Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=330)
-   -   Jackson v. SF (Ammo Ban; Locked Storage Reqts.): Cert DENIED 6/8/15 (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=813984)

fizux 08-26-2013 1:59 PM

Jackson v. SF (Ammo Ban; Locked Storage Reqts.): Cert DENIED 6/8/15
 
Jackson v. SF
Issue: 2A challenge to SF's ammo ban and locked-storage reqts.
Current Status:

Petition for Certiorari Dec 12, 2014 - http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Certiorari.pdf

As of 3/25/2014 - 9CA Panel (NELSON, SMITH, IKUTA) affirms denial of MPI. If appealed to SCOTUS, the petition for writ of certiorari will be due in 90 days.

3/25/2014 - Prof. Volokh's take on the ruling (thanks, Librarian).
3/25/2014 - 9CA Panel Opinion affirms denial of MPI (thanks, Window_Seat).
Note: the latest 28j letters have all been uploaded to RECAP, and will be linked upon update.
3/10/2014 - Appellants' citation of Supp. Auth. (Peruta).
2/19/2014 - Appellees' citation of Supp. Auth. (Ill. Assn. Firearms Retailers v. Chicago, Peruta).
1/17/2014 - Appellants' citation of Supp. Auth. (Ill. Assn. Firearms Retailers v. Chicago).
12/13/2013 - Appellants' citation of Supp. Auth.(re: US. v. Chovan).
11/21/2013 - 28(j) letter filed by Appellees (re: US. v. Chovan).
10/17/2013 - 28(j) letter filed by Appellants (re: Passage of related State Statutes).
10/7/2013 - Oral Arguments (Audio).
7/30/2013 - Notice of Oral Argument for 10/7/2013, 9:00am, ctrm 3.
5/20/2013 - Reply Brief
3/7/2013 - Appellees' Opening Brief
2/7/2013 - Appellants' Opening Brief
5/15/2009 - Complaint


Trial Court: N.D. Cal.
Case No.: 3:09-cv-02143
Docket: http://ia600404.us.archive.org/18/it...14.docket.html

Appellate Court: 9CA
Case No.: 12-17803
Docket: http://ia801704.us.archive.org/6/ite...03.docket.html

Links:
CGF Wiki for this case: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Ja..._San_Francisco
CGF Wiki Litigation page: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Li...st_and_Present
Michel & Assoc. Case Tracker: http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...cksonvsanfran/

fizux 11-24-2013 1:45 PM

SF's 28j letter filed

CMonfort 03-10-2014 5:57 PM

UPDATE
 
Earlier today, our office filed a 28(j) letter with the Ninth Circuit addressing the impact of Peruta on this case and responding to the City's arguments raised in its recent letter to the Court.

fizux 03-25-2014 11:35 AM

OP updated with 28j letters yesterday, and
9CA opinion this morning (thanks, Window_Seat).

Rossi357 03-25-2014 11:43 AM

Another rational basis opinion.

Paladin 12-10-2014 7:09 AM

IIRC, M&A have through Friday to ask SCOTUS for cert....

wolfwood 12-10-2014 10:23 AM

They kicked this one up to Papa Bear i.e. Paul Clement to draft the writ.

CMonfort 12-10-2014 11:59 AM

Official Update
 
We are finishing up the cert petition and will be filing it on Friday. For strategic reasons that I won't go into on these forums, we have opted to seek review of only the locked storage requirement.

We will be seeking plenary (full) review by the Supreme Court or, in the alternative, summary reversal of the Ninth Circuit's decision.

I will post a link to the brief on Friday.

-Clint

putput 12-11-2014 11:16 AM

It seems we're about to find out if this Supreme Court has abandoned the 2A after all...

Surely not upholding their own locked storage rulings would be a historical event...


Quote:

Originally Posted by CMonfort (Post 15420276)
We are finishing up the cert petition and will be filing it on Friday. For strategic reasons that I won't go into on these forums, we have opted to seek review of only the locked storage requirement.

We will be seeking plenary (full) review by the Supreme Court or, in the alternative, summary reversal of the Ninth Circuit's decision.

I will post a link to the brief on Friday.

-Clint


M. D. Van Norman 12-11-2014 11:45 AM

Especially with a lower court in naked rebellion? :facepalm:

RobertMW 12-11-2014 2:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman (Post 15426535)
Especially with a lower court in naked rebellion? :facepalm:

This does seem like a very pointed strategic move against rebellious lower courts. Maybe this could pin the ears back in some other circuits if SCOTUS gives a quick summary reversal simply saying "Read Heller you Dolts, it contains more than you admit."

