The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Jackson v. San Fran

maestro pistolero · October 8, 2013, 11:22 AM

NOT impressed with NRA attorney. Heller directly controverts this ordinance with its invalidation of the trigger lock requirement WITHOUT a standard of review. NRA has thus far (1/3 through) missed several opportunities to point that out. The Heller court literally ridiculed the idea that a locked gun could be useful at all for self-defense in the middle of the night.

Also, failing to point out in the discussion of what constitutes an unacceptable delay that life or death in a gunfight usually turns on MILLISECONDS, not SECONDS, was a mistake in my opinion. The justices ask what was an acceptable delay, and the answer should have been flatly ZERO seconds followed by an explanation as to why. The first person to fire his weapon, if only a tenth of a second earlier, is exponentially more likely to survive the fight. This is a critical point, based on nothing more than simple physics, even in a discussion involving substantial burden. There is no greater burden than the loss of ones life or limb.

October 8, 2013, 11:22 AM	#40
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	NOT impressed with NRA attorney. Heller directly controverts this ordinance with its invalidation of the trigger lock requirement WITHOUT a standard of review. NRA has thus far (1/3 through) missed several opportunities to point that out. The Heller court literally ridiculed the idea that a locked gun could be useful at all for self-defense in the middle of the night. Also, failing to point out in the discussion of what constitutes an unacceptable delay that life or death in a gunfight usually turns on MILLISECONDS, not SECONDS, was a mistake in my opinion. The justices ask what was an acceptable delay, and the answer should have been flatly ZERO seconds followed by an explanation as to why. The first person to fire his weapon, if only a tenth of a second earlier, is exponentially more likely to survive the fight. This is a critical point, based on nothing more than simple physics, even in a discussion involving substantial burden. There is no greater burden than the loss of ones life or limb. Last edited by maestro pistolero; October 8, 2013 at 11:30 AM.