Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Gun Control/2nd Amendment
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Gun Control/2nd Amendment Discuss Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law at the General Forum; Originally Posted by foundit66 I answered your question. I explained how the DC demands were different from the SF demands. ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 06-10-2015, 12:09 AM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 923
Thanks: 844
Thanked 1,258 Times in 584 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I answered your question.
I explained how the DC demands were different from the SF demands.
If you refuse knowledge that is offered, that's on you...

Is it that you really haven't a clue that there was a DC law on safe storage under challenge in Heller?


"We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable. . . .

This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."


So, I ask again, exactly how do the SF demands differ from the DC demands -- which were held to be UNconstitutional by SCOTUS in Heller?
__________________
Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 06-10-2015, 12:25 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,608
Thanks: 10,108
Thanked 15,284 Times in 9,267 Posts
Post Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
Is it that you really haven't a clue that there was a DC law on safe storage under challenge in Heller?
"We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable. . . .
This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
So, I ask again, exactly how do the SF demands differ from the DC demands -- which were held to be UNconstitutional by SCOTUS in Heller?
You seem to revel in being this close to answering your own question, but refusing...
Does the SF law demand the firearm be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock?
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 06-10-2015, 12:51 AM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 923
Thanks: 844
Thanked 1,258 Times in 584 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You seem to revel in being this close to answering your own question, but refusing...
Does the SF law demand the firearm be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock?
Disassembled, no . . . Trigger locked or in a safe . . . yes:

Section 4512 -- “[n]o person shall keep a handgun within a residence owned or controlled by that person unless” (1) “the handgun is stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock that has been approved by the California Department of Justice”

Trigger locked or in a safe renders the weapon not available for immediate use for self defense and thus, "impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

The Court said in Heller's closing:

"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."
__________________
Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 06-10-2015, 12:53 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,608
Thanks: 10,108
Thanked 15,284 Times in 9,267 Posts
Post Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
Disassembled, no . . . Trigger locked or in a safe . . . yes:
Section 4512 -- “[n]o person shall keep a handgun within a residence owned or controlled by that person unless” (1) “the handgun is stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock that has been approved by the California Department of Justice”
Trigger locked or in a safe renders the weapon not available for immediate use for self defense and thus, "impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
The Court said in Heller's closing:
"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."
DC has either A or B.
SF has either B or C.
If C is constitutional, the law can stand.

But thank you for finally answering your own question.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 06-10-2015, 01:36 AM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 923
Thanks: 844
Thanked 1,258 Times in 584 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
DC has either A or B.
SF has either B or C.
If C is constitutional, the law can stand.

But thank you for finally answering your own question.
What is it with profoundly ignorant anti-gunners? You didn't even know that Heller held a safe storage law unconstitutional and yet you come back at me with this arrogant smart-ass attitude. You should be embarrassed.

The question stands because you have not explained the reasoning that makes "C" constitutional.

I'd be interested in hearing an opinion cultivated only in feelings. The last thing you would do is actually read the 9th Circuit's opinion, to at least ground your position in the legal arguments that were applied in this case (as sad as they may be).

Whatever, SCOTUS is clear, any demand that the gun be rendered unavailable for immediate use in self defense fails constitutional scrutiny.

Rhetorical question here, where do you see any allowance in Heller (as if you would ever read it) for the inherent, unavoidable delay in using a locked container? Even one with a biometric lock can't be said to offer "immediate use" . . .

Note that to the Court, a mechanism that delays use at the moment it is needed, is equatable with rendering the gun, "[in]operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense".

I'll ask one last time; explain to me how a "locked container" is different.
__________________
Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
challenge, court, francisco, gun, law, refuses, san, supreme, take

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0