PDA

View Full Version : SF case: Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction denied in [i]Jackson vs SF[/i]


timdps
11-27-2012, 5:21 PM
Just saw a blurb on the news about the NRA being denied a preliminary injunction in Jackson vs SF about locked up guns and banned hollow point ammo.

taperxz
11-27-2012, 5:22 PM
Can you reveal that "blurb"?

timdps
11-27-2012, 5:29 PM
Must be this case:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/09/nra-san-francisco-battle-over-gun-control-laws

BRoss
11-27-2012, 5:29 PM
I think the OP is referring to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction being denied in Jackson v. SF yesterday.

http://ia600404.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cand.215014/gov.uscourts.cand.215014.docket.html

timdps
11-27-2012, 5:34 PM
That was it. Thanks Bobbie

I think the OP is referring to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction being denied in Jackson v. SF yesterday.

http://ia600404.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cand.215014/gov.uscourts.cand.215014.docket.html

BRoss
11-27-2012, 5:42 PM
Here's the order denying the motion.

Glock22Fan
11-27-2012, 5:53 PM
Has that judge even read Heller?

wildhawker
11-27-2012, 6:31 PM
Apparently yes. In before the :kevin:!

-Brandon

OleCuss
11-27-2012, 8:12 PM
Has that judge even read Heller?

I find it difficult to believe he read it very well, but I honestly think that the judge likely did a decent job given the existing state of the jurisprudence.

The judge is under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit and is, frankly, following the precedents and interpretation which the 9th Circuit likely wants followed.

And even if I believe that the SCOTUS did not expressly avoid addressing the extent of the right, most of the courts obviously do and the SCOTUS has so far avoided slapping them around suggesting a certain comfort level with the current jurisprudence which means that they won't reverse such cases if presented in a criminal context.

So as much as I may disagree with the ruling, I think the judge is doing the way it is supposed to be done - by following the current state of jurisprudence and 9th Circus precedence.

I see little point in jumping the case of the judge at the district level.

When it gets to the Circuit level where they are supposed to be interpreting SCOTUS case law and the Constitution with a little more leeway, I say have at 'em. And when they get it wrong at the SCOTUS level I'm going to encourage you to be brutal.

But under the constraints as I understand them, the judge did about what should have been done.

Now, if it is a case which is properly framed and has a good plaintiff, appeal it on up so that the Circuit will have a decent case to use to set 9th Circuit precedent after SCOTUS rules on a "Carry Case". Or, depending on the circumstances, appeal it on up to SCOTUS.

kcbrown
11-27-2012, 9:30 PM
Apparently yes. In before the :kevin:!

-Brandon

Heh. Sadly, I was on the road at the time...

Now we get to see how "fast" preliminary injunction action is. I expect we'll find that it's nowhere near fast enough to be useful in preventing newly-passed anti-2A laws from neutering the right in practice (but, nonetheless, it may prove to be better than the standard civil litigation approach, and I'll take any improvement I can get).


Now where's my emoticon? :D

kcbrown
11-27-2012, 9:32 PM
I find it difficult to believe he read it very well, but I honestly think that the judge likely did a decent job given the existing state of the jurisprudence.

The judge is under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit and is, frankly, following the precedents and interpretation which the 9th Circuit likely wants followed.

And even if I believe that the SCOTUS did not expressly avoid addressing the extent of the right, most of the courts obviously do and the SCOTUS has so far avoided slapping them around suggesting a certain comfort level with the current jurisprudence which means that they won't reverse such cases if presented in a criminal context.

So as much as I may disagree with the ruling, I think the judge is doing the way it is supposed to be done - by following the current state of jurisprudence and 9th Circus precedence.


Lower courts are going to use precisely this excuse to consistently rule against us regardless of the actual state of jurisprudence, because they'll claim that the existing jurisprudence doesn't apply to the case before them because of <insert bogus excuse>.

This won't change until SCOTUS directly says that they will jail any judge who tries to play games like that.

