Safe Storage Requirements?

steve4102 · March 24, 2014, 10:17 AM

This article about the Sheriffs and the Laws in Burlington Vermont brought up a couple questions and I was hoping you guys could answer them for me.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...cmp=latestnews

In the article it says Burlington banned the carry of firearms in bars and restaurants, authorized police to confiscate guns during domestic disputes and required gun owners to keep firearms locked up at home.

The first question, does VT have Local Preemption, thus nullifying any city councils laws or regulations concerning increased gun control?

The city council also states that "firearms must be locked up at home". I thought these locked up at home restrictions have been stuck down by the Higher Courts?

natman · March 24, 2014, 10:30 AM

Quote:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

page 2, Heller v DC, US Supreme Court 2008

It doesn't get any higher than that.

steve4102 · March 24, 2014, 10:57 AM

That's what I thought, so how can these States and Municipalities continue to pass laws in violation of the SCOTUS? More important how can Law enforcement continually enforce these laws?

JimDandy · March 24, 2014, 05:00 PM

Well first, you've only established one of these laws is PROBABLY unconstitutional. You're going to have to go to court and prove it if you want to overturn it. If it's written differently it MIGHT not be.

They can pass pretty much anything they want. And the LEOs can enforce pretty much anything that's passed. Right up until it's challenged in court and the court throws it out.

Brian Pfleuger · March 24, 2014, 05:45 PM

Quote:

That's what I thought, so how can these States and Municipalities continue to pass laws in violation of the SCOTUS? More important how can Law enforcement continually enforce these laws?

Laws are presumptively constitutional/enforceable until they are challenged.

Welcome to the "new" gun control. The courts refuse to do anything to enforce their findings beyond "Nope, that one's no good either", so the legislatures simply pass a new anti-gun law.

The antis win because it takes literally years to get a case back through the courts. When the law is struck down, they simply make whatever changes they deem sufficient to make it a new law and pass it again, knowing that it will be the law until, years later again, it is challenged and struck down.

The greatest weakness in our system may be that it is simply not equipped to deal with intentional violations of the public trust. When the legislators intentionally pass unconstitutional laws and the courts refuse to acknowledge it, we simply lose.

There are infinite back-door schemes to gun control. The legislators will just keep passing them. They have no intention of being constitutional and there's no reason they need to be, the courts won't stop them.

Salmoneye · March 25, 2014, 08:01 AM

Quote:

The first question, does VT have Local Preemption, thus nullifying any city councils laws or regulations concerning increased gun control?

Yes...

This is all posturing by Burlington, driven by a group from 'down-country'...

Charter changes have to be approved by the State Legislature, and historically they have shot down charter changes that are antithetical to the state constitution and laws...

A year ago, Burlington passed an 'ordinance' (charter change) that would have made "assault rifles" illegal, and the legislature refused to allow the change...

I expect the same for these 'changes'...

Salmoneye · March 25, 2014, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Well first, you've only established one of these laws is PROBABLY unconstitutional. You're going to have to go to court and prove it if you want to overturn it. If it's written differently it MIGHT not be.

They can pass pretty much anything they want. And the LEOs can enforce pretty much anything that's passed. Right up until it's challenged in court and the court throws it out.

These are not "Laws"...

They are proposed changes to the Burlington municipal charter, and they need to be approved by the state legislature before they can take affect as City Ordinances...

Brian Pfleuger · March 25, 2014, 08:45 AM

"Law" is a synonym of "ordinance". Ordinance is defined as "a law set forth by a governmental authority. Specifically, a municipal regulation." Whatever they are now, they will be "law" when/if they are put into effect.

Salmoneye · March 25, 2014, 02:37 PM

As I said...

They are not "laws"...

They are proposed changes to a municipal charter...

They hold no weight of "law" till they are approved by the state legislature...

The same way a 'bill' holds no weight till passed and signed...

Suggesting someone go to court to challenge these charter changes is putting the cart before the horse...

There is nothing to challenge as of yet...

Brian Pfleuger · March 25, 2014, 02:47 PM

No one has suggested that they are taken to court before they are passed. I see not even the implication of such.

Someone asked "how do states/municipalities continue to pass laws that are unconstitutional?"

It was explained how/why it happens and that they are valid until individually challenged.

If/when these particular proposals are accepted by the state, they will be laws. They will then be eligible for challenge.

Salmoneye · March 25, 2014, 02:55 PM

Quote:

No one has suggested that they are taken to court before they are passed. I see not even the implication of such.

This is the quote that I was responding to as I thought I made clear by quoting it before...It certainly seems to me to be suggesting someone take these "laws" to court...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimDandy

Well first, you've only established one of these laws is PROBABLY unconstitutional. You're going to have to go to court and prove it if you want to overturn it. If it's written differently it MIGHT not be.

My very succinct reply seemed to me to explain that they are not "laws"...Yet...There is nothing to challenge...

JimDandy · March 25, 2014, 04:06 PM

Quote:

My very succinct reply seemed to me to explain that they are not "laws"...Yet...There is nothing to challenge...

Well Firstly, I was replying to the OP, who implied these changes were already a done deal. Not being a Vermont resident myself, I'm not up on current affairs there enough to keep in the loop, so my response was a generic one.

Secondly, I've seen challenges to laws that haven't taken effect yet(if ever). My state is fairly initiative happy and litigious. The news is often droning on about this initiative or that ballot measure being challenged in court before the vote.

