New rules, same as the old rules. The Examiner is on top of the coverage for the new laws. However, it seems that Councilman Mendelssohn’s proposal flies directly in the face of the Heller verdict. Specifically, his bill would still require that firearms stored in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or under trigger lock.
The standard set by Heller is that requiring trigger locks and disassembly are unconstitutional, and that any law with them does not pass the test setup by Heller thusly (on page 58):
We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional
It seems to me to be fairly ridiculous, and a waste of time, and a slap in the face of the highest court in the land, to pass a bill that will only be struck down by the first court to hear the case. While the opinion for Heller makes not that the law lacks a clear exemption for self-defense, just adding a blanket exemption for self-defense doesn’t address the storage of firearms as effective home-defense weapons.
But, I guess they think that an unarmed populace is what they’d rather have, so be it. So long as they enjoy getting taken to court and losing.