Window_Seat 12-11-2014 3:31 PM

If they take it, could it be consolidated with a carry outside the home case like Palmer? If so, I could just hear the opinion announcement:

"We are once again, asked to decide what we decided in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. For the third and final time, . . . " :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman (Post 15426535)
Especially with a lower court in naked rebellion? :facepalm:

Bad visual. On the other hand, the District Court in Nevada... Nevermind, I'll get into trouble. :eek: :rofl2:

Erik.

Paladin 12-11-2014 4:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMonfort (Post 15420276)
We are finishing up the cert petition and will be filing it on Friday. For strategic reasons that I won't go into on these forums, we have opted to seek review of only the locked storage requirement.

We will be seeking plenary (full) review by the Supreme Court or, in the alternative, summary reversal of the Ninth Circuit's decision.

I will post a link to the brief on Friday.

-Clint

Thx.

So, it gets filed on Friday, the 12th, the last conference day in Dec. Any rough idea (e.g., month) of when it will be considered in conference?

SCOTUS calendar at:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/default.aspx

RobertMW 12-11-2014 8:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paladin (Post 15428367)
Thx.

So, it gets filed on Friday, the 12th, the last conference day in Dec. Any rough idea (e.g., month) of when it will be considered in conference?

SCOTUS calendar at:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/default.aspx

July? All cases go through an extensive vetting process before they go into conference. The court also has to decide to take some 100 ish cases out of like 2000? They have to get to it.

press1280 12-12-2014 3:38 AM

Sooner than July. 3 months depending on how much SF tries to stall? if everything goes smoothly it may have a shot at being heard and decided by the summer.

CMonfort 12-12-2014 12:54 PM

The Cert Petition was filed with the Supreme Court today:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Certiorari.pdf

-Clint

Window_Seat 12-12-2014 1:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMonfort (Post 15433430)
The Cert Petition was filed with the Supreme Court today:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Certiorari.pdf

-Clint

Quote:

"The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that San Francisco may venture where this Court forbade the District of Columbia to go is so patently wrong that summary reversal would be appropriate. But the reasoning of the decision below is powerful evidence that plenary review is needed."
It doesn't get any more clear, but that's only to page 11. :o

Erik.

lorax3 12-12-2014 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMonfort (Post 15433430)
The Cert Petition was filed with the Supreme Court today:
-Clint

Good luck! Nothing is certain but I have high hopes this will be granted.

Quote:

The question presented is:
Is San Francisco’s attempt to deprive law-abiding individuals of immediate access to operable handguns in their own homes any more constitutional than the District of Columbia’s invalidated effort to do the same?

Funtimes 12-12-2014 1:30 PM

If the court doesn't act on this, then I think I will finally agree with some of the naysayers lol.

Librarian 12-12-2014 2:20 PM

At 21
Quote:

But the decision below applied
a watered-down version of scrutiny even after
acknowledging that the San Francisco ordinance
burdens the very “core” of the Second Amendment
right. This case is thus a stark illustration of the
reality that, even after this Court’s admonishment
that the Second Amendment may not “be singled out
for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment,”
McDonald, 561 U.S. at 778-79, courts continue to do
just that. Whether through summary reversal or
plenary review, this Court should use this opportunity
to put an end to this disturbing trend.
That would be nice.

press1280 12-12-2014 3:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Librarian (Post 15433983)
At 21 That would be nice.

And it would be bigger than overturning of this ordinance.

Bhart356 12-12-2014 3:27 PM

Jackson v. SF (Ammo Ban; Locked Storage Reqts.)
 
The Cert Petition dedicates vociferously calls out the mischief taking place in the lower courts. The 9CA's upholding of the SF law is a frontal challenge to Heller. It is an almost ideal overreach. Clearly Michel and Associates see a larger strategic objective and possibly a far reaching outcome. A plenary review could result in SCOTUS establishing further direction (and far less discretion) on Second Amendment decisions in the lower courts.

Such an outcome would make this a strategically important case.

Gray Peterson 12-12-2014 4:23 PM

Clint, Paul, Chuck, all of the rest:

Outstanding work.

thorium 12-12-2014 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funtimes (Post 15433692)
If the court doesn't act on this, then I think I will finally agree with some of the naysayers lol.

Agree.

Seems Michel & his Associates here have crafted a pretty narrow "Heller Litmus Test" in this case

Tactically (Jackson v SF), it seems to be a "softball" to warm up SCOTUS to enforcing Heller. Like the mediocre comic that warms you up before the headliner.

