San Francisco Tigger lock law and SCOTUS

Jackson v. San Francisco is covered in this thread.

IF SCOTUS takes this case and IF they overturn the San Francisco ordinance, you can bet that there will be a very quick follow here in Massachusetts. The SF ordinance is not materially different from the safe storage law in Massachusetts.
 
I thought the Mass SJC has pretty much ignored SCOTUS rulings?

I think what KD implied is that should SCOTUS rule on this and rule correctly, that there will be a federal lawsuit filed to force Mass to follow the SCOTUS ruling. There are plenty of willing plaintiffs in Mass for this IMHO.
 
Did somebody say tigger lock?
289csi9.jpg

San Francisco, like Massachusetts, will continue to ignore reality until they are forced to acknowledge it.
 
Last edited:
I think what KD implied is that should SCOTUS rule on this and rule correctly, that there will be a federal lawsuit filed to force Mass to follow the SCOTUS ruling. There are plenty of willing plaintiffs in Mass for this IMHO.
This. And this might actually be a case where we wouldn't have so much trouble finding plaintiffs.
 
I can't wait for a victim to be murdered because they couldn't get their firearm unlocked and loaded in time, before the bad guy kills them, then rapes the family.

At that point, EVERY f**king politician and cop who backed this BS should be held on murder charges due to their DIRECT actions. Those direct action prevented an innocent from being able to defend themselves and wound up dead because of that.
 
I can't wait for a victim to be murdered because they couldn't get their firearm unlocked and loaded in time, before the bad guy kills them, then rapes the family.

At that point, EVERY f**king politician and cop who backed this BS should be held on murder charges due to their DIRECT actions. Those direct action prevented an innocent from being able to defend themselves and wound up dead because of that.

so you want to see someone killed and their family raped to prove no charges will be filed?
 
I'm sure MA will ignore for as long as they possibly can.

Doesn't matter, anything happens (nosy neighbor, yappy kids, no-knock raid, whatever) that outs you as not locking them and the suitability clause kicks in.

That's what needs to be squashed by SCOTUS.
 
A transparent ploy to get a silver challenge coin.

Absolutely not! I don't care about swag. I want to see that law changed so it is legal (absent children running loose) to leave a loaded gun bedside when the only occupants are all licensed.

Attacks on unarmed people aren't necessary to get this changed and that really will have no impact on what SCOTUS decides.
 
Absolutely not! I don't care about swag. I want to see that law changed so it is legal (absent children running loose) to leave a loaded gun bedside when the only occupants are all licensed.

Attacks on unarmed people aren't necessary to get this changed and that really will have no impact on what SCOTUS decides.

Bet it would if it was one of them that got attacked.
 
I guess your sense of humor is not working today [smile]

Rob, I still have that Glock swag here collecting dust. The stuff the Glock rep gave us after the CMR hearings that you attended with him years ago.

I'm giving away all the Microsoft swag I accumulated over the years from running the user group and providing MS support. General cleanup in progress here right now.

ETA: Brent and I had a discussion about swag at our Natick get-together earlier this week.
 
Last edited:
so you want to see someone killed and their family raped to prove no charges will be filed?

That would just prove that there's no accountability when it comes to legislators and cops....proving they have no valid use anymore.
 
I can't wait for a victim to be murdered because they couldn't get their firearm unlocked and loaded in time, before the bad guy kills them, then rapes the family.

At that point, EVERY f**king politician and cop who backed this BS should be held on murder charges due to their DIRECT actions. Those direct action prevented an innocent from being able to defend themselves and wound up dead because of that.

Already happened: https://www.gunowners.org/op0132.htm
 
Len-2A Training said:
I'd be more than happy to be a plaintiff!!
A transparent ploy to get a silver challenge coin.
Does anybody make a challenge coin to issue to the plaintiffs in state/federal civil rights lawsuits? Something like that would make the ACLU almost look cool. Almost.

Not to sidetrack the thread, but RI takes an interesting approach at this subject: http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/title11/11-47/11-47-60.1.HTM
Looks familiar... I suspect New Hampshire copied this in authoring RSA 650-C:1.
 
Now if we can just get SCOTUS to rule against all mag limits. If they don't, Bozos on Beacon Hill and in NY and NJ will push the envelope further to ban all semi-automatic firearms and anything that can hold more than a single round before banning everything but a single shot muzzle loader.
 
This. And this might actually be a case where we wouldn't have so much trouble finding plaintiffs.

More than half serious question.

The "safe storage" laws here affect every (lawful) gun owner in Mass, without exception.

Is the qualifier simply to be affected by these laws or must you have been prosecuted to have standing?

In other words, is this the basis for a class action suit against the State?

That would certainly fund COM2A coffers for a while and a nice tax refund for gun owners to boot. Hard on the state, I guess.

Or is this garden path?
 
Back
Top Bottom