Shakespeare's mandate about lawyers

Of Arms and the Law: Jackson v. San Fran: cert denied, with dissent:

Jackson v. San Fran: cert denied, with dissent POSTED BY DAVID HARDY  8 JUNE 2015 09:53 AM Order here. The Court denies cert., not a big surprise, but Thomas and Scalia dissent and say the Court should have accepted the case, even though there is no split in the circuits.

The referenced information in the ARMS&LAW page provide plenty of background, and I would have posted a comment to the effect of  "What the HELL were these people thinking?"

But when I got into reading the dominant opinions ... and some of the rationale ... I realized that rationality was not necessarily a determining factor.

For example: the law requires that all firearms kept in the home be rendered unusable by virtue of being kept in a safe or having a trigger lock.  This was presumably to prevent children or other persons from unauthorized access.  Failure to observe this rule is punishable ....

The law applies across the board, regardless of whether children are present in the home. A violation of the law is punishable by up to six months of imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $1,000

And I heard myself saying: "What were these people thinking?"

You have to protect not-existent children from non-existent harm in the privacy of your own home, even when compliance makes it nearly impossible to accomplish a self-defense plan under extreme stress?

The Court of Appeals readily acknowledged that the law “burdens the core of the Second Amendment right” because “[h]aving to retrieve handguns from locked containers or removing trigger locks makes it more difficult ‘for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense’ in the home.” ...... But it reasoned that this was not a “severe burden” justifying the application of strict scrutiny because “a modern gun safe safe may be opened quickly" ... and ..,, "guns kept in the home are most often used in suicides and against family and friends rather than in self-defense and that children are particularly at risk of injury and death.” 

[emphasis added]

What?  A gun owner will, by this law, be protected from his own willing decision to commit suicide because ... it is against the law to keep a gun not "disabled"????

In discussion, did anyone think to mention that a gun-owner who keeps his gun locked up still runs the "risk of suicide" although the gun is locked up?

 Remember he is the keeper of the keys .

And did anyone consider that "attempted suicide" is still an illegal act in many jurisdictions?


Hell, if someone decided to just pull out his gun and start shooting up everyone at the barbecue in his backyard, does anyone believe that this law would prevent him from walking upstairs to his bedroom, removing the gun from the gun safe, removing the trigger lock, loading the gun from the ammunition supply (kept locked in another safe, we suppose), and going back to blast away?

Sometimes, I wonder which group is less rational:  the poor soul whose blighted lives are so  untenable that they resort to murder/suicide, or the poor soul who believes that the first guy will be dissuaded because it's against the law.

This ruling only penalizes the sane, and the law-abiding.

Anyone who is willing to commit murder, or suicide, will not hesitate just because some group of political hacks (who keep their job by appointment or election, not because of their demonstrated 'good judgement') has declared that all precursor acts are "illegal".

Anyone bent on murder or suicide will not care about risking a fine or short-term incarceration.

Do these "good men, true and faithful to the law" think that passing a law is going to change human behavior .... especially the behavior of someone who has no reason to live?

What were these people thinking?

UPDATE:

Oops!

I hope that the technical information data provided in this private personal blog article do not violate the conditions of the ITAR rulings.

Honest, Guys, I wasn't trying to pass strategic information to The Enemy.  Please don't prosecute me for Treason.  I'm a GOOD Boy, honest I am!

Paragraph (b) of the revised definition explicitly sets forth the Department's requirement of authorization to release information into the ''public domain.'' Prior to making available ''technical data'' or software subject to the ITAR, the U.S. government must approve the release through one of the following: (1) The Department; (2) the Department of Defense's Office of Security Review; (3) a relevant U.S. government contracting authority with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public, if one exists; or (4) another U.S. government official with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public.

The requirements of paragraph (b) are not new. Rather, they are a more explicit statement of the ITAR's requirement that one must seek and receive a license or other authorization from the Department or other cognizant U.S. government authority to release ITAR controlled ''technical data,'' as defined in § 120.10. A release of ''technical data'' may occur by disseminating ''technical data'' at a public conference or trade show, publishing ''technical data'' in a book or journal article, or posting ''technical data'' to the Internet.

This proposed provision will enhance compliance with the ITAR by clarifying that ''technical data'' may not be made available to the public without authorization. Persons who intend to discuss ''technical data'' at a conference or trade show, or to publish it, must ensure that they obtain the appropriate authorization.