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

[sholling]

That's true, but my point is that the amount of time it will take to get the same number of iterations as what NAACP v Alabama went through is much longer now, which means the cost of the GVR ping-pong is much higher than before.

Call me cynical, but I suspect that some (but by no means all) of those racking up billable hours fighting unconstitutional laws, as well as those defending unconstitutional laws see this as a feature of our legal system rather than a bug in the system. Stall and delay, and concede away arguments in existing cases for argument in future cases - thus ensuring that there will never be complete resolution and that there will always be a neverending supply of billable hours.

In essence, it looks like we've lost the war in the courts. It's just that most people don't know it yet, or are unwilling to admit it.

That, of course, can change in an instant, the moment SCOTUS actually shows they have a real spine. It won't change until then.

I agree completely. In hindsight, after watching the court deny cert to the first few post-Heller carry cases it would probably have been smarter to delay some of the remaining carry challenges until a couple of more rights friendly justices were appointed. But hindsight is almost always 20-20, and if history is any guide it's likely that any future Democratic or Establishment Republican presidential appointments to the courts will be reliably statist.

I fully expect SCOTUS to cower in the face of 2nd Amendment challenges precisely because guns are "different" and "dangerous" and all that, and therefore what should be a real right isn't really any such thing in practice. We are seeing the dying embers of the country slowly go cold. Soon, there will be little to distinguish the United States from any of the other Euro-socialist piece of crap countries.

An Article V Convention is the only thing at this point that has any real chance of reversing the trend, and that's a limited-time opportunity.

Again we agree completely. If we can get a convention called before a Republican is elected President (whenever that happens) the panic driving the calls will be over and the states will take a wait and see attitude allowing the country to continue on the same self-destructive path it's on right now. Then again, if a Democrat is elected and appoints more Progressives to the court then it's likely that they will read any new amendments out of the Constitution soon after ratification - the same way that SCOTUS read the then newly ratified P & I clause of the 14th amendment out of the Constitution and has so far successfully ignored it for a century and a half.

My bet is that the "right people" didn't see this coming and didn't plan for it

But, but, but... only the "Right People" are smart enough and in the know enough to make those calls or pick the lawyers that they hire.

[IVC]

But, but, but... only the "Right People" are smart enough and in the know enough to make those calls or pick the lawyers that they hire.

You go to battle with what you have.

If it is as you suggest, the problems are NOT due to the tactical mistakes and blunders along the way, but due to the corrupt court system. In such a scenario, it doesn't matter whether one tries or gives up immediately. From what I read, you'd rather not have tried at all (?)

[rlc2]

Thanks sholling- not sure GVR applies...

IANAL but in reading his posts over the years I'm of the opinion that esqappellate is a pretty sharp lawyer. In my opinion there are three likely actions from SCOTUS and one highly unlikely possibility.

1. They can deny cert which would have the practical and moral effect of SCOTUS joining the district and 9th Circus courts in repudiating their Heller decision. Cities, states, and the DC would then feel free to all but ban easily accessible functional firearms in the home. Something that the Anties in the CA legislature will be sorely tempted to take advantage of.
   
2. SCOTUS could GVR without a slapdown. I could be wrong but it's my understanding that minus a severe slap down the district court judge would still be free to rule against us, just with slightly different "reasoning", and the 9th Circus will still be free to uphold the new "reasoning" out of sheer fascistic political stubbornness.
   
3. SCOTUS could GVR with a severe slapdown which would eventually lead to a temporary victory for us - until SF or someone else passes a reworded version and we're forced to refight the battle.
   
4. The longshot - SCOTUS could break its string of rejections and grant cert as a fairly simple and straightforward vehicle to establish what level(s) of scrutiny applies to the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution. I suspect that Alito, Scalia, and Thomas will want strict scrutiny; Roberts and Kennedy will be tempted by intermediate scrutiny but for completely different reasons; and Bryer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayer will push for rational basis or rational basis dressed up as something else.

In my non-lawyerly opinion outcomes 1, 2, or 3 are all equally likely, but I agree with esqappellate that #4 is unlikely. First because why spend a lot of time and effort when a GVR will do the job, and second because Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are unlikely to trust Roberts and Kennedy enough to want to address scrutiny yet. Just my opinion.

Thanks, Sholling on the validation- Esqappellate seems like the real deal, and a gracious role model, too. IANAL so I cant evaluate on points of law.

I asked about the GVR definition- he answered there- my short-hand, GVR only for if the law changed in the meantime, and lower court didnt take that into consideration. In Jackson nothing has changed, and so if SCOTUS wants to address it, short of plenary review in cert, or not-

the per curiam is the equivalent of a one liner saying, "you got it wrong, we reverse, and we arent going to explain it to you".

