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

[kcbrown]

The justices are smart enough to know that having to wear a holster while asleep in bed in SF has nothing to do with preventing another Sandy Hook.

My thesis, such as it is, is that the event caused an EMOTIONAL retreat from support of the 2nd Amendment.

I don't necessarily think Thomas and Scalia are the only two justices left standing. I suppose that's a possibility, but like you, I would be surprised if that many had retreated.

If we really think that justices Thomas and Scalia are the only ones left standing, then 3 out of the Heller five will have flipped. That's a most impressive change, impressive enough to wonder if it's likely. Perhaps things really are that far gone and the heretofore prevailing notion (on calguns) that they are just one justice short was all wrong, but it could also be something about the Jackson case itself that led to such a low support for cert.

Agreed.

In any case, as of Jackson, legislatures and courts alike will now feel completely unfettered to run roughshod over the entirety of the right. You shouldn't be surprised in the slightest to see another complete prohibition on "keep" in the home, clothed in the garb of "regulation", passed by some legislative body and approved by the courts. And this time, SCOTUS won't grant cert.



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

[LostInSpace]

You shouldn't be surprised in the slightest to see another complete prohibition on "keep" in the home, clothed in the garb of "regulation", passed by some legislative body and approved by the courts.

One wouldn't really expect such a direct challenge to Heller at least until the current SCOTUS composition changes. Not that the change is far off - it's not even guaranteed that all the current 9 justices will be around when Peruta cert comes up.

Even so, It is not a given that, e.g., DC will ever go back to a total handgun ban. Forty hours of "training", on the other hand, may be something for them to consider. More likely is the continuation and perhaps some acceleration of increasingly onerous regulations in anti-gun states.

[RobertMW]

I don't necessarily think Thomas and Scalia are the only two justices left standing. I suppose that's a possibility, but like you, I would be surprised if that many had retreated.

Like I posed before, I would bet Alito and Roberts are still on our side. The reason that only Thomas and Scalia penned onto the dissent was that it takes only 4 to grant cert, which they likely had, but KC is entirely right that Kennedy is at the very least retreated from support, and possibly would flip on the more controversial issues.

So, we won't see another 2A case taken for quite a while, not with a 4-4-1 court on the issue.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Like I posed before, I would bet Alito and Roberts are still on our side. (

With allies like them, who needs enemies?

A defeat is a defeat.

Nothing speaks louder, but go ahead and spin it all you want...until the next defeat. ...and the next...and the next.

Get out while you can with all you won before they take it.

[kcbrown]

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

One wouldn't really expect such a direct challenge to Heller at least until the current SCOTUS composition changes. Not that the change is far off - it's not even guaranteed that all the current 9 justices will be around when Peruta cert comes up.

Even so, It is not a given that, e.g., DC will ever go back to a total handgun ban. Forty hours of "training", on the other hand, may be something for them to consider. More likely is the continuation and perhaps some acceleration of increasingly onerous regulations in anti-gun states.

I fully expect to see a "may issue" ownership permit system arise once again, but with one crucial difference: it will use the "justifiable need" language so prevalent in "may issue" carry permit schemes.

So it will be a ban in reality, but the courts will claim that it passes "intermediate scrutiny" (chosen precisely BECAUSE it's "not a complete ban" due to the "heightened need" language).

Put another way, I fully expect to see another Jackson-like decision and another cert denial.

And yes, it's more likely than not that the composition of the Court will have changed for the worse by that time.


Maybe Peruta will surprise me. But pleasant surprises are exceedingly rare for me. You'll note that when I err, it's usually as a result of predicting a good outcome.



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

[kcbrown]

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

With allies like them, who needs enemies?



A defeat is a defeat.



Nothing speaks louder, but go ahead and spin it all you want...until the next defeat. ...and the next...and the next.



Get out while you can with all you won before they take it.

Suppose the situation really is that we lost only Kennedy. What exactly would you have the remaining four 2A supporters do?

Yes, the end result is the same. There's a reason I've been speaking of the court as a whole, and not the individual justices. It is the court as a whole that is responsible for the death of the 2nd Amendment. It is because that institution is broken beyond repair that an Article V Convention is needed.

The only remedy for institution-level dysfunction is systemic repair. And as the defect here is in the design and not just the implementation, only a design change can fix it. That is achievable here ONLY with such a Convention.



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

[LostInSpace]

Maybe Peruta will surprise me.

Call me crazy, but I think the 9th is more likely to surprise on this particular issue than SCOTUS. The reason: NYC and DC are not in California.

