Trigger locks

The more I think about it, the more Chief Justice Roberts's and Justice Scalia's questions about trigger locks were off point during Dellinger's rebuttal. Dellinger was too poor an advocate to regain control. This is surprising given his experience before the Court.

First off, there is no right to self-defence in the Second Amendment. Furthermore, there is no right to own a firearm for self-defence purposes. This is the case in other common law jurisdictions and should be such in this one as well.

Secondly, the standard is whether something impedes upon the efficacy of the militia. Given this standard, we can take the example of Switzerland. A Swiss "army" member has an assault rifle in his house; however, he is subject to stiff penalties should he use it.

Every soldier equipped with the Sig 550 assault rifle is issued 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed box, to be opened only upon alert. The ammunition is then loaded into the rifle magazine for use by the militiaman should any needs arise while he is en route to join his unit. Any other use than this, or even unsealing the ammunition is strictly forbidden. Since summer 2007, there is no storage of ammunition in private homes. No new boxes of ammunition have been issued to Swiss army members and those in private homes have been collected.

So, unless the trigger lock has a bearing upon the militia member's efficacy, this is a distraction. In fact, the National guard has held arms in its armouries since the late 19th Century. Is this a violation of the Second Amendment?

There is a reason for a dearth of Second Amendment case law and that it that the times that it is truly applicable are extremely limited. The issue of private ownership of firearms outside of militia service is not under its ambit. And the issue for which it was supposed to address, the vast military industrial complex, has remained unchallenged.