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

[Window_Seat]

According to the docket page, it's "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 17, 2015."

Erik.

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.

[x90]

This case is so black and white and the petition so well argued that a rejection will only validate the claim that the Supreme Court is avoiding 2A cases (due to the 5th pro-2A vote no longer existing).

If they reject this case then the likelihood that they would accept Peruta approaches zero.

[Paladin]

According to the docket page, it's "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 17, 2015."

Erik.

In most cases, we would learn later that day or the following Monday if it rejected, right?

Yes, I realize they can continue to discuss it on a subsequent Conference Day, but that isn't the usual practice.

[RobertMW]

In most cases, we would learn later that day or the following Monday if it rejected, right?

Yes, I realize they continue to discuss it on a subsequent Conference Day, but that isn't the usual practice.

Yeah. When we were waiting on Drake, they would put out the disposition on cases that week. Drake was reassigned twice if I remember, we don't know why, just that it was rejected.

[pistol3]

This case is so black and white and the petition so well argued that a rejection will only validate the claim that the Supreme Court is avoiding 2A cases (due to the 5th pro-2A vote no longer existing).

If they reject this case then the likelihood that they would accept Peruta approaches zero.

Yea, I was thinking that as I read the brief. This case seems like a slam dunk. If the law doesn't get overturned, then I don't see how we have any hope for the standard capacity magazine, handgun safety list, or carry cases.

[Maestro Pistolero]

There is zero room for hair-splitting here. The 9th has brazenly and specifically contravened in the finest detail the holding in Heller. If SCOTUS doesn't fix this I have no more respect for SCOTUS than I do for the 9th circuit.

[kcbrown]

My working explanation says that SCOTUS will deny cert here, but I will say this: of all the cases that have gone up to it, this one is by far the most likely to be granted cert. It is, indeed, the litmus test. If SCOTUS denies cert here, then the right is finished.

[CG of MP]

My working explanation says that SCOTUS will deny cert here, but I will say this: of all the cases that have gone up to it, this one is by far the most likely to be granted cert. It is, indeed, the litmus test. If SCOTUS denies cert here, then the right is finished.

[Funtimes]

There is zero room for hair-splitting here. The 9th has brazenly and specifically contravened in the finest detail in the holding in Heller. If SCOTUS doesn't fix this I have no more respect for SCOTUS than I do for the 9th circuit.

I gotta say I am with you here.

[selfshrevident]

This made me LOL.

[selfshrevident]

My working explanation says that SCOTUS will deny cert here, but I will say this: of all the cases that have gone up to it, this one is by far the most likely to be granted cert. It is, indeed, the litmus test. If SCOTUS denies cert here, then the right is finished.

Unless a constitutional conservative wins the presidency in 2016, constitutional conservative reinforcements are sent to the senate in 2016, and constitutional conservative judges are nominated and confirmed to the SCOTUS after a few liberals retire or kick the bucket (AND whoever that mysterious 5th vote/deserter is).

[Window_Seat]

There is zero room for hair-splitting here. The 9th has brazenly and specifically contravened in the finest detail the holding in Heller. If SCOTUS doesn't fix this I have no more respect for SCOTUS than I do for the 9th circuit.

My working explanation says that SCOTUS will deny cert here, but I will say this: of all the cases that have gone up to it, this one is by far the most likely to be granted cert. It is, indeed, the litmus test. If SCOTUS denies cert here, then the right is finished.

Not necessarily because remember, there are 93 other district courts. Here's what my non-lawyerly mind thinks:

I'm inclined to think optimistically by saying the court isn't denying "with prejudice" to a particular actionable cause when they deny cert. As an example, they have already denied to (I think) three "carry outside the home" cases. If they deny, then a circuit split would be in order, and would happen when (not if) cities like Chicago and DC bite the SF bait. In an actionable cause like this (throw in a dissenting opinion from a Circuit Judge), you might see a grant of cert IF/when a District Court strikes an entire ordinance (or statute) on its face, and a Court of Appeals affirms (or vice/versa). The Court is more likely to grant when there is a circuit split and/or a statute/ordinance is facially struck. (Univ. of Alabama lecture by a Justice). This is probably why Peruta and Richards are going en banc. Here, there is no circuit split, and the ordinance in question here has NOT been struck by a court below. I have heard the Justices say they will deny, even if the court below rendered a terrible holding.

If the Court denies, I see the California Legislature doing what S.F. is doing. This originated in the Northern District Court (I think).

My prediction is that the Court will NOT grant.

Erik.

[kcbrown]

Not necessarily because remember, there are 93 other district courts.

None of that matters. If SCOTUS is not willing to back its original holding when lower courts blatantly defy it, then there is no logical reason to believe that SCOTUS will ever back its holding in any other circumstance, absent a favorable change in the Court's composition.

I'm inclined to think optimistically by saying the court isn't denying "with prejudice" to a particular actionable cause when they deny cert.

And in isolated cases where there is nothing particularly special about the cause, you'd be correct. But in this instance, the Court has built a pattern of avoiding 2A cases. Furthermore, this case is special because it's one in which the lower court actively defied the Supreme Court's original holding.

Under those conditions, a denial is most certainly indicative of much more than it would be under normal circumstances.

Context matters greatly.

[Paladin]

According to the docket page, it's "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 17, 2015."

Erik.

One week to go!

[wireless]

I believe they release yes or no on Mondays. Should we know the 20th?