not leave your home? No? Seems fair to regulate it then.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

heller's trigger lock statute was distinguishable, no? all firearms there vs. just handguns here?

I'd have to take a closer look at both of the laws, but I think the real distinction is that the San Francisco ordinance allows you to "carry" your handgun at home such that it doesn't have to be secured. It only has to be secured or trigger locked if it's not being carried on your person. Although I'm not sure that encouraging people to sleep with their handguns strapped to them is necessarily a better solution.

[Guy Kilmore]

I'd have to take a closer look at both of the laws, but I think the real distinction is that the San Francisco ordinance allows you to "carry" your handgun at home such that it doesn't have to be secured. It only has to be secured or trigger locked if it's not being carried on your person. Although I'm not sure that encouraging people to sleep with their handguns strapped to them is necessarily a better solution.

True heroes keep it in their hand and hide it under the pillow when they sleep.

[BitsOfBrains]

I think a better law would be to require a person with a minor in the home (even just a visiting minor) have their gun locked. If someone breaks into my garage or house in the middle of the night fumbling with a lock or safe isn't an option.

I am to a small extent a gun nut but there needs to start being some responsibility put on gun holders. Freedom to bear arms doesn't mean you can just be a dick waving idiot which is what the right wants the second amendment to be.

I am a trained weapons system operator. For every one of me there are 50 dumbass inbred back country over compensating, "Wooo Uhmerka! I am gonna shoot me some darkies!" *bang bang* red staters.

Its really why i don't tell anyone I know in person that I have a decent armory, because the average gun owner in American is an embarrassment.

[BitsOfBrains]

Maybe not entirely on-topic but I've always wondered what the big deal is about the right to bear arms. Maybe it's because I'm from Europe and I grew up without that right, but I never understood people from the U.S. who go out of their way to defend this right. Having read 1984, I understand the danger the government poses and I can understand the idea that giving weapons to citizens could potentially prevent a scenario like this from happening. But is it really worth it? And isn't the government already capable of getting lot of power and control (see all the issues nowadays with privacy, cameras, the internet etc.)? Plus how would citizens with pistols/rifles be able to defend themselves against an organized government army with tanks, aircraft and artillery? How does having a pistol or rifle at home make a difference?

From my point of view, it seems like a classical "arms race" scenario. Everyone has guns so any conflict can easier escalate. Here in Europe the chance that I encounter someone with a gun is extremely rare, so most likely I will only have to face a fist coming at my face or maybe a knife. I'm not sure I would feel safe or comfortable living in a country where everyone owns a gun. Here in Europe I'm confident that I can run away if I get in trouble. Or you could take up martial arts training. But any idiot can buy a gun and pull a trigger. Not to mention all the issues with children picking up a weapon in their parents home. This is a topic that is broadly covered here in the media in Europe.

If this is off-topic or not the point of this topic, then I apologize and please ignore this post. If not, I'm genuinely interested in hearing the opinion of someone who disagrees with me, maybe someone from the U.S.? Having a discusson would perhaps be futile since we grew up in such different environments and could at best agree to disagree, but as I said, I'm genuinely interested in hearing a civil opinion on why the right to bear arms is important.

Its mostly a hold over from slavery and over compensation for having a small penis. The idea being that you can kill black people if they get uppity or play loud music or walk in your neighborhood.

I only half joke because I myself own several guns, but a lot of Americas gun lust boils down to that.

[Swordfish]

Nestor,

I think it was the totality of the DC scheme of firearm regulation that was struck down, not a requirement for trigger locks specifically.

FE,

I'll have to look at the opinion but I suspect you would have to prove you have a trigger lock to get a license to own a firearm in San Francisco. I doubt it is specifically that it must be on the weapon at all times or it is illegal to possess. I'll see if I can find the 9th Circuit opinion.

You need a license to own a firearm in San Francisco?

[Seli]

I think a better law would be to require a person with a minor in the home (even just a visiting minor) have their gun locked. If someone breaks into my garage or house in the middle of the night fumbling with a lock or safe isn't an option.

...

If you don't have the time and state of mind to open a lock (which money permitting could IIRC be a fingerprint lock) would you feel safe to point a weapon at a person and identify them properly?

[Swordfish]

If you don't have the time and state of mind to open a lock (which money permitting could IIRC be a fingerprint lock) would you feel safe to point a weapon at a person and identify them properly?

Depends on the situation. But an argument could certainly be made that what you end up doing is fumbling with the lock INSTEAD of properly identifying the intruder.

But it's a moot point, because that's not the use case that this law is intended to cover anyway.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Swordfish,

No. Take a look at the case that I linked to. It appears this is an attempt to regulate thw storage of firearms in the home requireing a gunsafe or trigger lock where the weapon is not on he owner's person. Wouldn't most gun safety people with the NRA agree these are good practices for in home gun saftey?

[Swordfish]

Swordfish,

No. Take a look at the case that I linked to. It appears this is an attempt to regulate thw storage of firearms in the home requireing a gunsafe or trigger lock where the weapon is not on he owner's person. Wouldn't most gun safety people with the NRA agree these are good practices for in home gun saftey?

I don't know who you are referring to when you say ' most gun safety people with the NRA '.

Whether they are good practices and whether they are LEGALLY REQUIRED are two different questions.

Which one are you asking me?