Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Over the objections of two justices, the Supreme Court declined Monday to review a decision leaving intact San Francisco’s law requiring that handguns be stored in a lockbox or secured with a trigger lock.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another challenge will succeed...it's not about the requirement they be secured, it's about the method and the reason for securing.

Not arguing that gun owners with kids in house shouldn't be required to secure.

However...If a person resides in a dwelling with no other occupants and has no visitors, and further keeps their windiws and doors locked, is the method equivalent. Couple cases currently working their way through the courts as the law was poorly written. Once the method has been defeated, the law becomes trash.

Next.

dbackjon wrote:Over the objections of two justices, the Supreme Court declined Monday to review a decision leaving intact San Francisco’s law requiring that handguns be stored in a lockbox or secured with a trigger lock.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Misleading headline as the Court did not uphold anything in this case. Had they done so, the rest of the country would be bound by the decision and any laws and court cases would need to comply with the decision.

In this case, the Supreme Court declined to review so only the jurisdiction controlled by the 9th Circuit is bound by whatever the 9th Circuit ruled in that case. Note that doesn't mean that all of the 9th circuit must comply with the SF law. Just that for now, the other cities in the jurisdiction could enact the same law

Any law like this is unconstitutional our government has no right to restrict when where and how you bear arms.

travelinman67 wrote: However...If a person resides in a dwelling with no other occupants and has no visitors, and further keeps their windiws and doors locked, is the method equivalent. Couple cases currently working their way through the courts as the law was poorly written. Once the method has been defeated, the law becomes trash.

you mean guys like this?

tribe_pride wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Over the objections of two justices, the Supreme Court declined Monday to review a decision leaving intact San Francisco’s law requiring that handguns be stored in a lockbox or secured with a trigger lock.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Misleading headline as the Court did not uphold anything in this case. Had they done so, the rest of the country would be bound by the decision and any laws and court cases would need to comply with the decision.

In this case, the Supreme Court declined to review so only the jurisdiction controlled by the 9th Circuit is bound by whatever the 9th Circuit ruled in that case. Note that doesn't mean that all of the 9th circuit must comply with the SF law. Just that for now, the other cities in the jurisdiction could enact the same law

Details, details. Those things have never got in the way of a good, if erroneous, message board subject title.

If I had to awake to the sound of breaking glass at 3AM and get my glasses, find the key to my lockbox or safe, retrieve the weapon, and then confront the intruder I well just save the money and buy some strategically placed Louisville sluggers in my house. Doesn't matter that the intruder will likely be carrying a gun, but I guess it makes the anti-gun lobby feel better to know that law abiding gun owners under this law could be killed in the comfort of their own bedrooms.

ASUG8 wrote:I guess it makes the anti-gun lobby feel better to know that law abiding gun owners under this law could be killed in the comfort of their own bedrooms.

As long as we're attaching ridiculous positions to people.

"I guess it makes the pro-gun lobby upset to know that toddlers will have a harder time blowing their heads off."

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I guess it makes the anti-gun lobby feel better to know that law abiding gun owners under this law could be killed in the comfort of their own bedrooms.

As long as we're attaching ridiculous positions to people.

"I guess it makes the pro-gun lobby upset to know that toddlers will have a harder time blowing their heads off."

THERE he is!!!

Haven't seen you for awhile.

Hyperbolicfetti.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I guess it makes the anti-gun lobby feel better to know that law abiding gun owners under this law could be killed in the comfort of their own bedrooms.

As long as we're attaching ridiculous positions to people.

"I guess it makes the pro-gun lobby upset to know that toddlers will have a harder time blowing their heads off."

If you have kids in your house you either teach them to stay away from daddy's guns or you lock your guns (or kids, preferably the latter ) away.

I on the other hand don't have any toddlers, or kids in my house. But a one size fits all approach is fine in your book I guess.

How does this work anyway? Are SF residents subject to some brownshirts or SWAT guys busting in to ensure compliance?