Strategically, it's one of a number of cases that are collectively trying to find the bounds of SCOTUS' collective will to enforce Heller.

If SCOTUS doesn't slap down 9CA over that which seems "exceedingly clear" in Heller - access to an operable handgun in the home - then we'll probably see no real movement on 2A issues until some number of Justices change.

Am I allowed to change my screen name to "ConstitutionallyRelevantCondition" ?

CG of MP 12-12-2014 4:57 PM

If the Supreme Fish do not chomp at this bait in a frenzy then I think it is safe to assume they are not ever gonna bite and KC et al is right that they are DONE with the 2A for quite a good long time.

If they DO take it then hopefully things like Librarian pointed out will be done and we can get a very positive and tactically useful ruling whereby we can funnel other strategic cases into the system and or have arguments for a plethora of others already in the pipeline.

Of course they could take it and go against us (and their previous words) stare decisis be damned.

Great work Clint etc. It was a damn fun read.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! 12-12-2014 8:35 PM

I can't understand why the petition even argues that "the Court has already answered the question that this case presents." The SC spent all of one paragraph on the trigger lock/disassembly requirement, and the problem with the requirement as decided by the SC was that it applied at all times:

Quote:

Originally Posted by supreme court
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. The District argues that we should interpret this element of the statute to contain an exception for self defense....But we think that is precluded by the unequivocal text, and by the presence of certain other enumerated exceptions blah blah blah

The SC was approving this argument from the Heller respondents' brief:

Quote:

The statutory language is unequivocal: without exception, individuals may never possess a functional firearm at home. If Petitioners had wished to create an exception for home self-defense, they knew how to do so. Section 7-2507.02 permits functional firearms “at [a] place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes.” Petitioners cannot “turn a few passages in the legislative history that are partially contrary to the statutory language into a justification for this court to rewrite the statute,” Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 673 F.2d 507, 514 (D.C. Cir. 1982), and thereby add a saving exemption for home self-defense.
That was the only argument the respondents made about the trigger lock/disassembly requirement: the requirement was unconstitutional because there was no self-defense exception. The SC didn't go any farther than that and never decided that a trigger lock requirement with a self-defense exception (like SF's) was unconstitutional. Why would you tell the SC it did something that it didn't do? The argument is not credible.

Anyway, if the SC doesn't grant cert, I wouldn't read it as the SC being done with 2A cases but instead that the SC doesn't have a problem with "safe storage" laws with self-defense exceptions.

capoward 12-12-2014 8:38 PM

Very succient brief, "CA9 says SCOTUS pound sand."

If that doesn't get their attention then KC a Brown is correct, "SCOTUS is both sans intestinal fortitude and integrity." I'm paraphrasing of course - but that's pretty close.)

ddestruel 12-12-2014 9:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! (Post 15436088)
I can't understand why the petition even argues that "the Court has already answered the question that this case presents." The SC spent all of one paragraph on the trigger lock/disassembly requirement, and the problem with the requirement as decided by the SC was that it applied at all times:



The SC was approving this argument from the Heller respondents' brief:



That was the only argument the respondents made about the trigger lock/disassembly requirement: the requirement was unconstitutional because there was no self-defense exception. The SC didn't go any farther than that and never decided that a trigger lock requirement with a self-defense exception (like SF's) was unconstitutional. Why would you tell the SC it did something that it didn't do? The argument is not credible.

Anyway, if the SC doesn't grant cert, I wouldn't read it as the SC being done with 2A cases but instead that the SC doesn't have a problem with "safe storage" laws with self-defense exceptions.


While at home heller provided for an operable firearm?
from the heller syllabus pg 3

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

“Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. “

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf





your reading of safe storage I’m a little confused by but it may be my bias or laymen’s reading of things?

in reading this ordinance it appears the city is requiring storage of the arm or locking of the arm while you are at home if you can not holster it at all times on yourself.

even if a self defense exemption exists, the expectation or requirement of the arm always being upon the person while at home vs within reach while and functional in the home is the debate? is it not or am i missing something?

it seems that the second statement from the heller ruling indicates that “the requirement that any lawful arm in the home.....” being required to be rendered useless defeats the purpose of accessibility within the home.? and thus they ruled unconstitutional

So wouldn’t that second quote above that i pulled indicate the court did decide on trigger locks, and requiring storage within the home while an individual is there? making the distance between SF’s narrow self defense exemption and required deactivation of the arm and the heller ruling much closer to each others as the petition is claiming?