[kcbrown]

Call me crazy, but I think the 9th is more likely to surprise on this particular issue than SCOTUS. The reason: NYC and DC are not in California.

In probabilistic terms, maybe. But since you're basically talking about comparing "really bad" against "unfathomably horrible", the end result for us is the same: the right is dead and the flesh is rotting on its corpse.



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

[sarabellum]

Oligarchy

which is thee EXACT reason why government should have never been allowed to play a role in keeping to task our Constitutional rights...this was inevitable, hence my sig

Correct, this sums up the natural function of an industrial oligarchy. It has been so, since the beginning of the nation. "The shape and meaning of the power elite today can be understood only when these three sets of structural trends are seen at their point of coincidence: the military capitalism of private corporations exists in a weakened and formal democratic system containing a military order already quite political in outlook and demeanor. Accordingly, at the top of this structure, the power elite has been shaped by the coincidence of interest between those who control the major means of production and those who control the newly enlarged means of violence; from the decline of the professional politician and the rise to explicit political command of the corporate chieftains and the professional warlords; from the absence of any genuine civil service of skill and integrity, independent of vested interests." Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite (Oxford University Press, 1956). That's who legislates your gun rights away. There is nothing political about our institutions, since the vote does not beget us anything but two corporate parties. Rather our institutions are managerial. They make us their business and manage our assets out of us.

Any other discussion is merely speculation, about the mechanical spectacle of elections and knighting of black robed judges, elevated to spectator sport with statistics and "predictions" ala KC Brown. The corporate state will not voluntarily grant anyone the right to dismember it. The corporate state inherently monopolizes violence and symbols that might even hint at dissent. California, where economic disparity is stark and economic swindling is obsessive, inevitably must be at the forefront of suppressing dissent. The defense of property values becomes of such paramount political interest that, the home-owner associations in California become bastions of political reaction, if not of fragmented neighborhood fascism. Davis Mike, City of Quartz (1990). That's who votes your legislators into office. The circle is complete.

[morthrane]

And finally, 9 years is a long time for the mists of time to blur the memory of an event in the absence of the kind of temporal association that Sandy Hook has.

Apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_massacre

[lowimpactuser]

It is because that institution is broken beyond repair that an Article V Convention is needed.

The only remedy for institution-level dysfunction is systemic repair. And as the defect here is in the design and not just the implementation, only a design change can fix it. That is achievable here ONLY with such a Convention.

Ok, so...

Start a parallel lobbying effort to get states/legislators to call for an Article V convention?

How do we stack the rep.s in our favor?

What next?

[LINY]

Firstly, Columbine was high school kids attacked by two of their own, not little elementary school kids attacked by an outsider.

Secondly, Columbine never had the temporal proximity (weeks!) to a 2A case that Sandy Hook had. Association is a powerful mechanism.

And finally, 9 years is a long time for the mists of time to blur the memory of an event in the absence of the kind of temporal association that Sandy Hook has.


Combine all of those together, and it becomes clear that Columbine lacked the psychological power that is present in Sandy Hook.



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

Temporal association? Psychological power?

Uh, more like a rabidly anti-2A President and his kow-towing PR apparatus

[kcbrown]

Temporal association? Psychological power?

Uh, more like a rabidly anti-2A President and his kow-towing PR apparatus

So ... how'd we get McDonald, when that was issued while the very same President and PR apparatus that are in place now were in place at the time?

[kcbrown]

Ok, so...

Start a parallel lobbying effort to get states/legislators to call for an Article V convention?

How do we stack the rep.s in our favor?

What next?

We first have to define very carefully what we need out of it. Then, and only then, will we be in any position to attempt to answer the question of how to make the convention happen.

Put another way, you have to know what your design is going to be before you can start thinking of how to build it.

[sholling]

I don't think we have the numbers to accomplish that in California. Ever.
The demographic trends away from outdoor activities and gun ownership and the concentration of voting power in the large metro areas are dooming gun rights.
And that will not change, if ever, for generations.

That could change radically next year if SCOTUS agrees that only citizens should be counted in apportionment. It would mean that Los Angeles would lose a huge chunk of its muscle in the legislature and the Inland Empire and rural districts would gain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/us...vote.html?_r=0

The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear a case that will answer a long-contested question about a bedrock principle of the American political system: the meaning of “one person one vote.”

The court’s ruling, expected in 2016, could be immensely consequential. Should the court agree with the two Texas voters who brought the case, its ruling would shift political power from cities to rural areas, a move that would benefit Republicans.