published on Track Their Vote here
This bill implements trigger lock and other storage requirements for privately owned firearms.
Personal Choice and Responsibility
This bill has a particular negative impact on personal choice and responsibility. This bill is so intrusive into the private home that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled trigger lock requirements to be unconstitutional in DC v. Heller (2008). This protection was extended to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment in the Supreme Court McDonald v. Chicago decision. Attempts to introduce this type of legislation amount to knowingly trying to deprive the citizenry of their rights under color of law.
there is no way to uniformly enforce the provisions of this bill (meaning house to house intrusion) without significant fiscal impact.
this bill represents a supremely intrusive government. Attempts to dictate the manner of storage of firearms within the home are as large of an intrusion on ones natural rights as questions about whom you choose to sleep with. When milliseconds count, your safe is only seconds out, and the police only minutes away. Requiring that *every* home surrender even a small part of their ability to defend themselves against violent attack is far more burdensome than holding the few irresponsible parties accountable for their actions under existing law. While tragedy is regrettable, our legal system largely gets culpability right. For example, The recent tragedy involving the fatality of a 2 year old toddler who got ahold of a gun in Baker County resulted in criminal negligence charges brought against the parents who allowed that situation to occur. What will this new law accomplish other than restrict the law abiding citizen from a fully effective method self defense in the home?
this measure applies statewide. There are no exceptions for premises which are secured or where they are; as written this could apply to gun stores.
This bill is the same as HB 2505.