Thank you
DD

disclaimer* I’m having computer talent issues and couldn’t seem to recall how to put the fancy blue box quote around my heller quotes maybe it’ll come to me later

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! 12-12-2014 9:47 PM

Compare what the petition claims the SC "concluded" with what the SC actually said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by petition
[T]his Court concluded that the Second Amendment entitles law-abiding individuals to keep a handgun in the home in a constitutionally relevant condition, i.e., to keep a handgun that is “operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

vs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by supreme court
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

"Keeping" isn't the same thing as "rendering." "Rendering" the handgun operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense means unlocking/assembling it. The SC doesn't conclude that the 2A allows you to always "keep" handguns in an unlocked/assembled condition, but instead that a trigger lock/disassembly law that prohibits you from ever unlocking/assembling the handgun for use in self-defense violates the 2A. That's as far as Heller goes. Implicit in the "second statement" you pulled from the syllabus is locking/disassembly "at all times", that is how the requirement prohibits you from rendering the firearm operable. The SF law doesn't do that.

LoneYote 12-12-2014 11:33 PM

FGG, is the firearms still "being carried" by a person if they are unconscious?
Do you read that the SC would have no issue with unloaded carry of arms because you would be able to render it operable for defense?
How much time do you think the SC would say is allowable in the rendering process?

ddestruel 12-13-2014 3:23 AM

FGG thank you.....


i think i get hung up on

Marriam-websters definition
: to cause (someone or something) to be in a specified condition

: to give (something) to someone

law : to officially report or declare (a legal judgment, such as a verdict)



so the law was against the owner loading it and rendering it operable
or the law says a trigger lock must be in place when firearm is not in your possession, therefore rendering it inoperable but if you need it you may render it operable?
your argument on render seems to hinge on what SF is arguing in their scheme. its intriguing, from hellers arguments regarding self defense and the core being a functional arm at home.... if trigger locked while at home even if not on you then it is hardly easy to render it functional.......

but again as a layman i connect dots differently .... but appreciate your response as your take makes more sense

BlackCatRacing#13 12-13-2014 5:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by press1280 (Post 15430985)
Sooner than July. 3 months depending on how much SF tries to stall? if everything goes smoothly it may have a shot at being heard and decided by the summer.


Yikes that was One Long Read I did of the "CERT PETITION" that was Submitted Today

Took Me On & Off about 6 Hours to Read through it all so Every Last One of the Honorable Judges on the Ninth Circuit of the Supreme Court of America better take their Sweet Time and Read Every Single Typed Word in that Cert Petition like I did but at least 4x Times a Day every Day til its Time to make a Fully Competent Answer


.

wolfwood 12-13-2014 5:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneYote (Post 15436805)
FGG, is the firearms still "being carried" by a person if they are unconscious?
Do you read that the SC would have no issue with unloaded carry of arms because you would be able to render it operable for defense?
How much time do you think the SC would say is allowable in the rendering process?

SF's counsel in fact argued that you could keep it holstered to yourself while sleeping...

Paladin 12-13-2014 5:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfwood (Post 15437243)
SF's counsel in fact argued that you could keep it holstered to yourself while sleeping...

:facepalm:

I don't even wear a watch while I sleep....

My gun does nightstand duty when I sleep.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! 12-13-2014 6:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneYote (Post 15436805)
FGG, is the firearms still "being carried" by a person if they are unconscious?
Do you read that the SC would have no issue with unloaded carry of arms because you would be able to render it operable for defense?
How much time do you think the SC would say is allowable in the rendering process?

Just to be clear, I'm not predicting what the SC would do if it decided this or another trigger lock case, only trying to flesh out what has and has not actually been decided, but I'll try to answer your questions. No I don't think a firearm is "carried" by someone who's asleep; to the extent that the SF law allows carry, however, it's a more permissive "self-defense exception" than proposed by DC in Heller, which was pretty much "you can unlock it if there is a sudden intruder or if you need to defend yourself against a rapist" and not "go ahead and carry whenever you want whether or not you actually have to use the firearm in self-defense." As to the second question, unloaded carry is still on the table as far as I can see; there was some discussion on this here a few years back. Lastly I don't know exactly how much time but I think they would tolerate at least some delay. At oral argument in Heller the respondents said they didn't have a problem with a "safe storage in a safe" law:

Quote:

However, better [sic] safe storage approach is the one used by the majority of jurisdictions, I believe, that do have such laws, which is to require safe storage, for example, in a safe. And that is a reasonable 12 limitation. It's a strict scrutiny limitation. Whatever standard of view we may wish to apply, I think, would encompass a safe storage provision.
Having said all that I like this case because it is next step from Heller and has good burden arguments. But Heller did not decide the legal issue this case presents, and I'm scratching my head why the cert petition argues that. "Rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" means unlocking the firearm when an immediate need presents itself, it does not mean "I'm entitled to keep an unlocked handgun that is immediately accessible in case something might happen."

speedrrracer 12-13-2014 6:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! (Post 15437398)
But Heller did not decide the legal issue this case presents, and I'm scratching my head why the cert petition argues that. "Rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" means unlocking the firearm when an immediate need presents itself, it does not mean "I'm entitled to keep an unlocked handgun that is immediately accessible in case something might happen."

