Gun lock regulations infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights? AG Brad Schimel says yes, and he’s willing to spend taxpayer money challenging a San Francisco, California law...in Nebraska.
Schimel says he’s just protecting Wisconsinites from a law that could come to our state. So, safe gun storage is unconstitutional now? Didn't Justice Scalia say the court’s decision didn't rule out all gun regulation? jsonline:
San Francisco’s “safe storage” law requires handguns to be either stored in a locked container or secured with a trigger lock when not being carried by the owner. The amicus brief charges that such a requirement violates the Second Amendment. The ordinance keeps “the firearm inoperable ... even if you are sleeping or bathing or the sole occupant of your home,” it argues.Need a gun when you’re asleep? Or bathing? Maybe if you’re a sleepwalker or take lots of showers.
The “friend of the court” brief filed by the state of Nebraska and now joined by Wisconsin asks the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision that upheld the San Francisco ordinance.Stop the spread of gun locks? Here's what the court determined:
“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, but anywhere in America, including Wisconsin,” he said.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that while the ordinance does place a burden on gun owners, that burden is overridden by other factors. “The record contains ample evidence that storing handguns in a locked container reduces the risk of both accidental and intentional handgun-related deaths, including suicide,” the court found.
So while driving hundreds of mile to get women's health care/abortion, or jumping through multiple hoops to get a voter ID isn't considered a burden, gun locks are?
Schimel has said he does not favor additional gun restrictions but better enforcement of existing gun laws.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Just send conservative voters the bill please, or is this another case where adding to our deficit is worth it to protect our "freedoms?" I'm already tired of hearing it.