I think his point was that this sentence “Require secure and separate storage of the gun and ammunition verified randomly at least once a year” would imply that police could enter anyone’s home at any time during a year without consent or prior notice. Which is a big 4th amendment violation here in the US.
Buying a firearm should be considered consent to measures of accountability.
Your rights as a firearm owner are worth less than your responsibility to society as a firearm owner.
Not to mention “unreasonable search and seizure” is pretty well ruled out by it being a law establishing it as common procedure.
It’d be like ruling the very concept of mandatory vehicle inspections or probation to be unconstitutional.
Not to mention “unreasonable search and seizure” is pretty well ruled out by it being a law establishing it as common procedure.
I don’t mean to be rude or blunt. But bills passed by Congress do not supercede the constitution or act as a qualifier of constitutionality. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
If Congress decided you can’t speak your mind well tough cookies the Constitution says 1st Amendment. A law establishing something as common procedure doesn’t make that procedure virtuous or constitutional.
No but there’s a wide gulf between proving unreasonable search and seizure vs proving restriction of free expression.
My point is that laws establishing warrantable causes for search rarely fall afoul of unreasonable search and seizure, mainly because they involve the reasonable procedure of warrants and having to prove cause without.
