|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
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/ Last edited by Librarian; 01-15-2015 at 1:40 PM.. Reason: updates |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
SF's 28j letter filed
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL. Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA). |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
OP updated with 28j letters yesterday, and
9CA opinion this morning (thanks, Window_Seat).
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL. Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA). |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
IIRC, M&A have through Friday to ask SCOTUS for cert....
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
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:
__________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Especially with a lower court in naked rebellion?
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
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."
__________________
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
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, . . . " Bad visual. On the other hand, the District Court in Nevada... Nevermind, I'll get into trouble. Erik. Last edited by Window_Seat; 12-11-2014 at 3:40 PM.. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
The Cert Petition was filed with the Supreme Court today:
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Certiorari.pdf -Clint |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Erik. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
You think you know, but you have no idea. The information posted here is not legal advice. If you seek legal advice hire an attorney who is familiar with all the facts of your case. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
At 21
Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. Last edited by Bhart356; 12-12-2014 at 3:54 PM.. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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" ?
__________________
------------------------- Last edited by thorium; 12-12-2014 at 4:58 PM.. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda vs. Arizona The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes... District of Columbia vs. Heller
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
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:
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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.) Last edited by capoward; 12-12-2014 at 8:43 PM.. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc Last edited by ddestruel; 12-12-2014 at 9:39 PM.. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Compare what the petition claims the SC "concluded" with what the SC actually said:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
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?
__________________
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire Quote:
Last edited by LoneYote; 12-12-2014 at 11:36 PM.. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc Last edited by ddestruel; 12-14-2014 at 7:30 PM.. |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 .
__________________
Pray for Peace ~ ~ ~ ~ Prepare for War 1) Charlton Heston 2nd Amendment N.R.A. Speech ....http://youtu.be/5ju4Gla2odw 2) PENN & TELLER tell the "TRUTH" about Gun Controll ...https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8 3) NANCY SINATRA sings BANG BANG He Shot Me Down...https://youtu.be/YZoQ_E8GHsk |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I don't even wear a watch while I sleep.... My gun does nightstand duty when I sleep.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"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?
__________________
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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? Last edited by wolfwood; 12-13-2014 at 10:40 AM.. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
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!"
__________________
Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-13-2014 at 11:55 AM.. |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"...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:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|