TDL · April 6, 2014, 04:24 PM

Quote:

The city council also states that "firearms must be locked up at home". I thought these locked up at home restrictions have been stuck down by the Higher Courts?

Drilling down from linked story to links source story to original linked story, none of them specify the language of the proposed law

Mandated safe storage could mean any of the below:
1) per se requirements, which are pretty clearly unconstitutional according to Heller
2) in the presence of minors, even with no harm occurring, which is not an uncommon law
3) civil and criminal liability from access to minors which actually results in harm (usually the law where above #2 is not the law)

Salmoneye · April 7, 2014, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Drilling down from linked story to links source story to original linked story, none of them specify the language of the proposed law

This page has links to the wording of the passed ballot items:

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/st...n-control.aspx

Dreaming100Straight · April 8, 2014, 04:00 AM

This is similar to an ordinance in San Francisco requiring a handgun in a residence to be secured in a locked container or by a trigger lock unless it is on your person. It was recently held to be Constitutional by a 3 judge appellate panel Actually, the Vermont ordnance is slightly less burdensome and more realistic since it only requires a firearm (not just a handgun) to be locked when it is not in your immediate possession or control. San Francisco required it to be locked up unless it is actually on your person - you have to have it on when sleeping unless it is secured in a locked container or with a trigger lock.

If challenged, I believe the Burlington ordinance will be found to be constitutional.

TDL · April 8, 2014, 05:12 AM

Quote:

This is similar to an ordinance in San Francisco

Thanks. Interesting. I see that is under active challenge. If it the appellate decision doesn't get cert or if upheld it will certainly result in many jurisdictions enacting similar laws.

Salmoneye · April 8, 2014, 05:52 AM

Quote:

If challenged, I believe the Burlington ordinance will be found to be constitutional.

Except Vermont has State Preemption, and none of these charter changes are likely to be allowed to become ordinances...

thallub · April 8, 2014, 01:20 PM

Salmoneye lives in VT and he is right.

The Fox article leaves a lot to be desired. IMO: It's a rant.

Quote:

One of the measures would allow police to seize firearms if they suspect a domestic violence situation. The other two measures would ban firearms from establishments with a liquor license and require gun owners in Burlington to lock up their firearms, according to the ballot.

The Vermont legislature must approve any charter changes according to Vermont law, a process that speaker of the house Shap Smith told WCAX would likely not happen during the current session. [/QUOTE]

http://www.vermontcynic.com/news/bur...-day-1.2859597

March 24, 2014, 10:17 AM	#1
steve4102 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,955	Safe Storage Requirements? This article about the Sheriffs and the Laws in Burlington Vermont brought up a couple questions and I was hoping you guys could answer them for me. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...cmp=latestnews In the article it says Burlington banned the carry of firearms in bars and restaurants, authorized police to confiscate guns during domestic disputes and required gun owners to keep firearms locked up at home. The first question, does VT have Local Preemption, thus nullifying any city councils laws or regulations concerning increased gun control? The city council also states that "firearms must be locked up at home". I thought these locked up at home restrictions have been stuck down by the Higher Courts?

March 25, 2014, 08:45 AM	#8
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	Safe Storage Requirements? "Law" is a synonym of "ordinance". Ordinance is defined as "a law set forth by a governmental authority. Specifically, a municipal regulation." Whatever they are now, they will be "law" when/if they are put into effect.

March 25, 2014, 02:47 PM	#10
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	No one has suggested that they are taken to court before they are passed. I see not even the implication of such. Someone asked "how do states/municipalities continue to pass laws that are unconstitutional?" It was explained how/why it happens and that they are valid until individually challenged. If/when these particular proposals are accepted by the state, they will be laws. They will then be eligible for challenge. __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

March 24, 2014, 10:57 AM	#3
steve4102 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,955	That's what I thought, so how can these States and Municipalities continue to pass laws in violation of the SCOTUS? More important how can Law enforcement continually enforce these laws?

March 24, 2014, 05:00 PM	#4
JimDandy Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2012 Posts: 2,556	Well first, you've only established one of these laws is PROBABLY unconstitutional. You're going to have to go to court and prove it if you want to overturn it. If it's written differently it MIGHT not be. They can pass pretty much anything they want. And the LEOs can enforce pretty much anything that's passed. Right up until it's challenged in court and the court throws it out.

March 25, 2014, 02:37 PM	#9
Salmoneye Senior Member Join Date: December 31, 2011 Location: Vermont Posts: 2,076	As I said... They are not "laws"... They are proposed changes to a municipal charter... They hold no weight of "law" till they are approved by the state legislature... The same way a 'bill' holds no weight till passed and signed... Suggesting someone go to court to challenge these charter changes is putting the cart before the horse... There is nothing to challenge as of yet...

April 8, 2014, 04:00 AM	#15
Dreaming100Straight Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2013 Posts: 1,235	This is similar to an ordinance in San Francisco requiring a handgun in a residence to be secured in a locked container or by a trigger lock unless it is on your person. It was recently held to be Constitutional by a 3 judge appellate panel Actually, the Vermont ordnance is slightly less burdensome and more realistic since it only requires a firearm (not just a handgun) to be locked when it is not in your immediate possession or control. San Francisco required it to be locked up unless it is actually on your person - you have to have it on when sleeping unless it is secured in a locked container or with a trigger lock. If challenged, I believe the Burlington ordinance will be found to be constitutional.