Maestro Pistolero
Active Member
- Mar 20, 2012
- 876
NOT impressed with NRA attorney. Heller directly controverts this ordinance with its invalidation of the trigger lock requirement WITHOUT a standard of review. NRA has thus far (1/2 through) missed several opportunities to point that out. The Heller court literally ridiculed the idea that a locked gun could be useful at all for self-defense in the middle of the night.
Also, failing to point out in the discussion of what constitutes an unacceptable delay that life or death in a gunfight usually turns on MILLISECONDS, not SECONDS, was a mistake in my opinion. The justices ask what was an acceptable delay, and the answer should have been flatly ZERO seconds followed by an explanation as to why. The first person to fire his weapon, if only a tenth of a second earlier, is exponentially more likely to survive the fight. This is a critical point, based on nothing more than simple physics, even in a discussion involving substantial burden. There is no greater burden than the loss of ones life or limb.
I just finished. NRA finally got to Heller's admonition that the right is to a gun for immediate self defense. I would have liked to see a point driven home a bit more: "I would suggest to the the court that the word immediate means nothing if not without any delay". Also there was NO reference to Heller's invalidation of the trigger lock requirement.
Rarely is the guidance from SCOTUS more on point than is Heller's guidance vis a vi Jackson. I simply cannot believe this point was not made at orals.
Also, failing to point out in the discussion of what constitutes an unacceptable delay that life or death in a gunfight usually turns on MILLISECONDS, not SECONDS, was a mistake in my opinion. The justices ask what was an acceptable delay, and the answer should have been flatly ZERO seconds followed by an explanation as to why. The first person to fire his weapon, if only a tenth of a second earlier, is exponentially more likely to survive the fight. This is a critical point, based on nothing more than simple physics, even in a discussion involving substantial burden. There is no greater burden than the loss of ones life or limb.
I just finished. NRA finally got to Heller's admonition that the right is to a gun for immediate self defense. I would have liked to see a point driven home a bit more: "I would suggest to the the court that the word immediate means nothing if not without any delay". Also there was NO reference to Heller's invalidation of the trigger lock requirement.
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, ren- dering it inoperable.
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 fire- arm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.
Rarely is the guidance from SCOTUS more on point than is Heller's guidance vis a vi Jackson. I simply cannot believe this point was not made at orals.