Require trigger locks or safes for home with children?

Such proposals were ruled unconstitutional by the united state supreme court with regard to firearms kept for the purpose of self defense. Therefore there is no point in discussing the merits of such a proposal further.

 

wrong!!!!!

 

hasn't happened.

The US Supreme Court continues to refuse to hear any case that deals with assault weapons or magazine limits.

They are not interested.

 

no federal court had ever ruled that the DC gun ban or the Chicago gun bans were unconstitutional for years. Then they did

if a ten round magazine ban is constitutional then you would have to believe that a 2 round limit is also constitutional

 

legally, no law is unConstitutional until a court of law deems it so

 

I tend to doubt you are in any position to accurately interpret what the Supreme Court believes and why they act as they do. I have other ideas but we will wait and see what happens. I do know several lower courts are pissing all over Heller and McDonald and I suspect sooner or later, even Kennedy is going to have enough and decide to slap them around

 

I am a college educated naturally-born American citizen.

 

many laws that remain in effect until they are struck down are often called unconstitutional for months or even years. Your entire support of idiotic laws is that the supreme court has yet to strike them down. Your entire argument dies if the court rules the way it should. <Mod Edit>

 

my point remains. you are confusing your right to utter an opinion vs your ability to be correct

 

I wonder if that means slavery was ok until it was struck down ?

 

you're confusing "morally right" with "Constitutional".

they are NOT the same

 

@Turtledude

I am not a "gun banner", a "gun hater", a "hoplophobe".

lay off the personal attacks

 

Slavery was constitutional until there was a constitutional amendment after the civil war so the SC did not repeat did not end slavery congress and the states ended slavery in the US.

Now was it morally OK that is another matter as it was challenge by none other then Franklin on moral grounds, who somehow got the very first congress to meet for three days with both houses together as a committee of the whole to review slavery.

Their conclusion was that they was bar from the matter by the constitution and we all know the rest of that story.

 

you support idiotic restrictions that only change (to the detriment) the legal rights of gun owners. criminals cannot own any firearms/ so magazine limits-which you support-only restrict the rights of those who can lawfully own firearms.

 

if we stop selling 100-round magazines, criminals will have a very hard time getting them

 

not nearly as hard as honest citizens. and we aren't talking about 100 round magazines but normal capacity magazines-ie ones civilian police and most citizens in most states can use-15-30 round ones

 

BTW Ron-your logic supports banning guns. if guns are banned then you will claim criminals will have a harder time getting them

 

Criminals don't need them. 10 round magazines, or a pump shotgun and .38 caliber revolver seem to work to meet their needs.

 

Something nobody has or uses.

And you constantly approve of 10 round magazines.

 

I think a 100 round magazine was only used once and it jammed. The shotgun worked better.

 

if we ban the sale of 30-round magazines, criminals will have a hard time finding them

 

If we ban the sale of guns, criminals will have a hard time finding them.

Are 30 round magazines "in common use for lawful purposes" or "have a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-run militia"?

 

Except you originally mentioned 100 round magazines.

Something nobody has or uses.

And you constantly approve of 10 round magazines.

 

2nd Amendment is unrelated to Militia service

 

and now Im discussing 30 roung mags.