This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CA: City of San Diego Considers Gun Control Ordinance
Mark A. Taff
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
San Diego City Attorney, Mara Elliott has asked the City Council to consider a draft ordinance that would require mandatory locked storage of firearms in the home and would propose a conflicting law regarding the reporting of lost or stolen firearms. Ms. Elliott works closely with gun control advocates in the City and made a strong effort to justify her request for the City to take action at the June meeting of the Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee. While the Committee was divided on the issue, the proposal did get enough votes to put it before the full City Council for consideration.
|I see no mention of the NRA/ILA citing the Heller holding that mandatory storage laws are unconstitutional.
“3) …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.” - D.C. v. Heller (2008)
“[A] statute which, under the pretense of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense [is] clearly unconstitutional.”
It is PRECEDENT, so why is it not being cited here and in challenges to gun storage laws in, say, Washington and elsewhere?