Simple explanation of Heller and McDonald?

[rajb123]

I thought there were many cases of rulings by the Supremes that struck down a specific state or federal law that ended up invalidated other similar state or local laws.

When the Heller ruling came out and struct down trigger locks in DC in 2008, I naturally assumed it would invalidate my local NY law that also requires trigger locks.

No such luck as of 6/2012. Apparently, my local trigger lock law applies only when the gun owner is not in control of his/her firearm. This has been interpreted to mean when you leave your house or vehicle.

I beleive that this is a very bad law because guns locked with a trigger lock or guns locked in a safe are not safe since you cannot use them to defend yourself. In other words, gun safes are inherently unsafe.

I wish the NRA would challenge this law but I am not holding my breath.

 

[Jim K]

Heller simply said that the District of Columbia could not BAN handguns for its citizens, within their homes. It did not address registration, licensing, taxation, trigger locks, tests, shotguns, rifles, etc. It also did not abolish the FFA, the NFA or any other federal law. It did not legalize ownership of tanks, field guns, stealth bombers, nuclear weapons or whatever else someone might think he has the right to own.

McDonald extended Heller to states and local governments; it did not expand the scope.

The District and some cities have put up extreme resistance, imposing laws, old and new, that amount to a ban, mainly to keep African-Americans from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Tearing down those laws will take a long time, one law at a time. But if our current president, who is very selective about what civil rights he wants to allow his fellow black citizens to enjoy, is re-elected and turns the court leftward, we could be back about where we were ten years ago.

Jim

 

[rajb123]

I would interprete the Wikipedia description of the Heller case to conclude that Heller DID strike down the trigger lock law in DC.

I'm I wrong?


Wikipendia on Heller:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[

 

[F-111 John]

In D.C. all guns had to be either locked or disassembled at all times. The court reasoned that this would impede the owner's ability to immediatly empoly his weapon in self defense.

According to you, your gun lock law only applies when you are not in control of the weapon. While you are at home, I presume you are free to leave it loaded and unlocked on your nightstand, which would comply with the spirit of the Heller gun lock decision.

"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 hence unconstitutional. "

 

[rajb123]

Exactly; therefore, the local government is not planning to change the trigger lock law that has been on the books +10 years.

I don't know of anyone who has been charged with being in violation of this statute but it is the law in force now. Apparently, it was enacted to prevent kids from shooting guns without supervision but that is only a guess on my part.