Tuesday, January 13, 2015

26 States Line Up in Opposition to San Francisco’s Gunlock Law

Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel is the latest to sign on to a friend of the court filing opposing San Francisco’s gun lock law, bringing to a total of 26 states asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case. (Photo: Fox 11)

Guns dot com

Last week Wisconsin’s Attorney General Brad Schimel became the latest to file a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to throw out San Francisco’s law requiring guns to be locked up even at home.
The brief filed by Schmiel joins 25 other states, lead by Nebraska, who are seeking the intervention of the nation’s highest court to help overturn the California ordinance. This comes in the latest installment of the saga over Jackson v. City of San Francisco, which was unanimously rejected by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last March who upheld a district court’s ruling that the city’s gun lock law was valid.
“We must act, because if the decision by the federal Court of Appeals is not reversed, the precedent it sets could influence policy decisions and court holdings affecting the Constitutional rights of citizens within their homes, not just in the City of San Francisco, buy anywhere in America, including Wisconsin,” explained Schimel of his reasoning for joining Nebraska’s amicus curiae brief.
The case has been winding its way through federal courts since 2009. It challenged the city and county of San Francisco over local laws implemented in 2007 that compelled gun owners to secure guns either locked inside a container or disabled with a trigger lock.

19 comments:

  1. I seriously doubt the Supremes will take this case, but the effort to overturn this heinous atrocity of a law is of course laudable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, putting a trigger lock on a gun is a heinous atrocity.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, putting a trigger lock on a gun is a heinous atrocity.

      I never said that. Requiring people to do so, on pain of arrest, is a heinous atrocity.

      Delete
    3. I see what you mean, sorta like the seat belt law and the motorcycle helmet law. And let's not forget those atrocious speed limits.

      Delete
    4. You don't get arrested for those things, Mike. You get a couple hundred dollar fine. Is that what you want for your safe storage law? And you think that will be a stronger motivation than the safety of their children?

      Delete
    5. Let's do an apples to apples comparison, Mike. How many states or cities have a law requiring baby gates at the top and bottom of all stairways under the threat of arrest and jail time (criminal penalties, not a simple infraction)? And here's the kicker- it doesn't matter whether you have kids and how old they are. Would you call that an "atrocious" law?

      Delete
    6. I would call that a silly law. The mandatory safe storage I would like to see is not only about kids, it's about burglars who are responsible of one of the main sources of crime guns.

      Delete
    7. Trigger locks are about burglars?

      Delete
    8. What are you talking about? Of course trigger locks are not about burglars. That's why I say any law that mandates trigger locks does not go far enough.

      Delete
  2. I see that even my state's Democratic Party Attorney General has joined the other states who oppose this ordinance. Good for her.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you have kids and are dumb enough to not keep you guns where they cannot get them, then you deserve the death, or injury that will happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The San Francisco law has no exemption for those without kids.

      Delete
    2. Good to see your hatred is pure Sandra

      Delete
    3. Nice to see that Sandra doesn't care for the lives of the children of her opponents. After all, they're just the spawn of unintelligent, sub humans.

      Delete
    4. The San Francisco law doesn't go far enough. It should require that guns be locked up when not on your person. Trigger locks are not enough.

      Delete
    5. Nice to SJ joins the other gun loons here and deny any restrictions that will save lives, of course promoting gun shot deaths.

      Delete
  4. "If you have kids and are dumb enough to not keep you guns where they cannot get them, then you deserve the death, or injury that will happen."

    This law has nothing to do with child access prevention Sandra. There is already a state law to cover that. This law applies even to those with no children.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A general statement guys, but thanks for the hate replies.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Legislation that offers a single solution is rarely the right answer to any question.

    I encourage every gun owner to be responsible and to use and store their weapons safely. That goes for inside the home (with kids and without), and for concealed carry outside the home.

    ReplyDelete