Unconstitutional in San Diego

2nd Amendment and Freedom

Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw

Post Reply
johndoe3
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:02 am
Location: N. Colorado

Unconstitutional in San Diego

Post by johndoe3 » Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:55 pm

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... -in-homes/

The city council in San Diego, CA is hellbent on passing an unconstitutional law(IMHO) which would require all guns in a home to be locked up or disabled. The Washington DC government had a similar law for years and the DC Appeals court struck it down, and later the Heller decision at SCOTUS buried the idea of disarming citizens by requiring guns at home to be locked up and disabled. The legal counsel for San Diego surely must have warned them that SCOTUS already struck down requirements like the one they are passing.
The San Diego City Council voted six to two Monday for an ordinance saying gun owners must lock up their firearms or disable them in the home.

Fox 5 reports that the council’s six Democrat members all voted for the gun control, which is designed to force firearms to be locked up or be disabled even if no minors are present in the home.

ABC 10 reports that gun owners cannot legally store their firearms in just any lockbox, but they must be in a “Department of Justice-approved lockbox.” No indication was given for how much a DOJ approved lockbox will cost.

Opponents of the ordinance pointed out that locking up a gun or disabling it necessarily adds to the time necessary to have a given firearm ready for a self-defense situation. NBC 7 reports that “the California Rifle and Pistol Association wrote a letter to the council last week, saying the ordinance is not enforceable, unconstitutional.”
What say you? clearly unconstitutional?
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time...and those are pretty good odds.
Brett Maverick, gambler on TV (also used by Progressive leaders everywhere)

a_canadian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1152
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Unconstitutional in San Diego

Post by a_canadian » Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:32 pm

That last bit about it being unenforceable is largely accurate. Here in the North we are compelled by law (actually national police agency edict, which gets enforced as a law and shifts now and then according to the whims of the RCMP) to lock up triggers at minimum, or to enclose in a safe storage container with a lock. But the police would only know if they for some reason entered one's home. Odds are they'd only do that in the event of a shooting or some other incident which brought them there. So the law becomes more something they can use in stacking up charges when prosecuting. Quite often a list of charges will come out looking rather silly, with unsafe storage, unsafe storage of ammunition, storage of a loaded firearm and similar phrases each bring added as a prosecutable offense.

Fortunately, these usually half dozen or more similar but not quite identical charges get stacked against known criminals, as a means of padding out their sentencing and keeping them off the streets for an extra year or two. I say fortunately because it rarely gets used against law abiding citizens, and in the cases where it does, a decent lawyer will eventually manage to have lost or all charges set aside. But that can take years and tens of thousands of dollars...

Basically such an approach is twofold in intention; providing added teeth for prosecutions, and encouraging citizens to self-police out of fear of governmental retribution. With such a large country, especially in rural areas, it is impossible to enforce without a crime drawing police attention. So you'll find that many keep their firearm loaded and ready, but just don't talk about it. Better to face the music in court than to die or see your wife and kids die in a farm invasion, a crime which is on the rise.

johndoe3
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:02 am
Location: N. Colorado

Re: Unconstitutional in San Diego

Post by johndoe3 » Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:20 am

Excellent post _canadian, for pointing out that the people in Canada may be quiet and reserved, but they know a bad law when they see one (requiring all guns to be locked up in a home). Fortunately in the USA, we have settled law via the Supreme Court ruling in the Heller case, stating that a law requiring guns to be locked up effectively eliminates the self-defense aspect of the 2nd amendment.

However, the Democrats have decided to pass unconstitutional laws with the idea that it takes a long time for the courts to strike them down, and they may get lucky and get judges who will disobey the Supreme Court Decision. San Diego's law and previously the Mayor of Pittsburgh passing unconstitutional laws are recent examples. Today, a new effort surfaced in the State of Oregon, that adds an even worse aspect...

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/07/oregon ... z5u5oWsKd5

The Bloomberg organization succeeded in getting on the ballot for 2020, a ballot measure to do the same thing that San Diego is attempting--forcing all guns in the home to be locked up.(update: backers of the proposal have NOT yet collected the required signatures to get on the ballot)
The Bloomberg funded “Oregonians For Safe Gun Storage” is back with another effort to force you to keep your self defense firearm locked up and useless.

Ballot measure 2020-040 is a rehash of all the dangerous and vindictive language we have seen in previous ballot measures and failed legislation.

The measure not only requires that your self defense firearms be rendered useless but it also, (once again) holds you responsible for the criminal misuse of a firearm stolen from you.

As has been the case in all previous ballot measures and failed legislation, the measure contains not one single word about stiffer penalties for people who actually steal guns. In effect, you face greater liability than the thief who stole your firearm.

But there is another interesting provision that these measures always contain but is often overlooked. While the measure requires you to lock your guns in a “container” or with a “trigger” or “cable” lock, it holds you responsible for the misuse of a stolen firearm even if you did lock it up!
Update: They have not yet collected the required minimum of ~112,000 signatures to get the proposed ballot measure on the ballot for 2020.
Last edited by johndoe3 on Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time...and those are pretty good odds.
Brett Maverick, gambler on TV (also used by Progressive leaders everywhere)

a_canadian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1152
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Unconstitutional in San Diego

Post by a_canadian » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:47 am

Since posting the above I happened to read a government-published paper on rate changes in various violent crimes in Canada by province between 2013 and 2016. A complicated set of data and charts, but a few points stood out. One surprising figure showed an actual drop in the rate of gun-related violent crime in my city. Less than 1% lower in 3 years, but our violent crime rate is already very low. Another chart showed that the largest increases in gun-related violent crime were in the two most rural provinces, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, up 83% in the latter case.

Gee, I wonder why farmers are keeping loaded guns by the door? Further, it was obvious that the further North one goes, the higher the rate of violent crime, gun or no gun. So basically the cities are getting safer, and because of the increasingly sparse populations (farm corporatization and consolidation, urbanization generally) in the places between cities, citizens are becoming more vulnerable to the whims of those who would do them harm. Police response times on prairie farms are usually in excess one 1 hour. Hardly useful during a home invasion.

Post Reply