Talk:Walter Dellinger

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

United States: North Carolina / Charlotte / University of North Carolina / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina.
	This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina - Charlotte.
	This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina - University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

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]