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

[ddestruel]

FGG thank you.....


i think i get hung up on

Marriam-websters definition
: to cause (someone or something) to be in a specified condition

: to give (something) to someone

law : to officially report or declare (a legal judgment, such as a verdict)



so the law was against the owner loading it and rendering it operable
or the law says a trigger lock must be in place when firearm is not in your possession, therefore rendering it inoperable but if you need it you may render it operable?
your argument on render seems to hinge on what SF is arguing in their scheme. its intriguing, from hellers arguments regarding self defense and the core being a functional arm at home.... if trigger locked while at home even if not on you then it is hardly easy to render it functional.......

but again as a layman i connect dots differently .... but appreciate your response as your take makes more sense

[BlackCatRacing#13]

Sooner than July. 3 months depending on how much SF tries to stall? if everything goes smoothly it may have a shot at being heard and decided by the summer.

Yikes that was One Long Read I did of the "CERT PETITION" that was Submitted Today

Took Me On & Off about 6 Hours to Read through it all so Every Last One of the Honorable Judges on the Ninth Circuit of the Supreme Court of America better take their Sweet Time and Read Every Single Typed Word in that Cert Petition like I did but at least 4x Times a Day every Day til its Time to make a Fully Competent Answer


.

[wolfwood]

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?

SF's counsel in fact argued that you could keep it holstered to yourself while sleeping...

[Paladin]

SF's counsel in fact argued that you could keep it holstered to yourself while sleeping...

I don't even wear a watch while I sleep....

My gun does nightstand duty when I sleep.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

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?

Just to be clear, I'm not predicting what the SC would do if it decided this or another trigger lock case, only trying to flesh out what has and has not actually been decided, but I'll try to answer your questions. No I don't think a firearm is "carried" by someone who's asleep; to the extent that the SF law allows carry, however, it's a more permissive "self-defense exception" than proposed by DC in Heller, which was pretty much "you can unlock it if there is a sudden intruder or if you need to defend yourself against a rapist" and not "go ahead and carry whenever you want whether or not you actually have to use the firearm in self-defense." As to the second question, unloaded carry is still on the table as far as I can see; there was some discussion on this here a few years back. Lastly I don't know exactly how much time but I think they would tolerate at least some delay. At oral argument in Heller the respondents said they didn't have a problem with a "safe storage in a safe" law:

However, better [sic] safe storage approach is the one used by the majority of jurisdictions, I believe, that do have such laws, which is to require safe storage, for example, in a safe. And that is a reasonable 12 limitation. It's a strict scrutiny limitation. Whatever standard of view we may wish to apply, I think, would encompass a safe storage provision.

Having said all that I like this case because it is next step from Heller and has good burden arguments. But Heller did not decide the legal issue this case presents, and I'm scratching my head why the cert petition argues that. "Rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" means unlocking the firearm when an immediate need presents itself, it does not mean "I'm entitled to keep an unlocked handgun that is immediately accessible in case something might happen."

[speedrrracer]

But Heller did not decide the legal issue this case presents, and I'm scratching my head why the cert petition argues that. "Rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" means unlocking the firearm when an immediate need presents itself, it does not mean "I'm entitled to keep an unlocked handgun that is immediately accessible in case something might happen."

That doesn't seem to make sense.

"Immediate" means: "occurring or done at once; instant." also "nearest in time" according to google. If I have to fiddle with a lock first, then a gun is, by dictionary definition, not available immediately, it is only available subsequent to other action.

What am I missing?

[wolfwood]

Just to be clear, I'm not predicting what the SC would do if it decided this or another trigger lock case, only trying to flesh out what has and has not actually been decided, but I'll try to answer your questions. No I don't think a firearm is "carried" by someone who's asleep; to the extent that the SF law allows carry, however, it's a more permissive "self-defense exception" than proposed by DC in Heller, which was pretty much "you can unlock it if there is a sudden intruder or if you need to defend yourself against a rapist" and not "go ahead and carry whenever you want whether or not you actually have to use the firearm in self-defense." As to the second question, unloaded carry is still on the table as far as I can see; there was some discussion on this here a few years back. Lastly I don't know exactly how much time but I think they would tolerate at least some delay. At oral argument in Heller the respondents said they didn't have a problem with a "safe storage in a safe" law:



Having said all that I like this case because it is next step from Heller and has good burden arguments. But Heller did not decide the legal issue this case presents, and I'm scratching my head why the cert petition argues that. "Rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" means unlocking the firearm when an immediate need presents itself, it does not mean "I'm entitled to keep an unlocked handgun that is immediately accessible in case something might happen."

