Jackson v. SF (Ammo Ban; Locked Storage Reqts.): Cert DENIED 6/8/15

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

From what part of the record did the "immediate" qualifier in the holding come from?

I don't know that the particular word appears any where in any of the briefs, and I'm assuming it doesn't. I'm sure you'll take that to mean the holding is more expansive than the "basis" and that the court did that without notice, hearing, discussion, or explanation lol. The record has lots of stuff about sudden threats, emergencies, self defense "only when necessary," so it doesn't surprise me that the court would use a word that is synonymous with all that.

[kcbrown]

I don't know that the particular word appears any where in any of the briefs, and I'm assuming it doesn't. I'm sure you'll take that to mean the holding is more expansive than the "basis" and that the court did that without notice, hearing, discussion, or explanation lol. The record has lots of stuff about sudden threats, emergencies, self defense "only when necessary," so it doesn't surprise me that the court would use a word that is synonymous with all that.

I don't expect them to directly take the word from the record. It's sufficient if it's synonymous with the various things in the record. I just wasn't sure if that was something that had in some way been covered in the record (frankly, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't), and it's clear from what you've been saying that it must be covered for the Court to use such a term without violating the rules you're implying it follows.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Got it. I did find a very small bit of evidence in the record, not briefed or mentioned anywhere other than in the document in which it is found, about the hassle of unlocking a firearm to deal with a sudden threat; bonus points to the first who finds it.

Changing gears, more of why I don't like the cert petition:

But the decision below upholds an ordinance that is materially indistinguishable from the trigger-lock law invalidated in Heller.

The law in Heller was more extreme. It denied access to arms, prohibiting armed self-defense in the home, while the City’s mandate interferes with access to those arms, making armed self-defense more difficult.

[wolfwood]

That's sort of my point about this.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Jackson_Conformed-Declaration-of-Espanola-Jackson.pdf

Linked is the declaration of the named Defendant. All the declarations are the same by the Defendants. She says nothing about how this actually is a impediment to her right to self-defense. No attempt was made to rebut the City's claim that it takes a person 3-4 seconds to open a box. If on remand they have a trial and she testifies that as a 86 year old women presumably with mobility issues it in fact would take her 2-3 minutes to get to that gun even if it is close by her then I think that this is a winnable case.

[Maestro Pistolero]

Except I didn't actually make the argument that was attributed to me. oh yeah lol.

It is this argument to which I refer:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=133

Yes, "without delay." The opinion is consistent in its use of "render" and its variants: rendering inoperable is locking or disassembling, rendering operable is unlocking or assembling. As you point out delay is inherent in the rendering operable of a firearm and as such no rendering operable can ever be "immediate." So what the supreme court is saying, apparently, is "DC's trigger lock law violates the 2A because it prohibits you from completely ignoring the law by never locking your gun," i.e., the 24/7 self-defense exception that swallows the rule. And in the process of arriving there, the supreme court engages in the entirely beside the point determination whether the DC law does or does not allow you to unlock your handgun if there is an intruder at 2am. Either way -- total prohibition or delay --the law is unconstitutional, but what the hell? Let's make that determination for sh*ts and giggles and then tell everybody that that it's the reason why the law is unconstitutional. Then, with no further discussion, let's announce a holding more expansive than our previously stated reason; of course we would never come right out and say, "no trigger lock is constitutional unless it can be completely ignored", that would be too direct. I don't think this is nonsensical at all, noooo! lol.

An artificially imposed delay is not the same as a delay inherent in the operating of the firearm (clicking off a safety, retrieving from a holster, racking a round if that's the way one chooses to carry). The first is an infringement created by law, the other a function of natural physics. I don't agree that it's apparent that the court meant to say that only a complete prohibition on a ready firearm is unconstitutional. Though I don't doubt that (at least some) of the non-Heller-five would like to read it that way.

Lol. Because it's so effing funny.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Here is the argument that was incorrectly attributed to me, now for the second time by you lol:

Your argument is that even having a gun laying on the counter next to you will still incur a delay, thus SCOTUS must have been determining that some delay will always be acceptable when using the term "immediate" in this context.

