San Diego law to lock up or disable guns in home

HaveBlue said:

Special Lock Box requirement = Only rich people can have guns.

Or if they cared about safety, the city would provide them, for free.

Click to expand...

press1280 said:

That would be an interesting suit in and of itself.

See if the city is willing to fork over major dollars for this. My gut says they won't

Click to expand...

wolfwood said:

I agree. With an as applied challenge we could have a fresh start. Get experts to speak about the failure rate of the lock boxes. Get a person with mobility issues. Get a medical expert to show how this impairs the litigants ability to open the lock box and that impacts his ability to self defense.

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

I would disagree with how you are going about it. Most of the 2A cases have hired experts and disputed the states reasoning with experts. Most courts have found the laws valid because they find that the issues are really political and defer to the legislature.

I would bring a facial challenge and not an as applied one. I actually think the reasoning in Jackson helps provide a perspective on how to better argue the case. It demonstrates how to separate how the law accomplishes something with the means by which it is accomplished. In Jackson, the court found that the law was valid because the law preventing the sale of hollow point ammo in a particular jurisdiction did not prevent someone from keeping and bearing that ammo in the same jurisdiction.

If you turn the argument around then you find the law was actually invalid. The benefit that SF was claiming about HP ammo was from the use of it, but because the law did not restrict the use of it, the law is not substantially related to the government interest. It is therefor invalid.

In the case of the lock law, you will find a similar argument. The harms the government claims an interest in are from other people using the firearm, but it actually restricts the owner from using it. There are laws that make it illegal for others to acquire the firearm, which already prevent unauthorized people from using the firearm.

The governments argument is essentially that of Korematsu. I am going to punish you for the actions of others. No constitutional right could survive if I can punish you for the actions of others.

You need to make better arguments. I believe the main reason SCOTUS has not taken a 2A case is due to the weak arguments presented. The only reason the NYRPA case was taken was because they do not need better arguments to resolve the case due to the unique restrictions in NYC.

Click to expand...

jcutonilli said:

I would disagree with how you are going about it. Most of the 2A cases have hired experts and disputed the states reasoning with experts. Most courts have found the laws valid because they find that the issues are really political and defer to the legislature.

I would bring a facial challenge and not an as applied one. I actually think the reasoning in Jackson helps provide a perspective on how to better argue the case. It demonstrates how to separate how the law accomplishes something with the means by which it is accomplished. In Jackson, the court found that the law was valid because the law preventing the sale of hollow point ammo in a particular jurisdiction did not prevent someone from keeping and bearing that ammo in the same jurisdiction.

If you turn the argument around then you find the law was actually invalid. The benefit that SF was claiming about HP ammo was from the use of it, but because the law did not restrict the use of it, the law is not substantially related to the government interest. It is therefor invalid.

In the case of the lock law, you will find a similar argument. The harms the government claims an interest in are from other people using the firearm, but it actually restricts the owner from using it. There are laws that make it illegal for others to acquire the firearm, which already prevent unauthorized people from using the firearm.

The governments argument is essentially that of Korematsu. I am going to punish you for the actions of others. No constitutional right could survive if I can punish you for the actions of others.

You need to make better arguments. I believe the main reason SCOTUS has not taken a 2A case is due to the weak arguments presented. The only reason the NYRPA case was taken was because they do not need better arguments to resolve the case due to the unique restrictions in NYC.

Click to expand...

wolfwood said:

It is not true that most of the cases have hired experts.

Why would you bring a facial challenge? A storage requirement was already upheld regarding a facial challenge in Jackson (the ammo issue was only one part of the case). That would fail for sure.

Click to expand...

In considering a city's justifications for its ordinance, we do not impose “an unnecessarily rigid burden of proof ․ so long as whatever evidence the city relies upon is reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem that the city addresses.”

Click to expand...

Biggfoot44 said:

Not only handicapped , but address the physiological effects of fight or flight reflex (aka home invasion in progress, etc) upon fine motor skills .

Click to expand...

BlueHeeler said:

That is true, however after Heller, DC changed the law to remove storage restrictions.

DC still promotes the old law as "policy" in the official study guide:

"It is recommended that each registrant keep any firearm in his or her possession unloaded and either disassembled or secured by a trigger lock, gun safe, locked box, or other secure device."

Click to expand...