PDA

View Full Version : Jackson v. San Francisco


ToldYouSo
10-07-2013, 7:05 PM
I couldn't find a Jackson v. San Francisco thread, perhaps I am unskilled at searching the forums?

Here is the link to the oral arguments -> http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000011334

The main question is whether or not San Francisco can require a handgun in the home to be locked when one isn't carrying it. Even if one is in bed he has to either carry it on him or lock it up.

NRA lawyer Chuck Michel argues that the "core right" in Heller is in the home. Heller didn't say that. Heller said that the core right was self-defense and then applied the right of self-defense to a law that applied to the home.

Chuck Michel wouldn't even argue that a ten day limit on purchasing a firearm is unconstitutional.

Memo to the NRA - Please stop helping us.

USMCM16A2
10-07-2013, 7:47 PM
ToldYouSo,



When you are discovered as a troll, I will say "told you so". A2

Paladin
10-07-2013, 9:17 PM
I couldn't find a Jackson v. San Francisco thread, perhaps I am unskilled at searching the forums?I'm sure there were several over at, what is now, the CA 2nd A RKBA Politics forum, but what used to be the general 2nd A RKBA Law & Politics forum.

Look forward to listing to the oral arguments when I get a chance in the next day or two (~45 min total).

Librarian
10-07-2013, 9:27 PM
2 threads here:
2009 - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=185618

2010 - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=347708

and the wiki article -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Jackson_v._San_Francisco

taperxz
10-07-2013, 9:28 PM
I couldn't find a Jackson v. San Francisco thread, perhaps I am unskilled at searching the forums?

Here is the link to the oral arguments -> http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000011334

The main question is whether or not San Francisco can require a handgun in the home to be locked when one isn't carrying it. Even if one is in bed he has to either carry it on him or lock it up.

NRA lawyer Chuck Michel argues that the "core right" in Heller is in the home. Heller didn't say that. Heller said that the core right was self-defense and then applied the right of self-defense to a law that applied to the home.

Chuck Michel wouldn't even argue that a ten day limit on purchasing a firearm is unconstitutional.

Memo to the NRA - Please stop helping us.

This sounds like one thing and one thing only. Someone is butt hurt that no one funded their lame lawsuit for $5000! Is that all you thought you needed? You didn't even collect that. Did You? LOL

safewaysecurity
10-07-2013, 9:32 PM
Charles Nichols?

fizux
10-08-2013, 12:09 AM
another thread:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=813984

Al Norris
10-08-2013, 1:43 PM
I couldn't find a Jackson v. San Francisco thread, perhaps I am unskilled at searching the forums?

Here is the link to the oral arguments -> http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000011334

You were so quick to tell me you had started a new thread on the Jackson thread, over in the McKay thread, I wonder why you didn't give the courtesy of citing where you found the link to the orals (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=12487146&postcount=42).

Personally, I could care less if I was cited as the source to the link. However, your demeanor needs to change. As such, you should have cited the source of who retrieved the link. It appears courtesy is something you need to work on, perhaps. :rolleyes:

stix213
10-08-2013, 2:12 PM
I couldn't find a Jackson v. San Francisco thread, perhaps I am unskilled at searching the forums?

Here is the link to the oral arguments -> http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000011334

The main question is whether or not San Francisco can require a handgun in the home to be locked when one isn't carrying it. Even if one is in bed he has to either carry it on him or lock it up.

NRA lawyer Chuck Michel argues that the "core right" in Heller is in the home. Heller didn't say that. Heller said that the core right was self-defense and then applied the right of self-defense to a law that applied to the home.

Chuck Michel wouldn't even argue that a ten day limit on purchasing a firearm is unconstitutional.

Memo to the NRA - Please stop helping us.

You seem to not have a grasp of what the context, intended audience, and intended effect of Chuck's arguments are for. This isn't a CCW or otherwise "outside the home" case for example, and a lawyer's arguments aren't ever going to be cited as precedent by another court.

ToldYouSo
10-08-2013, 6:28 PM
You were so quick to tell me you had started a new thread on the Jackson thread, over in the McKay thread, I wonder why you didn't give the courtesy of citing where you found the link to the orals (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=12487146&postcount=42).

Personally, I could care less if I was cited as the source to the link. However, your demeanor needs to change. As such, you should have cited the source of who retrieved the link. It appears courtesy is something you need to work on, perhaps. :rolleyes:

My intent was not to turn the McKay v. Hutchens thread into a Jackson v. San Francisco thread. As I stated in my original post, I did a forum search for Jackson v. San Francisco and no hits were returned.

I got the link to the orals the same place that you did, from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A site which I check everyday to see if there has been a decision in Richards and Peruta.

Nice to know you are so short tempered. You should fit right at home here.

Al Norris
10-09-2013, 6:53 PM
Nice to know you are so short tempered. You should fit right at home here.

While I know it's only written words, I was sure you could tell the difference
between snark and temper. Clue: The "roll eyes" smiley was the tell.