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

[kcbrown]

I think that this denial is more likely an indicator that they want Peruta/Richards coming up with a very fleshed-out split. And we also know that in the next case granted, Thomas/Scalia are going to dig into the "2A 2-Step" and the dressed-up rational basis interest balancing we've seen from some lower courts.

Unless we get a favorable change in the composition of the court, there will be no next case granted where Thomas and Scalia are able to do that.

Thomas makes a good point that the Court does what it wants, when it wants, and that it internally prioritizes some issues above fundamental rights. I suppose that could mean KC's model is at least partially true.

What did you expect? The members of the Supreme Court answer to nobody. There are no consequences to them for whatever actions they take or do not take. They do as they want, when they want, precisely because they operate under no constraints not of their own making.

How SCOTUS behaves is the logical outcome of being unconstrained. So, really, under those conditions, how could it possibly be any other way?

And the same is true of the lower courts, save for the fact that they apparently don't have the power to refuse to take cases.

[RobertMW]

I think that this denial is more likely an indicator that they want Peruta/Richards coming up with a very fleshed-out split. And we also know that in the next case granted, Thomas/Scalia are going to dig into the "2A 2-Step" and the dressed-up rational basis interest balancing we've seen from some lower courts.

Thomas makes a good point that the Court does what it wants, when it wants, and that it internally prioritizes some issues above fundamental rights. I suppose that could mean KC's model is at least partially true.

We'll see, but I think we're a little screwed on it now. This wasn't a situation that needed to see a fleshed-out split, this was a direct dissent on settled SCOTUS law without taking cert to actually reverse said settled law. It would make to big of a stink to try and reverse Heller already, so they can just quietly pass on any legal matters that require them to uphold their own rulings until the court can be so unanimously turned against Heller that they could reverse it under the context that is was just an errant ruling under a radical conservative court.

This ruling has really blown my mind.

We can't truly say for sure, since a denial of cert is technically not a disposition, but the fact that there was a written dissent of denial of cert really pushes those boundaries, but it seems that there are only two judges that we could actually count on. Not good odds any more for anything.

Nationally? I disagree with that.

I think what they are stating between the lines (and has been apparent to those following them for a few years now) is it is up to state and local governments to determine how much and how they want to regulate firearms.

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that this case flows so closely to Heller. No I think this basically nullifies Heller in all but spirit, if the SCOTUS is not willing to protect its own ruling there is no reason to even try to follow it.

Even if some jurisdiction were to write a law so contrary to Heller that it would be impossible for anyone to not see the writing on the wall, it will be a few years to get back up to the Supreme Court, which in a few years could be a drastically different makeup. There is no reason for liberal cities, counties, states, or circuit districts to have restraint when it comes to poking our 2A rights. Worst case scenario is that the presidency goes republican and we can get the court shifted a bit more conservative, and the legislation gets overturned after another long taxpayer funded lawsuit. best case is that the court doesn't move in the near future or shifts left, then they can just laugh all the way to wherever the hell they wish to go.

Yup, ground game is the only chance we have left it seems.

Ugh, very very depressing. If there had just been a flat out denial of cert without the dissent maybe we would all just scratch our heads and be able to say that nothing has really changed, this speaks too strongly.

[advocatusdiaboli]

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that this case flows so closely to Heller. No I think this basically nullifies Heller in all but spirit, if the SCOTUS is not willing to protect its own ruling there is no reason to even try to follow it.

I concede that difference, but the outcome is exactly the same as I related which was what I was focusing on: pro-gun states, not needing Heller, will stay pro-gun and anti-gun states, worried about being impeded by Heller are now free to infringe to their heart's content.

Where you live, state- and locale-wise will determine your gun rights pretty much as it always has. But gun rights in California are now moribund because The SCOUTS is no longer the court of last resort, the 9th is to my dismay.

This is resounding eat for RKBA in California. It will embolden the antis more than Bloomberg's cash infusion and marketing umbrella organization. It is a black day for CA RKBA.

[wildhawker]

Unless we get a favorable change in the composition of the court, there will be no next case granted where Thomas and Scalia are able to do that.

What did you expect? The members of the Supreme Court answer to nobody. There are no consequences to them for whatever actions they take or do not take. They do as they want, when they want, precisely because they operate under no constraints not of their own making.

How SCOTUS behaves is the logical outcome of being unconstrained. So, really, under those conditions, how could it possibly be any other way?

And the same is true of the lower courts, save for the fact that they apparently don't have the power to refuse to take cases.

I'm not convinced that we won't see them grant another 2A case. I actually think this bodes well for Richards/Peruta (we're very likely to lose that at CA9 en banc, so there's their next shot at saying something meaningful that would also unwind some or most of the rational basis games and hopefully allow them to stay off the issue for a while).