Heller's holding:

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

The DC law violated the 2A because it prohibited the rendering operable of the handgun -- which necessarily entails the "artificially imposed delay" of unlocking the handgun -- in a self-defense emergency. "The DC law won't let me unlock my handgun to defend myself against a sudden intruder." That's how I'm interpreting it. If by "immediate" the SC meant "no artificially imposed delay is acceptable," the holding is literally nonsense, as it would be saying the DC law violated the 2A because it prohibited something that's not even possible to do in the first place: one can never render a firearm operable for the purpose of no-artificial-delay self-defense because that rendering operable will always entail an artificially imposed delay. What the SC is actually saying is that the problem with the law and the reason why it is unconstitutional is that it does not have a "self-defense exception." It's crystal clear from the record that everyone understood that to mean that you were not allowed to unlock your firearm (artificial delay included) if and when necessary to deal with an emergency.

[Funtimes]

It's crystal clear from the record that everyone understood that to mean that you were not allowed to unlock your firearm (artificial delay included) if and when necessary to deal with an emergency.

This is one thing I remember standing out. It was never ok. Under this same theory, in Hawaii, it was never ok to utilize a firearm outside the home for self-defense because there are zero exceptions for that. Where in CA, I believe they had an exception for the time between the event and the time police can come?

[kcbrown]

It's crystal clear from the record that everyone understood that to mean that you were not allowed to unlock your firearm (artificial delay included) if and when necessary to deal with an emergency.

Exactly. That is indeed the basis on which the Court struck the law.

The "immediate" bit in the holding is not derived from, nor the basis for, the reason the Court struck the law. It is embedded in the statement of what the Court holds true. Here, essentially saying that the law cannot impose upon "immediate" self-defense.

The Court could have omitted that particular word from the holding, and as regards striking the DC law, the end result would have been identical. I do not believe their inclusion of that term to be an accident, precisely because it is in the context of what the Court holds to be true.

Since "immediate" refers to the interval of time between the point at which self-defense becomes necessary and the time a defense can be mounted (as it is a term applied to "self-defense"), it logically follows that trigger lock laws and other such laws that operate in such a way as to impose time burdens on those who wish to use firearms for self-defense are infringements upon the right, seeing how they forcibly reduce the probability of a self-defense effort being timely. Inasmuch as such imposition will necessarily eventually get people killed, it also seems logical that justification of such infringement should be immensely difficult, if possible at all.

But, of course, nothing constrains the courts to operate logically. Nevertheless, cases which have such as their basis must be brought. This is one such, even if the petition for cert has some problems. I just hope the Court is able to see past those problems.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Let me be clear that I'm not saying the court held that trigger lock laws with self defense exceptions are constitutional, only that the court's holding is limited to the specific question before it, i.e., is a trigger lock law without a self defense exception constitutional? No. The holding does not go beyond that.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

The "immediate" bit in the holding is not derived from, nor the basis for, the reason the Court struck the law.

Not according to you lol. You're not claiming that I'm agreeing with you on that are you?

[Maestro Pistolero]

Here is the argument that was incorrectly attributed to me, now for the second time by you lol:

Have you lost your mind? In post#170 I quoted/copied/pasted YOUR post #133 from this thread to eliminate your confusion over what you think I am attributing to you.

I am attributing nothing else to you aside from your own words in post #133. My comment and criticism is only regarding the passage I pasted from you.

rofl, lmao, etc., etc.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

You realize that everything from the sentence beginning with "So what..." on was sarcastic? And that the reason why I think the counter-interpretation of the holding is nonsense is because artificially delayed rendering operable is incompatible with no artificial delay self defense? No, I don't think the supreme court "apparently" held that the DC law was unconstitutional because it prohibits you from ignoring the law entirely by never locking your gun lol. That's not my argument, I'm making fun of someone else's argument.

[Maestro Pistolero]

You realize that everything from the sentence beginning with "So what..." on was sarcastic? And that the reason why I think the counter-interpretation of the holding is nonsense is because artificially delayed rendering operable is incompatible with no artificial delay self defense? No, I don't think the supreme court "apparently" held that the DC law was unconstitutional because it prohibits you from ignoring the law entirely by never locking your gun lol. That's not my argument, I'm making fun of someone else's argument.

Well ok, then. That was not obvious to me.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Well ok, then. That was not obvious to me.

Next time I will use more and haha.

[wolfwood]

Got it. I did find a very small bit of evidence in the record, not briefed or mentioned anywhere other than in the document in which it is found, about the hassle of unlocking a firearm to deal with a sudden threat; bonus points to the first who finds it.

Changing gears, more of why I don't like the cert petition:

Fabio help me out and link me to the document.