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

[ccmc]

It's almost like we're lobbing softballs at a batter who is afraid to swing at anything, and we're trying to get them to swing at something.

Good metaphor. Maybe, like is always said about every bull market, this time it's different.

OTOH the difference between the San Francisco law and the DC law overturned by Heller is somewhat akin to the difference between de facto no issue (aka may issue) and de jure no issue.

[ccmc]

If SCOTUS takes Jackson, and we win it, can we get Shall Issue:

(1) via a historical/textual analysis?
(2a) via intermediate scrutiny?
(2b) via strict scrutiny?

IOW, could there be no need for Peruta, Palmer or any other "Carry Case" to win at SCOTUS if we win Jackson?

Heller didn't give DC shall issue (at least not yet). If DC's new carry law is upheld judicially it doesn't bode well for getting shall issue judicially in California on the basis of a win in Jackson.

[RobertMW]

If SCOTUS takes Jackson, and we win it, can we get Shall Issue:

(1) via a historical/textual analysis?
(2a) via intermediate scrutiny?
(2b) via strict scrutiny?

IOW, could there be no need for Peruta, Palmer or any other "Carry Case" to win at SCOTUS if we win Jackson?

It probably depends on if/how SCOTUS frames their response. If they simply say that Jackson's previous ruling run against SCOTUS' ruling about locked weapons in Heller, then no, we haven't gained anything on the carry side of the issue. If SCOTUS were to elaborate on the implications raised by the amicus brief from SAF, GOA, CGF and others, about how the lower courts have been rejecting the process that Heller lays out for the lower courts and gives a more detailed outline of exactly how courts must make their decisions on 2A issues, then yes, the carry cases would likely become markedly simpler because they would all be forced to be opined on like Peruta currently is from O'Scanlian.

We just have to hurry up and wait some more.

[Paladin]

Less than two weeks...

SF reply due "Friday the 13th" ....

[Paladin]

5 days left....

[wireless]

Doesn't SCOTUS release yay or nay on cert on Mondays?

[Wolverine]

5 days left....

Just checked SCOTUS' website.

"Jan 30 2015 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 13, 2015."

So Jackson got two extensions and now SanFran has too. I guess that is OK, its too late to decide this term anyway.

[press1280]

Just checked SCOTUS' website.

"Jan 30 2015 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 13, 2015."

So Jackson got two extensions and now SanFran has too. I guess that is OK, its too late to decide this term anyway.

They should decide whether or not to grant cert this term, but you're right it wouldn't get heard until next term.

[16in50calNavalRifle]

Thanks Brandon for linking that cert petition. Not addressing the narrower issue at hand in this thread about whether SCOTUS already addressed the self-defense exemption aspect, it was useful as a condensed example of a central problem with constitutional law today.

The idea of "interest balancing" - probably just part of the landscape for most people active in the field - has struck me from the outset as completely inappropriate when it comes (at the least) to core constitutional questions.

Keeping it extremely simplified and short here, enumerated constitutional rights - the very concept thereof, which recall was a world-changing first in history - are firm limitations on the state. Not suggestions. Not one element of a complex quasi-legislative or dispute resolution framework for courts to mull.

The very phrase "compelling state interest" seems completely inappropriate in the context of individual rights. It belongs in national security or treaty cases, for example. Where the security interests of the country as a whole, at a given moment, must be deemed to be the province of the elected govt. But "interest balancing" between individual enumerated rights and "compelling state interests" renders, at least in principle, such enumerated rights essentially meaningless.

[Paladin]

Just checked SCOTUS' website.

"Jan 30 2015 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 13, 2015."

So Jackson got two extensions and now SanFran has too. I guess that is OK, its too late to decide this term anyway.

Less than ....

[wolfwood]

opposition filed

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Respondents-Brief-in-Opposition.pdf

[RobertMW]

opposition filed

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

Pre-Read prediction

[RobertMW]

Post-Read Analysis:

So, SF still contends that a lock box is not equal to a trigger lock, what was deemed unacceptable by Heller? A lock is a lock, no matter how quick you could possibly open it, in the middle of the night, in the dark, woken out of deep sleep by someone bashing in to your residence.

Oh, and these kind of laws have been found "constitutional" in Massachusetts and New York, so they must be so here as well. Oh, and an overturn here would certainly cause them issues as well, lets not do that, it would give them, like, rights and stuff.

Oh, and there are already laws that lay criminal liability on the owner when a minor in the household gets a hold of your gun, unless it was in a lock box. Since that's ok, lets just make it a crime to not have it in a lock box at all, no matter if there are children around, not, or even if they simply know to obey their parents rules to not touch the gun.

Yup, pure gold here, pure comedic gold.

[North86]

It's pure insight into the brain of a collectivist. The rights and responsibilities of the gun owner aren't what's important to them. They have begrudgingly, and not without a fit of kicking and screaming, been brought to understand that people have a right to defend themselves. So now they intend to fight tooth and nail, the manner in which said individual is allowed to prepare their home defense. Their rationale is that unless the individual does it their way, the rest of us are in danger. That the right of that individual to prepare their home defense in the way that they see fit, within their own damned home, is less important than the potential risk that the rest of us might face if said individual doesn't do it the way they like.

Notice, no mention of real data, statistics or other real information that shows that their method (lock box) is better, just the "opinion" of elected officials. This presumption of Constitutionality has got to be torn down.

How about "what people do in their own damned home, with their own legally procured property, is none of your damned business?" Are we going to have similar laws on pot and alcohol storage? Doubt it.

[Master_P]

Reply brief for the petitioner went up on M&A yesterday. It's a good read.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Jackson-v-San-Francisco_Reply-Brief-for-Petitioner.pdf

How long until we know if SCOTUS grants cert/plenary review? I am hoping it will happen before this term ends in June.