Can't believe no one's posted this yet! SUPREME COURT LETS STAND GUN STORAGE REQUIREMENT, BAN ON HOLLOW POINT AMMO

[E4 No More]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-top-court-rejects-challenge-to-san-francisco-gun-regulation/ar-BBkPW85
 
Stunned that only two justices thought it should be heard.
 
EDIT: I guess "ruling" is the wrong term, but ya'll know what I mean. Edited June 9, 2015 by JohnC

[Omega]

What are these people thinking, what good is a gun you can't deploy when needed?  Why is "shall not be infringed" so difficult for them to understand?  I'm sorry, but I would become a law breaker if I had to live in that state.

[E4 No More]

What are these people thinking, what good is a gun you can't deploy when needed?  Why is "shall not be infringed" so difficult for them to understand?  I'm sorry, but I would become a law breaker if I had to live in that state.

Exactly. I understand responsibility and wanting to protect innocents, but this is ridiculous! If it's really for the children then legislate extremely harsh penalties for leaving your weapon unsecured and resulting in a negligent death.

 

But we all know that it really is NOT for the children.

[hipower]

What are these people thinking, what good is a gun you can't deploy when needed?  Why is "shall not be infringed" so difficult for them to understand?  I'm sorry, but I would become a law breaker if I had to live in that state.

Omega, I think that the liberal education in California has stopped teaching the ability to read, write, and understand what the written word is.

They think, sometimes and haphazardly at best, the way to live is how the liberal, border line communist, potentates tell you.

It's just a case of follow the leader. No independent thinking allowed.

Let alone encouraged. Edited June 8, 2015 by hipower

[Oh Shoot]

What's mystifying is that as part of Heller, the "unloaded and locked" provision required by DC was struck down, and then McDonald supposedly incorporated the same decisions in Heller to the States.

 

Also, can't find it right off, but I believe MD's similar law was vacated by a US District court, though it wasn't appealed.

 

- OS

[JohnC]

Not good! This smells like what happened in Australia. Ammo has to have a "sporting purpose" so HP's are banned and now guns have to have locks which, if someone reported you have unlocked guns, they could come search your home and maybe cite a violation or confiscate. The actual punishment remains to be seen, but since the Aussies went through this, that is my guess. Now, will the Feds trying to capitalize on this to ban HP's, etc., or will just the liberal left-wing states be the only ones? Edited June 11, 2015 by JohnC

[rmiddle]

Not good! The smells like what happened in Australia. Ammo has to have a "sporting purpose" so HP's are banned and now guns have to have locks which, if someone reported you have unlocked guns, they could come search your home and maybe cite a violation or confiscate. The actual punishment remains to be seen, but since the Aussies went through this, that is my guess. Now, will the Feds trying to capitalize on this to ban HP's, etc., or will just the liberal left-wing states be the only ones?

 

The Dem when they controlled all 3 branches didn't touch gun control and even when emotions were high and they though they could get away with something it failed at the federal level.  I expect a slow crawl towards freedom in free america with those living behind enemy lines doing everything they can with the SCOTUS pulling them back every once in a while for going too far.

[Clod Stomper]

The Dem when they controlled all 3 branches didn't touch gun control and even when emotions were high and they though they could get away with something it failed at the federal level. I expect a slow crawl towards freedom in free america with those living behind enemy lines doing everything they can with the SCOTUS pulling them back every once in a while for going too far.

They were too busy taking over health care. They would have gotten around to it. If the repubs hadn't taken the house in '10, there would have been new laws in early '13.

Don't think it can't happen. It happened in '93 and '94. Not saying it will, but it can.

[rmiddle]

They were too busy taking over health care. They would have gotten around to it. If the repubs hadn't taken the house in '10, there would have been new laws in early '13.

Don't think it can't happen. It happened in '93 and '94. Not saying it will, but it can.

Not saying it can't happen just saying that there are a few democrats that don't want to touch gun control because they know they could loss there seat.  If we look all the "advances" in gun control they have either been in states were Democrats way outnumber other party's aka Maryland, New Jersey, California, CT, or there were done by getting something on the ballet and then running millions in miss leading ads claiming the law would do something that is already against the law and hiding what the law truly does.

