1 dead, at least 24 shot, including children, at Arkansas car show

[BlueTex]

In direct opposition to actual SCOTUS ruling in Heller? yes

And New York's law? Massachusetts? Oregon? Texas?

 

[rahl]

And New York's law? Massachusetts? Oregon? Texas?

All in direct violation of SCOTUS ruling from Heller. There are numerous laws states still enforce that are in direct violation of a SCOTUS ruling.

 

[BlueTex]

All in direct violation of SCOTUS ruling from Heller. There are numerous laws states still enforce that are in direct violation of a SCOTUS ruling.

LOL... You are dreaming...

 

[rahl]

LOL... You are dreaming...

Was there a SCOTUS ruling, overturning a trigger lock requirement as being unconstitutional? yep. Heller. Has that ruling been overturned? nope. Making any trigger lock requirement in any state completely unconstitutional. This happens sometimes. States think they can just ignore rulings like this. It's not just gun laws that states ignore.

 

[BlueTex]

Was there a SCOTUS ruling, overturning a trigger lock requirement as being unconstitutional? yep. Heller. Has that ruling been overturned? nope. Making any trigger lock requirement in any state completely unconstitutional. This happens sometimes. States think they can just ignore rulings like this. It's not just gun laws that states ignore.

Did Heller prohibit laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents?

 

[rahl]

Did Heller prohibit laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents?

Heller overturned trigger locks, or anything that renders a firearm inoperable or inaccessible for use in the home

 

[BlueTex]

Heller overturned trigger locks, or anything that renders a firearm inoperable or inaccessible for use in the home

Answer the question: Did Heller prohibit laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents?

 

[rahl]

Answer the question: Did Heller prohibit laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents?

I answered it, in the post you quoted.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Is New York's law still enforced? Massachusetts? Oregon? Texas?

Yes, but your argument boils down to: if a law still exists then it is constitutional.

 

[BlueTex]

I answered it, in the post you quoted.

So you disagree with Scalia?

Nothing about those fire-safety laws undermines our analysis; they do not remotely burden the right of selfdefense as much as an absolute ban on handguns. Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[BlueTex]

Yes, but your argument boils down to: if a law still exists then it is constitutional.

No, it boils down to having actually read Heller...

The other laws JUSTICE BREYER cites are gunpowder-storage laws that he concedes did not clearly prohibit loaded weapons, but required only that excess gunpowder be kept in a special container or on the top floor of the home. Post, at 6–7. Nothing about those fire-safety laws undermines our analysis; they do not remotely burden the right of selfdefense as much as an absolute ban on handguns. Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[rahl]

So you disagree with Scalia?

Nothing about those fire-safety laws undermines our analysis; they do not remotely burden the right of selfdefense as much as an absolute ban on handguns. Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

I answered the question. Heller ruled that a law rendering a firearm inoperable or not readily accessible inside the home is unconstitutional.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, it boils down to having actually read Heller...

The other laws JUSTICE BREYER cites are gunpowder-storage laws that he concedes did not clearly prohibit loaded weapons, but required only that excess gunpowder be kept in a special container or on the top floor of the home. Post, at 6–7. Nothing about those fire-safety laws undermines our analysis; they do not remotely burden the right of selfdefense as much as an absolute ban on handguns. Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

OK, but can you imagine the outrage if a similar law required that vehicles or other potentially dangerous chemicals, tools (e.g. knives) and equipment must be kept locked (secured?) while not in use?

 

[jaeger19]

So if you own a gun and don't secure it it's not your problem?

Umm..isn't being in my home mean it's secured?

 

[jaeger19]

I have no idea what I would do if someone walked out with a gun like that. I think I would leave, but none of us know what we would do in that situation which is why the law should be written to minimize those situations.

But here is the thing. They are on your property.
That ups the anti here.
Let's say that you ask them to leave and they get mad and strike you and hurt you badly..do you get to call a time out and then go get a firearm to protect yourself?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

But here is the thing. They are on your property.
That ups the anti here.
Let's say that you ask them to leave and they get mad and strike you and hurt you badly..do you get to call a time out and then go get a firearm to protect yourself?

That isn't what went on there. That was typical ex's arguing about the kids.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Umm..isn't being in my home mean it's secured?

No. If it was accessible by a visiting (or resident) 4 year old then it was not “secured” simply because it was inside of a building.

 

[jaeger19]

No. If it was accessible by a visiting (or resident) 4 year old then it was not “secured” simply because it was inside of a building.

But what if there isn't a visiting 4 year old.?
I don't have visiting 4 year olds.
Is not being in my house being secured then?

 

[jaeger19]

That isn't what went on there. That was typical ex's arguing about the kids.

Just pointing out that being in someone's house and refusing to leave ups the anti versus two people arguing in the street.

 

[SCrider]

Umm..isn't being in my home mean it's secured?

in a safe is secured.

 

[jaeger19]

in a safe is secured.

Why not in my house?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No. If it was accessible by a visiting (or resident) 4 year old then it was not “secured” simply because it was inside of a building.

If the weapon is not actually in the direct control of a person, then the requirement is that it be "secured". That means that a weapon that the person is actually carrying (either in their hands, or in a holster, or slung) IS "in the direct control" of the person (as a weapon that the person were preforming routine maintenance on [or even upgrades to]).

Leaving your shotgun on the kitchen table while you dash off for a pee is "leaving the weapon unsecured" UNLESS another person (who is legally allowed to have possession of the weapon) takes over the control of the weapon EVEN IF the weapon is in a locked apartment on the 200th floor of a building with armed security guards and "Super-Duper, Tippy-Top, Really Ultra, Even Higher That Stratospheric Top Secret" access controls (as "Joe Gunowner" is going to find out when their 4 year old child pulls the shotgun off the table and blows the head off "Mrs. Joe Gunowner" as she raced into the kitchen to take the shotgun away from little "Joe Gunowner Jr.").

 

[jaeger19]

If the weapon is not actually in the direct control of a person, then the requirement is that it be "secured". That means that a weapon that the person is actually carrying (either in their hands, or in a holster, or slung) IS "in the direct control" of the person (as a weapon that the person were preforming routine maintenance on [or even upgrades to]).

Leaving your shotgun on the kitchen table while you dash off for a pee is "leaving the weapon unsecured" UNLESS another person (who is legally allowed to have possession of the weapon) takes over the control of the weapon EVEN IF the weapon is in a locked apartment on the 200th floor of a building with armed security guards and "Super-Duper, Tippy-Top, Really Ultra, Even Higher That Stratospheric Top Secret" access controls (as "Joe Gunowner" is going to find out when their 4 year old child pulls the shotgun off the table and blows the head off "Mrs. Joe Gunowner" as she raced into the kitchen to take the shotgun away from little "Joe Gunowner Jr.").

You realize that makes no sense right.
So I am cleaning my shotgun in my home alone.
And rush off to pee..and my shotgun is unsecured?
Please explain.