Tripper
11-27-2012, 9:44 PM
sorry, i keep hearing this idea of
SCOTUS slapping around lower courts
when has the EVER happened, and does anyone really believe that such a thing would ever happen regarding 2A, please its killing me

kcbrown
11-27-2012, 9:48 PM
sorry, i keep hearing this idea of
SCOTUS slapping around lower courts
when has the EVER happened, and does anyone really believe that such a thing would ever happen regarding 2A, please its killing me

It hasn't that I'm aware of. This is why I believe the Supreme Court will continue to be the "court of first resort" for the foreseeable future, and is why I believe Obama's election has placed us in monumental danger.

Never before in the entire history of the country have we had a right that the courts in the most populous regions of the country have so consistently hated.

IVC
11-27-2012, 9:57 PM
I expect we'll find that it's nowhere near fast enough to be useful in preventing newly-passed anti-2A laws from neutering the right in practice...

AB 962. Pessimism is subject to reality too :)

wildhawker
11-28-2012, 12:28 AM
AB 962. Pessimism is subject to reality too :)

The injunctive relief for AB 962 was not decided on a 2A theory and was so held in a state court in Fresno County which later denied plaintiffs' prevailing party fees (hint: how do you win a PI and not get fees??). DOJ has appealed the ruling on the merits.

-Brandon

p.s. Hi DOJ!

IVC
11-28-2012, 1:19 AM
The AB 962 comment was only to the extent that there is an implied conspiracy theory that the lower courts will do anything, including plainly ignoring the precedents, to prevent any gun-related legislation of being stricken down.

If there was such a malicious intent, the PI wouldn't have been granted and the case would've proceeded with AB 962 in effect. The details of where and why are not important for the :TFH: analysis.

P.S. I hope you're not implying I am in any way connected to DOJ.

Paladin
11-28-2012, 6:42 AM
Now we get to see how "fast" preliminary injunction action is.

Yep.

I think Moore-Sheperd is also on the PI "fast track."

MODS: I hope you guys/gals tack these updates, like this thread, onto the "official" CGN court case threads linked to by CGF's Litigation webpage page.

wildhawker
11-28-2012, 8:12 AM
P.S. I hope you're not implying I am in any way connected to DOJ.

Not at all. I was literally saying hello to DOJ.

-Brandon

Mp5marley
11-28-2012, 8:25 AM
Wow

sfzombiegunner
11-28-2012, 9:14 AM
So what happens now?

Al Norris
11-28-2012, 10:04 AM
In denying, Judge Seeborg said this about the ammo restriction:

Even assuming a constitutional right to possess and use the particular types of ammunition within the ambit of section 613.10(g) could be found, plaintiffs simply have not shown that prohibiting sales of such ammunition within City limits imposes a substantial burden on their ability to acquire it.

In this, the Judge ignores what the CA7 said in Ezell and essentially agrees with the IL district Judge - People can go elsewhere to obtain their ammo (or get training at a firing range).

Since the CA9 has given no recognition to Ezell, in Nordyke (the only case that the Judge can cite), the Judge is possibly correct, at this point in litigation.

As for the storage requirements, Judge Seeborg says:

Plaintiffs have offered only the possibility that in a very narrow range of circumstances, the delay inherent in rendering a handgun operable or in retrieving it from a locked container theoretically could impair a person’s ability to employ it successfully in self-defense. Even assuming this rises to the level of a “substantial” burden, however, thereby triggering some heightened degree of scrutiny, plaintiffs have not shown the regulation to be overreaching or improper in any way, or that it fails to serve a legitimate governmental interest. Indeed, as noted in Heller itself, nothing in its analysis “suggest[s] the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.” 554 U.S. at 632.

This ignores the Heller Courts pronouncement on the storage laws of D.C. completely (that law was found to be unconstitutional and is very close - almost identical - to the law being challenged in San Francisco). Here, it is clear that Judge Seeborg is selectively reading Heller.