Maybe Congress needs to weigh in and force SCOTUS to take constitutional cases. Maybe we need to expand the Court and fund it so as to allow for the increased volume caused by the former.

[Funtimes]

I see a lot of paragraph space devoted to "Splitless" which seems to indicate to me that there were some court communications that they argued whether or not there was a split to decide this case or not.

[wildhawker]

If a split is their litmus test, then they should be consistent about it. Otherwise they're just playing political games.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Maybe Congress needs to weigh in and force SCOTUS to take constitutional cases. Maybe we need to expand the Court and fund it so as to allow for the increased volume caused by the former.

Nice maybes which are probably our best ways out of this mess that at least have a chance.

But Congress cannot force SCOTUS to do anything if I understand the check and balances right.

They can however legislate the changes they aren't seeing from The SCOTUS which has been done before but the poor-gun majority isn't veto-proof right now.

They also can persuade them to shift policy, if this is, as some of us think, the new policy on RKBA at SCOTUS.

[RobertMW]

Nice maybes which are probably our best ways out of this mess that at least have a chance.

But Congress cannot force SCOTUS to do anything if I understand the check and balances right.

They can however legislate the changes they aren't seeing from The SCOTUS which has been done before but the poor-gun majority isn't veto-proof right now.

They also can persuade them to shift policy, if this is, as some of us think, the new policy on RKBA at SCOTUS.

Congress can't legislate SCOTUS to do anything, but they can bring up a constitutional amendment that forces the courts to act. The court does not get a say in what goes in an amendment, they just have to follow it.

If the republican/libertarian party can capitalize on momentum, take the white house, take a 60+% percent of the senate, keep red states red, constitutional amendments are possible. But I would predict that the current Rep leadership would be unwilling to bring that forward.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Congress can't legislate SCOTUS to do anything, but they can bring up a constitutional amendment that forces the courts to act.

I know they can't, Wildhawker implied they could (maybe?). I sure didn't.

But they have other powers than amending the Constitution which is really hard as it should be.

They can pass laws, like mandatory reciprocal carry. Pass a law that no state can augment or contravene federal laws on firearms for instance. Just like Texas passed a state law that no locale can contravene, augment or loosen state firearms laws with local ones.

But, and it is a big but right now, the vote would have to be veto-proof with the current clown in the WH or it wouldn't get past him.

[wildhawker]

You guys need to better understand history and jurisdiction: https://m.mayerbrown.com/epitaph-for...on-01-01-1988/

[formerTexan]

Nice maybes which are probably our best ways out of this mess that at least have a chance.

But Congress cannot force SCOTUS to do anything if I understand the check and balances right.

They can however legislate the changes they aren't seeing from The SCOTUS which has been done before but the poor-gun majority isn't veto-proof right now.

They also can persuade them to shift policy, if this is, as some of us think, the new policy on RKBA at SCOTUS.

Congress can do something ala Voting Rights Act, for the 2A. But that won't happen until we elect a pro-2A Republican POTUS and manage to keep Republican majorities in Congress, because a 'rat majority in the Senate shows that nothing good happens, and shielding 0b0z0 from uncomfortable bills. The 'rat platform still contains desires for AWBs and other civil rights violations.

A split may occur in some 2A hostile localities in a more 2A friendly circuit (IL maybe, but I think they have some state level preemption preventing anything new). But it is absolute hog wash that a circuit court can issue a decision that is in direct contradiction to a SCOTUS decision. Will SCOTUS allow a decision relating to abortion that is in direct contradiction to one of its previous decisions? Highly doubtful.

[inalienable]

Ugh. This is pretty depressing. Tough to see any silver lining here.

- inalienable

[GardoneVT]

This is resounding defeat for RKBA in California.

As well as Federally.

The current SCOTUS with this ruling has conceptually repudiated Heller.If they take a gun case it will be to codify that repudiation in writing.

Rest in Peace , 2nd Amendment. You'll be missed.

[advocatusdiaboli]

You guys need to better understand history and jurisdiction: https://m.mayerbrown.com/epitaph-for...on-01-01-1988/

Thanks. I am now schooled. Appreciate it.

So Congress could reverse the past laws and re-isntall mandatory jurisdiction if they wanted, but I'd assume they'd need a veto proof majority. Unless Obama decides mandatory jurisdiction would benefit him more than it would hurt and that might be possible though he's PO'd at The SCOTUS right now over their leanings on the ACA ruling.

[selfshrevident]

Wow. At this point, I hope they keep denying cases. We're on defense now until after 2016. If the republican party doesn't win the white house, then we truly will have lost the war in the courts.

I hope they do not take Peruta or Palmer.