That doesn't seem to make sense.

"Immediate" means: "occurring or done at once; instant." also "nearest in time" according to google. If I have to fiddle with a lock first, then a gun is, by dictionary definition, not available immediately, it is only available subsequent to other action.

What am I missing?

wolfwood 12-13-2014 6:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! (Post 15437398)
Just to be clear, I'm not predicting what the SC would do if it decided this or another trigger lock case, only trying to flesh out what has and has not actually been decided, but I'll try to answer your questions. No I don't think a firearm is "carried" by someone who's asleep; to the extent that the SF law allows carry, however, it's a more permissive "self-defense exception" than proposed by DC in Heller, which was pretty much "you can unlock it if there is a sudden intruder or if you need to defend yourself against a rapist" and not "go ahead and carry whenever you want whether or not you actually have to use the firearm in self-defense." As to the second question, unloaded carry is still on the table as far as I can see; there was some discussion on this here a few years back. Lastly I don't know exactly how much time but I think they would tolerate at least some delay. At oral argument in Heller the respondents said they didn't have a problem with a "safe storage in a safe" law:



Having said all that I like this case because it is next step from Heller and has good burden arguments. But Heller did not decide the legal issue this case presents, and I'm scratching my head why the cert petition argues that. "Rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" means unlocking the firearm when an immediate need presents itself, it does not mean "I'm entitled to keep an unlocked handgun that is immediately accessible in case something might happen."

Does the fact this was a preliminary injunction appeal impact anything? The petitioners filed for preliminary injunction relatively late into proceedings. 3.5 years as I recall. The Ninth explicitly avoided the other three factors as this appeal was lost at the merits prong of the Winters test.

If the Supreme Court does decide in Jackson's favor does it then remand back to the Ninth to decide the other three factors or will it make a independent review of those prongs of the Winters test?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! 12-13-2014 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedrrracer (Post 15437448)

What am I missing?

Who said "available immediately" and where? Here is some suggested reading: Heller opinion, Heller appellant and respondent briefs, Heller oral argument transcript. Whenever a " self-defense exception" to the trigger lock rule is mentioned, is it (1) if someone breaks into your house you can unlock your handgun and defend yourself against that specific threat, or (2) a 24/7 unlocked, just in case I may need to defend myself sometime, swallow-the-rule exception? If (2) where in the record do you find any support for that? Remember that Heller's attorney told the SC "store it in a safe, no problemo!"

IVC 12-13-2014 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! (Post 15436426)
"Keeping" isn't the same thing as "rendering." "Rendering" the handgun operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense means unlocking/assembling it. The SC doesn't conclude that the 2A allows you to always "keep" handguns in an unlocked/assembled condition, but instead that a trigger lock/disassembly law that prohibits you from ever unlocking/assembling the handgun for IMMEDIATE use in self-defense violates the 2A.

Don't skip words when being very precise.

If we are to read it as narrowly as you suggest, we also have to attribute the correct meaning to "immediate." Courts typically use common dictionary definitions when interpreting such terms, and "immediate" is defined in Webster as "occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time." Note that it doesn't say "with minimal time," but "without loss of time."

ArchangelZeroSix 12-13-2014 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
Who said "available immediately" and where?

From the cert petition quoting Heller.

"...this Court has already established “the
manner” in which individuals are entitled to exercise
their Second Amendment rights in their homes, which
is by keeping a handgun that is “operable for the
purpose of immediate self-defense.” Heller, 554 U.S.
at 635." pp.15

I don't think "...I would have to turn
on the light, find my glasses, find the key to the
lockbox, insert the key in the lock and unlock the box
(under the stress of the emergency), and then get my
gun before being in position to defend myself..." [cert petition pp.5] would qualify as immediate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
or (2) a 24/7 unlocked, just in case I may need to defend myself sometime, swallow-the-rule exception? If (2) where in the record do you find any support for that?

It would seem to be (2) "There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency;" Heller, 554 at 629. A gun being in a lockbox doesn't satisfy 'readily'.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.