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

[RipVanWinkle]

So, by that logic, one can never identify that the Court has abandoned the 2nd Amendment, even if they do not take another 2nd Amendment case for the next 100 years or so, as long as none of those cases involve a law that is identical in every way to that which was struck down in Heller?

Well, yes.

If the Court refusing to grant cert to all 2A cases that come before it does not qualify as abandonment of the 2nd Amendment, then what could possibly qualify for such?

Nothing. Well, as of now, "Must Carry" unless locked by trigger or otherwise in SF. Anywhere else, who knows?

Would we be so hesitant to declare abandonment if the Court treated the 1st Amendment in an identical fashion?

Maybe. When words are hurled they don't directly inflict mortal wounds on the listeners. When bullets fly somebody might not be in a condition to argue his/her case after the fact. In a direct threat to my life I would, and have, chosen the gun. In the larger scale, words are incomparably more destructive. Somebody, not me, might issue a fatwa against kc brown and those who associate with him, or even broader categories.

[North86]

Nudism is not at the "core" of the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion nor to freedom of expression.

Are you sure about that whole freedom of expression part?

[M. D. Van Norman]

Well, as of now, “Must Carry” unless locked … in SF. Anywhere else, who knows?

This, as discussed back in December.

[LostInSpace]

Well, as of now, "Must Carry" unless locked by trigger or otherwise in SF. Anywhere else, who knows?

There may be an effort to spread this particular approach nationwide. Here is a news story from Poughkeepsie, NY:

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/news/local/2015/04/16/gun-safety-proposal-spurs-political-rift-confusion-city/25907597/

(via keepandbeararms.com)

[IVC]

What specifically is the difference between a regulation and a ban, such that one can a priori tell the difference between the two without having to ask a court about it?

Same as with abortion - there is a time threshold where a "bunch of cells" becomes a "baby." Arguing from either extreme position is just trying to pull the threshold more towards that extreme, from "life begins at conception" to "nothing is wrong with infanticide."

In case of self defense, the question is whether a firearm is available for *immediate* self defense. The D.C. regulation was considered a ban because (I guess) it would take too long to assemble the gun. The S.F. regulation is pushing the limit because it asks the court to establish a precise time interval where a "regulation" becomes a "ban," then rule based on that interval. This is also why the cert might not be granted as determining this exact time interval is not necessarily a constitutional issue (even though the mechanism of how the correct interval is determined might be.)

[IVC]

The SF restriction deals with a 3-4 second delay in opening a locked box if you are not carrying a handgun on your person.

Hence the problem. It shouldn't be about "a 3-4 second delay" because there are much more important issues such as having safe chained/bolted in a specific location (3-4 seconds *plus* time and ability to reach the safe,) reliability of the electronics, time it takes to operate backup opening mechanism, motor skill deterioration under stress after sudden waking up, etc.

Besides that, there is a more fundamental question of how such a law is enforced. After a defensive shooting, there is no record of where the gun was. It appears that the only purpose is for the local PD to be able to confiscate any "loose guns" any time they are on completely unrelated call.

[RipVanWinkle]

This, as discussed back in December.

Thanks for referring me to the earlier parts of this thread. I think it's really clear that summary judgement is not called for, for all the reasons outlined by Fabio, wolfwood, yourself and others. 4512 was crafted to allow self defense exemptions to a lock law specifically to avoid the lack of exemptions in the D.C. ordinance. So it's surprising to see the petitioner's brief spending so much time trying to equate S.F.'s law with D.C.'s. They're clearly not the same.

But I'm not sure whether that makes it more or less likely that SCOTUS would hear the case. If even the petitioner's attorneys are confused about what exactly was decided in Heller, this would be an opportunity to clear things up.

Beyond that though this case has a disturbing "Alice In Wonderland" feeling to it. I was thinking that if I lived in S.F. I'd be tempted to throw a "Pistol Packin' Party" and invite a bunch of guys and gals over, all 18 and over not prohibited persons; "check your lock boxes and trigger locks at the door". Then I read 4512 again and I'm not sure that would be legal.

SEC. 4512. HANDGUNS LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE TO BE KEPT IN A LOCKED CONTAINER OR DISABLED WITH A TRIGGER LOCK.
(a) Prohibition. No person shall keep a handgun within a residence owned or controlled by that person unless the handgun is stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock that has been approved by the California Department of Justice.

That seems to say that only the owner or renter of the residence can keep a handgun in the residence. Can that be right? You can't allow anyone else to possess a handgun in your home? Or does it mean that the lock law only applies to you when you're in your own home, but not when you're in somebody else's home? However, the exemptions section sounds more generic:

(c) Exceptions. This Section shall not apply in the following circumstances:
(1) The handgun is carried on the person of an individual over the age of 18.
(2) The handgun is under the control of a person who is a peace officer under Penal Code Section 830.

4512 actually gives up a lot by affirmatively acknowledging a right to carry. It goes beyond that, criminalizing not carrying, hence the "Must Carry" label. There appear to be no qualifications about how/where on the person the handgun is carried. I guess the Justice Ginsberg definition would apply?

It also seems to pull the rug out from under the opponents own public safety arguments, which have recently put more emphasis on the mere presence of a handgun in a home as contributing to an increased risk of impulsive suicide. If reducing impulsive suicides is an important government interest, why make someone keep their handgun so handy when it's not locked up? Lots of questions, few answers!

[Window_Seat]

Thinking more about this Jackson case and the carry outside the home cases ("Carry CasesMcDonald does call for it, no? If states and municipalities like CA and San Francisco are behaving badly with the Fourteenth Amendment, does the Congress have the ability to step in and say "you turkeys are out of compliance with McDonald, so here is your smack down"? Why not?