Sort of like whats happened lately on 9th CA habeas decisions, or so I read.

Fingers crossed...

[rlc2]

And I believe that is what Paul Clements suggested in his elegant, succinct, and gentlemanly response - and summary suggestion for next steps at SCOTUS, are:

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

1. reversal (per curiam format?)

or

2. plenary review in cert

Coming from former US Solicitor General, its compelling on the law, to this noob, non lawyer.

But of course, opinions vary, and after the points of the law,
are the practical, tactical decisions- for the Heller 4,

per the speculation here on Drake- as I recall:

"is this broad enough to take time on, for cert?"
and
"are the votes solid enough to take it on, and win in cert?"

If either are no, it makes sense to give it a pass, rather than establish bad law based on an ultra-liberal outlier like San Fran.

[sholling]

You go to battle with what you have.

If it is as you suggest, the problems are NOT due to the tactical mistakes and blunders along the way, but due to the corrupt court system. In such a scenario, it doesn't matter whether one tries or gives up immediately.

In my layman's opinion, a combination of a thoroughly corrupt court system at the district and appellate levels, a SCOTUS too infested with distrust of the people to take a stand in defense of the 2nd Amendment, and - yes tactical mistakes. Not being a lawyer I base much of the latter on mistakes pointed out by FGG, someone who's opinions I respect, and the remainder on observing Gura's habit of conceding important issues in favor of addressing those issues at some later date in some future case.

From what I read, you'd rather not have tried at all (?)

Not so, we had to try. But, again in hindsight, if you are going to try (and risk setting negative precedents) then you have make sure that you use your A team and not cronies, and hope that your A team is at their best.

[IVC]

Not so, we had to try. But, again in hindsight, if you are going to try (and risk setting negative precedents) then you have make sure that you use your A team and not cronies, and hope that your A team is at their best.

That's incompatible with the "corrupt courts" paradigm. If they are corrupt, no matter what team we have we will lose. If there is a chance and the type of team we have makes a difference, then courts are not fully corrupt.

So, are they corrupt or is there a chance if we have a super-duper team?

[sholling]

That's incompatible with the "corrupt courts" paradigm. If they are corrupt, no matter what team we have we will lose. If there is a chance and the type of team we have makes a difference, then courts are not fully corrupt.

So, are they corrupt or is there a chance if we have a super-duper team?

You assume a black and white, either/or, all or nothing world. A world where all 2nd Amendment lawyers are superstars and we still lose because all courts/judges/justices are corrupt, or all courts are fair and honest but we're losing solely because all of our lawyers are too stupid to tie their own shoes. I don't buy into any of that.

It seems fairly obvious to me that some cases are decided before they are even laid out before the courts. Cases heard by judges that start with a desired conclusion and then work backward to pick and choose evidence, precedence, and arguments in order to reach the desired predetermined conclusion. However the panel ruling in the Peruta case does indicate that here and there it is possible to find an open-minded judge and win one if you have a "super-duper team" that does their homework thoroughly and completely and presents their case brilliantly. All that this means is that it is possible for a brilliant and thoroughly prepared legal team to win an occasional battle (though perhaps not the war or even a campaign), but in my layman's opinion the odds of winning battles drop precipitously when the preparedness of a team and/or the quality of the arguments are not up to snuff.

[selfshrevident]

Sooo we should hear something on Monday right?

[Wolverine]

Scotusblog listed Jackson v SF as one of their Petitions to Watch today. They've also set up a dedicated page which can be found here. It has hot links to most of the briefs submitted to SCOTUS and will be added to if (hopefully) SCOTUS grants cert.

[Maestro Pistolero]

Scotusblog listed Jackson v SF as one of their Petitions to Watch today. They've also set up a dedicated page which can be found here. It has hot links to most of the briefs submitted to SCOTUS and will be added to if (hopefully) SCOTUS grants cert.

Excellent!

[eigenstate]

Nice.

Scotusblog's one sentence description of the petition is remarkably concise!

I'm sure a scholar in constitutional law could butcher that in a mere 5 million words.

[wildhawker]

Nice.

Scotusblog's one sentence description of the petition is remarkably concise!

I'm sure a scholar in constitutional law could butcher that in a mere 5 million words.

The sentence you refer to is the question presented in the Petition for Certiorari.

[North86]

The sentence you refer to is the question presented in the Petition for Certiorari.

And it reads:

[Paladin]

The SCOTUSblog page for Jackson now says it's been "Rescheduled"...

[lowimpactuser]

The SCOTUSblog page for Jackson now says it's been "Rescheduled"...

In before kcbrown can say something about skullduggery and the courts now extending to the Supreme Court.