Does the fact this was a preliminary injunction appeal impact anything? The petitioners filed for preliminary injunction relatively late into proceedings. 3.5 years as I recall. The Ninth explicitly avoided the other three factors as this appeal was lost at the merits prong of the Winters test.

If the Supreme Court does decide in Jackson's favor does it then remand back to the Ninth to decide the other three factors or will it make a independent review of those prongs of the Winters test?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

What am I missing?

Who said "available immediately" and where? Here is some suggested reading: Heller opinion, Heller appellant and respondent briefs, Heller oral argument transcript. Whenever a " self-defense exception" to the trigger lock rule is mentioned, is it (1) if someone breaks into your house you can unlock your handgun and defend yourself against that specific threat, or (2) a 24/7 unlocked, just in case I may need to defend myself sometime, swallow-the-rule exception? If (2) where in the record do you find any support for that? Remember that Heller's attorney told the SC "store it in a safe, no problemo!"

[IVC]

"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 IMMEDIATE use in self-defense violates the 2A.

Don't skip words when being very precise.

If we are to read it as narrowly as you suggest, we also have to attribute the correct meaning to "immediate." Courts typically use common dictionary definitions when interpreting such terms, and "immediate" is defined in Webster as "occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time." Note that it doesn't say "with minimal time," but "without loss of time."

[ArchangelZeroSix]

Who said "available immediately" and where?

From the cert petition quoting HellerHeller, 554 U.S.
at 635." pp.15

I don't think "...I would have to turn
on the light, find my glasses, find the key to the
lockbox, insert the key in the lock and unlock the box
(under the stress of the emergency), and then get my
gun before being in position to defend myself..." [cert petition pp.5] would qualify as immediate.

or (2) a 24/7 unlocked, just in case I may need to defend myself sometime, swallow-the-rule exception? If (2) where in the record do you find any support for that?

It would seem to be (2) "There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency;" Heller, 554 at 629. A gun being in a lockbox doesn't satisfy 'readily'.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

From the cert petition quoting Heller.

"...this Court has already established “the
manner” in which individuals are entitled to exercise
their Second Amendment rights in their homes, which
is by keeping a handgun that is “operable for the
purpose of immediate self-defense.” Heller, 554 U.S.
at 635." pp.15

Have a look at my earlier "keep" vs "render" post where this particular sentence from the Heller is quoted in full. The Supreme court does not say what the petition claims it says.

It would seem to be (2) "There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency;" Heller, 554 at 629. A gun being in a lockbox doesn't satisfy 'readily'.

"Readily accessible location" is equivocal with respect to the condition of the handgun that happens to be stored in that location, it could be unlocked and assembled, it could be locked or disassembled. For sure this language is useful for arguing that even a trigger lock law with a self-defense exception is unconstitutional, but, contrary to the cert petition, the Supreme court has not yet decided that. The SC knocked down DC's law expressly because it lacked the self-defense exception i.e. it did not permit the unlocking and/or assembly of the handgun under any circumstances.

The funny comments in the transcript by two of the judges about putting on your reading glasses, etc., are useful as well, more for the arguments made in the 9th circuit briefs than the cert petition's new "the court already decided this" claim.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Don't skip words when being very precise.

You're absolutely right, what Heller was talking about was "rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" and more particularly, rendering the firearm operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense from a locked or disassembled condition. That was the only self-defense exception to the trigger lock law under consideration, and the illustrations before the court of that self-defense exception were:

According to respondent, even if he lawfully possessed a handgun, the District would prohibit him from unlocking it to defend himself against a sudden intruder in his home. If respondent were correct, the District agrees that the law would be unreasonable.

and

Such an exception is fairly implied in the trigger lock requirement, just as it is in many of the District’s other laws....As Councilmember Wilson noted, “it would have to be a very irresponsible and unintelligent judge” who would punish a person for unlocking and using a gun to defend herself against a rapist.

