DC short changing 2nd Amendment

[IglooDame]

There is a self-defense exception to the trigger lock requirement, so that is arguably within line of the Supreme Court opinion. Also, the Heller decision would allow for a semi-automatic ban. Remember, Scalia wrote a fairly narrow opinion that did not take "shall not infringe" all that seriously.

Arguably, perhaps so.

But they could also work from:

We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.”

A 1911-model .45ACP pistol is practically the definition of "in common use" at any time going back to the mid-20th century, no more dangerous than a Model 625 S&W revolver (which also shoots .45ACP and can be reloaded about as quickly) and less unusual than any revolver you could name.

 

[Patroklos]

There is a self-defense exception to the trigger lock requirement, so that is arguably within line of the Supreme Court opinion. Also, the Heller decision would allow for a semi-automatic ban. Remember, Scalia wrote a fairly narrow opinion that did not take "shall not infringe" all that seriously.

That is just a pathetic attempt at saving face by DC that in fact does the exact opposite. If you feel threatened at any level and in any capacity based on your own perception alone, you can disregard the trigger lock.

 

[JollyRoger]

Arguably, perhaps so.

But they could also work from:



A 1911-model .45ACP pistol is practically the definition of "in common use" at any time going back to the mid-20th century, no more dangerous than a Model 625 S&W revolver (which also shoots .45ACP and can be reloaded about as quickly) and less unusual than any revolver you could name.

I'm pretty sure I know which way Scalia would go on that issue. Not so sure about Kennedy.

That is just a pathetic attempt at saving face by DC that in fact does the exact opposite. If you feel threatened at any level and in any capacity based on your own perception alone, you can disregard the trigger lock.

Neither the Supreme Court nor the revised DC statute lays out this broad of a standard.