 

Thanks

Robert

[10-Ring]

Exactly. I understand responsibility and wanting to protect innocents, but this is ridiculous! If it's really for the children then legislate extremely harsh penalties for leaving your weapon unsecured and resulting in a negligent death.
 
But we all know that it really is NOT for the children.

Why is it that all of the people that scream "it's for the children" in order to take our guns away also believe that it is perfectly fine to abort an unwanted child? It really grinds my gears when Obama gets up on stage and signs anti gun legislation and has a bunch of kids standing around him, but he never does that when he's talking about "a woman's right to choose."

[leroy]

All... I lifted this from the NRA-ILA article...

 

 

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a petition to either summarily reverse or hear an appeal of the decision in Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 25, 2014. The Ninth Circuit decision upheld San Francisco ordinances requiring any firearm within the home not actually carried on the person to be in a locked container or disabled by a state-approved trigger lock and banning the sale of hollow point ammunition. 

 

My guess is that the italicized, underlined portion of the law is the key to this one... I believe (...that means i dont know...) that the supremes are sayin, in effect, that you unequivically have the right to bear arms (...on your person...); but that the local government can put conditions on the storage of guns based on "community norms"; whatever that is...  I think the supremes are walkin the fine line that the federal gubmt created just after the civil war, when they said, in effect, that the "regulation of wearing of arms" could be done...

 

By not touching this, they have, in effect, left the door open for the state to do something similarly to what has been done in tennessee by the 'pre-emption' of idiotic city and county laws that do what the San Francisco county law did...

 

When enough folks in kalefornia get enough of this idiocy, it will stop... If it doesnt, they will have to move ta texas or somewhere in the real united states of america...

 

leroy

[atlas3025]

The democrats are willing to trade some seats for gun control.  The only question is how many.  They had a LOT of support after Newtown, but Republicans controlled the house at the time and the new session would be seated before anything happened because of timing.  We escaped by the skin of our teeth.

 

When the democrats manage to make it so that illegal aliens can vote, or legalize them for the same reason, you will see unprecedented gun control...and eventually an outright ban.  Once the democrats (and complicit republicans) have no fear of the ballot, everything is lost.  

 

I grow concerned when I hear gunnies talk about how great everything is right now...open carry, all the CCW laws in place, a seemingly friendly Supreme Courty.  Pride before The Fall, and all that.

[DaveTN]

It’s a States Rights issue. The Supremes have ruled on “Keep” but they will delay ruling on “bear” as long as they can. If they rule you have a right to bear arms with no state regulation; there are states that will not comply.

[Oh Shoot]

The democrats are willing to trade some seats for gun control.  The only question is how many.  They had a LOT of support after Newtown, but Republicans controlled the house at the time and the new session would be seated before anything happened because of timing.  .

 

???  Manchin-Toomey was defeated in Dem majority Senate, House never had to act.

 

- OS

[Worriedman]

All... I lifted this from the NRA-ILA article...

 

My guess is that the italicized, underlined portion of the law is the key to this one... I believe (...that means i dont know...) that the supremes are sayin, in effect, that you unequivically have the right to bear arms (...on your person...); but that the local government can put conditions on the storage of guns based on "community norms"; whatever that is...  I think the supremes are walkin the fine line that the federal gubmt created just after the civil war, when they said, in effect, that the "regulation of wearing of arms" could be done...

 

By not touching this, they have, in effect, left the door open for the state to do something similarly to what has been done in tennessee by the 'pre-emption' of idiotic city and county laws that do what the San Francisco county law did...

 

When enough folks in kalefornia get enough of this idiocy, it will stop... If it doesnt, they will have to move ta texas or somewhere in the real united states of america...

 

leroy

As usual leroy, you cut to the quick of the issue.  All the more reason to remove State legislators like Jim Coley and Jon Lundberg.  It does lie with the GAs purview to "regulate" the wearing of arms and such issues as storage.  We need to spend more time face to face with our legislators to move Tennessee back to enjoyment of the Rights intended by our Constitution.

A big step would be repeal of 39-17-1307, Sen. Bell did it for knives, time to do it for firearms.