Friday, January 9, 2015

AG Brad Schimel says, Gun Locks Threaten our freedoms, spends taxpayer money on Lawsuit against San Francisco.

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 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.

“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.
Stop the spread of gun locks? Here's what the court determined:
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.


  1. "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?"

    Again, with the most basic common knowledge and sense a woman should need an abortion like Anne Franke needed a drum set. A trip to Walgreen's makes it completely

    I always chuckle when I hear about that inconvenience of having ID, especially since in order to participate in a NAACP march against Voter ID, the NAACP requires the same type of ID.

    That one always cracks me up.

    orlin sellers

    1. So if it doesn't personally affect you and your fee-wings, then apparently you think things don't affect anyone else.

      See, this is why righties can't govern- they are apparently incapable of understanding anyone's existence other than their own. You need to get out of the basement and talk to some people, instead of trolling here.

  2. Like... what the above said. I mean really rightwing whackjobs nitpick language in the ACA constantly,but when their sacred cows are about to be tipped over they'll move heaven and earth to keep their hoglegs and shootin' irons free from any, any regulation.