"Immediate self-defense" isn't having an unlocked, assembled handgun sitting on the dresser while you're lying on your bed in your PJ's watching Netflix, or in a holster down around your ankles while you're taking a crap, or carrying it around the house just in case. "Immediate self-defense" is defending yourself against a specific threat that's happening right now. The DC law did not allow the unlocking or disassembly of the handgun in order to do that so "hence" it was unconstitutional.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Does the fact this was a preliminary injunction appeal impact anything? The petitioners filed for preliminary injunction relatively late into proceedings. 3.5 years as I recall. The Ninth explicitly avoided the other three factors as this appeal was lost at the merits prong of the Winters test.

If the Supreme Court does decide in Jackson's favor does it then remand back to the Ninth to decide the other three factors or will it make a independent review of those prongs of the Winters test?

No idea! I haven't done any research on this.

[speedrrracer]

Have a look at my earlier "keep" vs "render" post where this particular sentence from the Heller is quoted in full. The Supreme court does not say what the petition claims it says.

I did, and it struck me as wrong, so I (mistakenly, it seems) thought there must be more information I didn't have. I think it's clear SCOTUS and the petition are in complete agreement.

To subscribe to your interpretation of the intention of "render" in that phrase I would have to conclude Scalia is inept in the use of the English language (which he is not, imo).
To choose the term "immediate" when (according to you) his intention was to convey that the Constitution provides that the legislature may mandate delays in access to self-defense weapons in an emergency makes no sense whatsoever. There is, imo, no worse term he could possibly have chosen under your interpretation, and even omission would have been clearer.

Your interpretation strikes me as wildly pedantic and irresponsible, although many legal interpretations strike me that way, so you may well be right.

On a bit of a tangent, are there are similar delays that are Constitutionally supported? Someone is about to die, and the Constitution says it's OK for them to die if they can't jump through hoops in time?

For example, would a law be Constitutional which declared that an ER doctor can delay / deny access to care to a person who, in the judgement of the doctor, has only seconds to live unless he receives that care?

"No, do not give that patient oxygen until he fills out his forms in triplicate. And her, don't try to get her heart beating again, there's an error on one of her forms. I don't care if he has no hands of if she is unconscious, the law requires it!"

[ArchangelZeroSix]

Have a look at my earlier "keep" vs "render" post where this particular sentence from the Heller is quoted in full.

I have, and I do not agree. Heller did say what the petition claims. Your 'keep' vs 'render' debate is semantics. It also ignores the entire historical analysis the Court undertook of the right to 'keep and bear arms'. Keep is mentioned in Heller 107 times, but I'll point to this particular quote:

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right...Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

My emphasis added. Couple that with having this gun that you are constitutionally allowed to keep, 'readily accessible'. Readily (without hesitation;without delay) does not qualify if one must take an additional step to access it—let alone use it.

"Readily accessible location" is equivocal with respect to the condition of the handgun that happens to be stored in that location, it could be unlocked and assembled, it could be locked or disassembled.

No it doesn't mean that at all. Readily accessible in no way addresses the condition of the firearm, and it doesn't need to. Heller already affirmed: 1) Self-defense is the core right. 2) The firearm must be operable. 3) The firearm must be immediately available and readily accessible for defending one's 'home and family'.

For sure this language is useful for arguing that even a trigger lock law with a self-defense exception is unconstitutional, but, contrary to the cert petition, the Supreme court has not yet decided that. The SC knocked down DC's law expressly because it lacked the self-defense exception i.e. it did not permit the unlocking and/or assembly of the handgun under any circumstances.

Any law with a 'self-defense exception' would 1) make no sense, and 2) violates the plain language in Heller. As I have pointed out from Heller, if the firearm isn't 'readily accessible' for the ' purpose of immediate self-defense' than the law is unconstitutional. This is consistent with the cert petition—let's hope SCOTUS agrees.