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

[mshill]

FGG has made the point the precision of language is important. If the matter of law was simply based on intent we would not have bullet buttons, grip wraps,10/30 mags, or SSE.
The sword cuts both ways.

[IVC]

Let me be clear that I'm not saying the court held that trigger lock laws with self defense exceptions are constitutional, only that the court's holding is limited to the specific question before it, i.e., is a trigger lock law without a self defense exception constitutional? No. The holding does not go beyond that.

The court answered the question "is a trigger lock law without a self defense exception constitutional in D.C.? No."

Yet, we do *not* read it that the question hasn't been answered for any other locality. Same goes for the "immediate" part of the language (which is there, presumably for a reason.)

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Fabio help me out and link me to the document.

Here it is, it was one of the MSJ declarations:

St. Lawrence declaration

[kcbrown]

Let me be clear that I'm not saying the court held that trigger lock laws with self defense exceptions are constitutional, only that the court's holding is limited to the specific question before it, i.e., is a trigger lock law without a self defense exception constitutional? No. The holding does not go beyond that.

If the holding truly does not go beyond that, then that renders the term "immediate" inert, since the effect of the holding would then be identical without it. Are you claiming that the use of that term in the holding is effectless? You would have to be for your statement above to be true.

So either the term has effect and your statement above is wrong, or your statement is correct and the term has no effect. Which is it?

[speedrrracer]

Here it is, it was one of the MSJ declarations:

St. Lawrence declaration

Not to derail the thread, but what's the value of something being in the "record"?

Since this was from the "winning" side, is this now somehow of elevated importance in a courtroom? Is it now as if SCOTUS had endorsed this, or agreed with it? If it had been from the losing side, would we not be able to mention it, or would there have been an implication that SCOTUS disagrees with it?

[M. D. Van Norman]

infringement on the right to bearcertiorariHeller suggested that they would.

[IVC]

To be accurate, nobody has explained thus far how a "self defense exception" (exception based on intent) relates to the "immediate self defense" (functional requirement of "immediate.")

The latter is clearly in the ruling, so it must carry some weight if we are to discuss what the ruling means. As it stands, FGG is claiming that "self defense exception" (which is what the court noticed was missing in D.C.) is the ONLY aspect of the ruling, or alternatively, that the "immediate" only relates to the lack of "self defense exception."

This would be a "he filled and kicked the bucket" type of interpretation. No?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

It's kcbrown tedious repetition time now lol. You're not even trying to mount an argument that without briefing, without notice, without opportunity to be heard, without discussion, the court telegraphed a holding that exceeded the scope of the question it was deciding, which is necessarily what you are saying they did. You're saying the court just chucked process out the window and you have zero evidence that it did. Just for kicks I searched for the use of the phrase "immediate self-defense" and not surprisingly found many examples of the usage of that phrase (for example in international law, rules of engagement, etc.) all of which were conistent with how I am interpreting it i.e. synonymous with emergency, and none which suggest any redundancy using "immediate" to modify self-defense.

[kcbrown]

Jackson v. SF (Ammo Ban; Locked Storage Reqts.)

It's kcbrown tedious repetition time now lol. You're not even trying to mount an argument that without briefing, without notice, without opportunity to be heard, without discussion, the court telegraphed a holding that exceeded the scope of the question it was deciding, which is necessarily what you are saying they did. You're saying the court just chucked process out the window and you have zero evidence that it did. Just for kicks I searched for the use of the phrase "immediate self-defense" and not surprisingly found many examples of the usage of that phrase (for example in international law, rules of engagement, etc.) all of which were conistent with how I am interpreting it i.e. synonymous with emergency, and none which suggest any redundancy using "immediate" to modify self-defense.

Then explain how the use of "self defense" in the holding with the "immediate" modifier differs from its use without that modifier in the holding. How does it make any difference whatsoever to the holding's effects, even if we use your interpretation of "immediate"?

To be clear, I do not know if the time critical nature of self-defense was briefed, but I would be immensely surprised if it hadn't been. If it was, then clearly the Court could have used the term "immediate" in the way I'm suggesting, no?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

To be accurate, nobody has explained thus far how a "self defense exception" (exception based on intent) relates to the "immediate self defense" (functional requirement of "immediate.")

I'm having a really hard time following just about everything in your last post. For the life of me I can't figure out what you mean by "exception based on intent" or "functional requirement," but anyways immediate self defense is precisely what the self-defense exception explicitly briefed and argued in Heller is concerned with: did the DC law allow you to unlock your gun to deal with an emergency such as a sudden intruder or a rapist? It's doesn't have anything to do with an interval of time between discovery and readiness.

[M. D. Van Norman]

It is certainly a persnickety distinction, but it also appears to be correct. Therefore, the boundaries of self-defense exemptions to secure-storage requirements remain undefined. Heller shows only that no exception clearly fails constitutional muster, though it may imply much more.

The San Francisco ordinance meets HellerJacksoncertiorari in this case.

[IVC]

Therefore, the boundaries of self-defense exemptions to secure-storage requirements remain undefined.

Except for the wording of "immediate self-defense."

If the court didn't mean "immediate" they shouldn't have said "immediate" (as some Circuit courts have address the Supreme Court.)

[kcbrown]

Jackson v. SF (Ammo Ban; Locked Storage Reqts.)

I'm having a really hard time following just about everything in your last post. For the life of me I can't figure out what you mean by "exception based on intent" or "functional requirement," but anyways immediate self defense is precisely what the self-defense exception explicitly briefed and argued in Heller is concerned with: did the DC law allow you to unlock your gun to deal with an emergency such as a sudden intruder or a rapist? It's doesn't have anything to do with an interval of time between discovery and readiness.

But "deal with an emergency" is mentioned nowhere in the part of the decision that covers the inoperability requirement of the law, nor is any equivalent construct. In fact, in that section, self-defense as a term is used solely in an unmodified manner. So what concerned the Court as regards that isn't self-defense in an emergency, it's self-defense period. So once again, you fail to address the question: in what way does the holding differ in its effect as-is versus what it would be if it omitted the term "immediate"? Your reading gives the word no effect whatsoever in the holding.

[IVC]

...but anyways immediate self defense is precisely what the self-defense exception explicitly briefed and argued in Heller is concerned with: did the DC law allow you to unlock your gun to deal with an emergency such as a sudden intruder or a rapist? It's doesn't have anything to do with an interval of time between discovery and readiness.

Here is another way to say the same thing:

(1) Court said that a law that doesn't have an exception for immediate self-defense is unconstitutional.

(2) S.F. ordinance has exception for "self defense," but does NOT have an exception for "immediate self-defense" where "immediate" is defined per standard dictionary.

(3) S.F. ordinance either needs to be stricken down, or it must provide an exception for "immediate self-defense."

Either way, the question answered by the Supreme Court includes the phrase "immediate" and it's an integral part of the reasoning.

[kcbrown]

immediate self defense is precisely what the self-defense exception explicitly briefed and argued in Heller is concerned with: did the DC law allow you to unlock your gun to deal with an emergency such as a sudden intruder or a rapist? It's doesn't have anything to do with an interval of time between discovery and readiness.

Actually, I may have to retract my last, because if we use your interpretation, then the holding can be interpreted to imply that the 2nd Amendment does nothing to implicate laws which infringe upon "non-immediate" self-defense. That would be a particularly evil reading of the holding, but it's "plausible" (in that it's a potential way to read the words, not necessarily that it's consistent with the general underlying theme of Heller) and consistent with your apparent interpretation.