[publiusF27]

The Heller decision said this about trigger locks:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

That means they can write a law that says a gun must be kept with a trigger lock, but you're allowed to remove the lock to shoot a bad guy. Previously, you were not allowed to remove the lock, period. That law was overturned, but it doesn't mean they can't write a slightly different one that would pass.

[ktime]

If you can’t have a handgun outside your home in DC. How in the name of God are you supposed to buy one and bring it home or remove it from your home to sell it?

[piytar]

The majority opinion made it clear that requiring use of trigger locks was unconstitutional because it impeded the core purpose of self defense. Lower courts will (should) apply that reasoning. So if these @ssh@ts can pass a trigger lock law that does not impede self defense, it might pass muster. But then who cares? It will be meaningless.