Trigger Lock Exception for Self Defense

The District is arguing that there is a self-defense exception to the trigger lock requirement. Obviously, this will be reviewed and decided on finally by the Supreme Court. To use the legal conclusion that there is no self-defense exception is not warranted in this article. The D.C. Circuit's opinion on that is not the final word (yet), so we should not treat it as such. This paragraph is about what the District (Dellinger) will be arguing, not what the D.C. Circuit held to be true.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvardgirl33 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a trigger lock requirement - it is a requirement that all firearms be kept "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock", i.e. a ban on functional firearms like the opinion says. D.C. has had this law on the books for 25 years and has not clarified that there exists any self-defense exception, either implicitly or explicitly. It doesn't get to whitewash this situation now. The Circuit Court found that this is a ban on the use of functional firearms for self-defense which is the definitive statement on the issue as of today. Attorneys for the respondent argue the same way. It is acceptable to me to state that DC is arguing this way, provided that we provide the full context including the fact that its argument was rejected. kevinp2 (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Heller discussion page for my response. I think the best option is not to clutter these articles with more detail about the case than is necessary. There is a very easy way they can learn about the case, and that's by going to the article and not reproducing it all over the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvardgirl33 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walter_E._Dellinger_III
No tags for this post.