And Oregon is on its way toward mimicking CA.

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Erik.

[RipVanWinkle]

I was reading the respondent's brief and in their discussion of the quick access to the modern biometric lock boxes footnote 2 on page 6 caught my attention.

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

In the footnote they give the url to a YouTube video showing how quickly a biometric lock box can be accessed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sR9r_4VjmE

Unfortunately for the respondents, the video that directly followed that video shows how easy it is for even kids to defeat a variety of biometric and other lock boxes, including the same model that is shown in the video referenced in their footnote. Stack-On PS-10-B starting at about 21:20 into this video :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2Wzt0vJvOI

I think the whole video is worth watching. Marc Tobias, the narrator, totally savages the CA DOJ for certifying these boxes!

Yikes!

[lowimpactuser]

Are you sure about that whole freedom of expression part?

You're certainly welcome to start a new thread asking for lawyers here to chime in on the freedom of expression of nudity.

I know that Ben Franklin was a fan of "air baths" where he'd be nude in his home; which WOULD be a fairly close analog to the "nude in home where's my holster" argument.

http://knowledgenuts.com/2014/01/07/benjamin-franklin-liked-to-take-air-baths/

Also some other presidents and senators were blase about swimming nude:

http://www.examiner.com/article/5-former-us-presidents-were-veterans-and-nudists

But I think you'll be hard pressed to cite federalist papers that take up the idea of nudity being a "au naturel" right (sorry, couldn't resist). So the right to be nude but have a firearm accessible would be "reasonable" regulation allowed under 2A 2 step.

Anyways, it seems like lawyer types like Fabio and TinCon fit into the people on my poll that refuse to believe there's anything that will render the 2nd amendment "abandoned" by SCOTUS because they can ALWAYS choose to take it up when they want. Maybe law school teaches pedants to evade answering uncomfortable questions that boil down to, "When will you admit your profession you've spent years refining and building your reputation on is completely useless in this fight, and thus wasted?"

Edit: before I'm attacked as saying that FGG and TinCon have wasted their time and the fight IS lost- that's NOT what I said at all. I'm saying that they won't answer or find a trigger or event that WOULD indicate such. Except maybe, if they wanted to be cute, say after the constitution is repealed, or the 2nd amendment is repealed, or guns are seized and outlawed by space aliens.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Anyways, it seems like lawyer types like Fabio and TinCon fit into the people on my poll that refuse to believe there's anything that will render the 2nd amendment "abandoned" by SCOTUS because they can ALWAYS choose to take it up when they want. Maybe law school teaches pedants to evade answering uncomfortable questions that boil down to, "When will you admit your profession you've spent years refining and building your reputation on is completely useless in this fight, and thus wasted?"

Who ever said my outlook was anything but grim? lol.

[lowimpactuser]

Who ever said my outlook was anything but grim? lol.

Anything could be called a litmus test, but this one is not the litmus test a la it's exactly the same at Heller so if the supreme court doesn't grant cert we've been abandoned, all hope is lost, this is the end my friend, goodbye cruel world. It's not the same, it's a regulation not a ban. I've said it before but I don't think Heller could have been any more pro-regulation than it is. Carry bans are going to go away but to me Heller reads that the court doesn't have much of a beef with regulations.

I do appreciate how very subtle you are, FGG. And your analyses are pretty spot on. I tell myself sometimes that you're actually an anonymous account for a lawyer who DOES do 2nd Amendment work, but you just use your FGG over a proxy/TOR to blow off steam.

I'm currently reading you to say that there is no judicial remedy to may issue. Which, unfortunately, I've come around to as well. There may be a few ways that if we're lucky may be given to us, but there's no direct challenge that will work.

So, I know you don't do advocacy or anything non-lawyery or snarky in the posts I've written by you, but do you have any idea for a remedy for California besides moving? Constitutional conventions, new SCOTUS members, etc.? Do you think stare decisis would bind SCOTUS for the forseeable future in NOT regulating heller/mcdonald to death WITHOUT radicals on the court?

[Window_Seat]

The right to bare more than arms, and bear arms too!

I would venture that as a meditative activity, being nude in the home, would be enough motivation for pro-nudists to have a desire to be afforded additional protections (especially in the city) because of certain perverts who take the art of being at one with nature as something more than that, according to criminal agendas. On the other hand, others might take such art as criminal as well, and a reason to disarm the naturist, especially when it fits a political agenda.

Erik.

[press1280]

Same as with abortion - there is a time threshold where a "bunch of cells" becomes a "baby." Arguing from either extreme position is just trying to pull the threshold more towards that extreme, from "life begins at conception" to "nothing is wrong with infanticide."

In case of self defense, the question is whether a firearm is available for *immediate* self defense. The D.C. regulation was considered a ban because (I guess) it would take too long to assemble the gun. The S.F. regulation is pushing the limit because it asks the court to establish a precise time interval where a "regulation" becomes a "ban," then rule based on that interval. This is also why the cert might not be granted as determining this exact time interval is not necessarily a constitutional issue (even though the mechanism of how the correct interval is determined might be.)

The DC regulation had NO exception for self defense in the home, the only exception for a gun to be unlocked was during recreational activities. DC kept trying to say self defense was always an exception, but the law said otherwise. IOW, "trust us."

[IVC]

The DC regulation had NO exception for self defense in the home, the only exception for a gun to be unlocked was during recreational activities. DC kept trying to say self defense was always an exception, but the law said otherwise. IOW, "trust us."

Which makes the two cases even more different.