I expect that Michel & Assoc. will appeal this ruling - If you read the transcript of the hearing, they virtually asked to judge to deny, so they could appeal.

oni.dori
11-28-2012, 10:20 AM
Has that judge even read Heller?

Unfortunately, reading and understanding/accepting can all-too-often be two completely separate things; even with justice officials

oni.dori
11-28-2012, 10:25 AM
In denying, Judge Seeborg said this about the ammo restriction:



In this, the Judge ignores what the CA7 said in Ezell and essentially agrees with the IL district Judge - People can go elsewhere to obtain their ammo (or get training at a firing range).

Since the CA9 has given no recognition to Ezell, in Nordyke (the only case that the Judge can cite), the Judge is possibly correct, at this point in litigation.

As for the storage requirements, Judge Seeborg says:



This ignores the Heller Courts pronouncement on the storage laws of D.C. completely (that law was found to be unconstitutional and is very close - almost identical - to the law being challenged in San Francisco). Here, it is clear that Judge Seeborg is selectively reading Heller.

I expect that Michel & Assoc. will appeal this ruling - If you read the transcript of the hearing, they virtually asked to judge to deny, so they could appeal.

So in other words, he is saying he doesn't give a damn about the authority or sanctity of the Constitution? (I believe his improper capitalization, and subsequent implied disrespect of/disregard for it, is proof enough of that; unless it was a typo upon the person reporting it's part, then I stand corrected)

kcbrown
11-28-2012, 11:07 AM
The AB 962 comment was only to the extent that there is an implied conspiracy theory that the lower courts will do anything, including plainly ignoring the precedents, to prevent any gun-related legislation of being stricken down.


Not all of the lower courts will do that, so to the extent we can go "court shopping", we may be able to mitigate the damage a bit, just as we did with AB 962.

But we will get no help from the circuit courts in the general case, and that is really where this matters the most as regards the overall time it takes.

Like it or not, we're now on a clock. The probability that we'll lose one of the Heller 5 to death alone sometime in the next 4 years is just under 50% (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9805345&postcount=49), which means the probability of losing one of them due to death or to a debilitating condition within the next 4 years is almost certainly greater than 50%.



If there was such a malicious intent, the PI wouldn't have been granted and the case would've proceeded with AB 962 in effect. The details of where and why are not important for the :TFH: analysis.


Really? Guess what? In the case that CGF brought against AB 962 (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/OOIDA_v._Lindley), the PI was denied.

Al Norris
11-28-2012, 11:22 AM
(I believe his improper capitalization, and subsequent implied disrespect of/disregard for it, is proof enough of that; unless it was a typo upon the person reporting it's part, then I stand corrected)

Help me out here.

What improper capitalization? :confused:

strongpoint
11-28-2012, 11:57 AM
(I believe his improper capitalization, and subsequent implied disrespect of/disregard for it, is proof enough of that; unless it was a typo upon the person reporting it's part, then I stand corrected)

"constitution" is generally capped as a proper noun when referring specifically to the US constitution, but a lot of stylebooks -- AP, for one -- keep it down in other forms (adverbial, adjectival). signifies nothing.

IVC
11-28-2012, 8:55 PM
But we will get no help from the circuit courts in the general case, and that is really where this matters the most as regards the overall time it takes.

It appears that most of the courts are waiting for guidance from the Supreme Court. Once the Constitutional aspects are resolved and the details of the right protected under 2A are clearly defined, Circuits should be no problem.

Courts have to make sure they create balance and overturning the will of the people (legislators) is a tall order that shouldn't be taken lightly. If there is not enough clarity on a very novel concept, the courts will stick to the existing framework. It's irrelevant how long the 2A has been in the Constitution and how clear it is what it means, when the proper interpretation has only recently been established. From the point of view of the lower courts, the 2A could have been ratified in 2008 at the time Heller was decided, for all the difference it would make.