A question…

DC vs Heller said this:

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. This prohibition would fail constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny. Similarly, 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 therefore unconstitutional. 

Since NY, MD and other states and the Feds have defined  “assault rifles” in all these bills. and every bill seeks to ban this “class” of guns, which an overwhelming majority of Americans own for self defense, doesn’t that equal them trying to ban an entire class of arms for said reason and therefore has already been proven to be unconstitutional by DC vs Heller? 

The decision saying that trigger locks and having them disassembled etc. in the home should also nullify a few other things in these kooky bills with regard to securing the guns shouldn’t it?

Just asking…


A question… — 11 Comments

  1. Yep.
    And I say we challenge them on semantics.They are defense weapons, not assault weapons.
    Like a baseball bat by the bed is a defense weapon.
    Great, I’m gnawing on my finger again.

  2. I believe guns are supposed to be in a locked safe, disabled, or with a trigger lock if there are children in the house.

    I don’t know what kind of children are running loose now, but MY kid knew to leave the adult’s guns alone. So did I. So did YOU.

    I had guns in ORDER to protect my home and child. So did my dad and probably yours. For some reason, WE had more sense that to pick one up.

  3. I MEANT, I believe that’s what the idiots in Washington D.C. mean. I might have come across as saying “I” think they should be locked. NO WAY.

  4. Lotta- Yep, you’re exactly right!
    And yes “I” understood what you meant! 🙂 I’d have gotten my butt beat for playing with one…

  5. Firearms kept in the house for whatever reason should be secure but easily accessible to the trained and knowledgable user. If otherwise stored they lose utility.

    As Ed says, in this debate semantics (and will add ignorance) are a large part of the problem. Diane Feinstein is among the ignorant when it comes to firearms but thankfully she is among the minority.

    Hotheaded rhetoric gathers plenty of nuts when such is uttered by either of the extremes. We need to rein in the foolish talk from *both* sides. Perhaps if we manage that moderation will prevail.

  6. Ignorant people believe that gun control laws make them safer.

    The rest of us know better.

    Chicago is a case in point. But today a lib on Twitter cited Chicago as an example of why the US needs more gun control. He fails to acknowledge that Chicago’s abysmal record is a result of the Chicago gun ban.

  7. Maybe we need to stamp “For defensive use only” on the side of the weapons to satisfy liberals?

    I know that won’t satiate their anger at those of us who have chosen to be sovereign individuals.

  8. MB- Good points! Thanks!

    Tim- I know, I know…

    Opus- Of course not, it doesn’t fit their agenda to admit failure…

    LL- There IS no answer that will satisfy them, other than total disarmament… And that will not happen here.

  9. Growing up, in every house we lived in, a loaded Model 94 .30-.30 was on two pegs over the front door.

    The firearms may have differed, but nearly every house I visited had the same setup.