RoyGBiv wrote:b322da wrote:Beiruty wrote:All what it means, that the government can regulate firearms, or the supreme court does not want to re-consider existing regulation in question.
It means precisely what Chas. just said it means, and it is quite arguable whether this "undermines"
Heller.
Jim
Are you suggesting this has no impact on Heller?
Heller says.... quoting from the Reason article in the OP.
[In the Heller decision] the Court voided not only D.C.'s ban on handguns, it also voided D.C.'s requirement that all firearms kept at home be "unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." According to Heller, the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
Now you have the Court refusing to hear a case where lower Courts have upheld a San Fransisco ordinance requiring....
that all handguns kept at home and not carried on the owner’s person be "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock."
How is yesterdays decision to deny certiorari in this case NOT exactly the opposite of Heller?
I think I'm going to take Thomas's word on it..
Less than a decade ago, we explained that an ordinance requiring firearms in the home to be kept inoperable, without an exception for self-defense, conflicted with the Second Amendment because it “ma[de] it impossible for citizens to use [their firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self- defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 630 (2008). Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it. Because Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document, I would have granted this petition.
While I agree with you Roy that there is cause for some pessimism, as a result of SCOTUS's refusal to grant cert., I'd like to revisit the part of the ordinance in question that you quoted above:
that all handguns kept at home and not carried on the owner’s person be "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock."
Mainly, what it seems to me that they are saying is,
if it is not carried on your person, lock it up. So...... carry it on your person. If a visiting cop doesn't like that, tell him you are trying to comply with the 9th "most often overruled by SCOTUS" Circuit court's decision in
Jackson v. San Francisco.