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

[CMonfort]

The Cert Petition was filed with the Supreme Court today:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari.pdf

-Clint

[Window_Seat]

The Cert Petition was filed with the Supreme Court today:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari.pdf

-Clint

It doesn't get any more clear, but that's only to page 11.

Erik.

[lorax3]

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.

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]

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

[Librarian]

At 21

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]

At 21 That would be nice.

And it would be bigger than overturning of this ordinance.

[Bhart356]

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]

Clint, Paul, Chuck, all of the rest:

Outstanding work.

[thorium]

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]

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!!!]

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.

[capoward]

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]

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!!!]

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

[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.

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]

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?