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

[Funtimes]

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.

When is self-defense, by definition, not immediate? The whole concept is based on an immediate threat that you cannot avoid (or are not required to avoid).

[M. D. Van Norman]

[dantodd]

The "immediate" bit in the holding is not derived from, nor the basis for, the reason the Court struck the law. It is embedded in the statement of what the Court holds true. Here, essentially saying that the law cannot impose upon "immediate" self-defense.

The Court could have omitted that particular word from the holding, and as regards striking the DC law, the end result would have been identical. I do not believe their inclusion of that term to be an accident, precisely because it is in the context of what the Court holds to be true.

But to place so much import to "immediate" don't you have to acknowledge that all the words in the sentence are equally important? If you acknowledge that then what of the word "render?"

Doesn't the word "render" imply that it is conceivably possible that there could exist some laws that force one to make their firearms inoperable at times? Otherwise why would one ever need to be permitted to render then operable?

Now, I think that it is likely, and I hope actually, the intent of the court is to cover laws that might force one to safely store a weapon when it is out of your control and not strictly when it is not on your person. For example, requiring one to lock their weapons when they are left in an empty home where they might be subject to theft. In other words, forcing one to lock up guns when they aren't able to take immediate possession may constitutional but the S.F. Ordinance goes beyond on this.

There seems to be quite a bit of area between being unable to "render" a firearm ready for "immediate" use, as was the case in Heller, and a safe storage requirement for unused weapons outside of your sphere of influence. It seems that the S.F. Ordinance falls in this area and as such Heller doesnt give direct guidance but that doesn't mean it is constitutional either.

[LoneYote]

For example, requiring one to lock their weapons when they are left in an empty home where they might be subject to theft.

Why is my empty locked home insufficient to prevent theft but a 5lbs metal box is or a $5 cable lock?

[speedrrracer]

This whole Jackson thing is really confusing. So part of it says they can force you to lock your gun at home. I think FGG has established pretty well that a locked gun is not an operable gun, right? After all, if one must "render" a locked gun operable, then the universe requires that it is not operable when locked for that statement to be true.

According to Peruta:

"Our conclusion [is] that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense." (emphasis mine)

So the law in the 9th says I can have an operable firearm outside the home, but Jackson says I can't have one inside the home? Where SCOTUS says things are "most acute"?

If Peruta still stands after en banc, how can Jackson still stand, or at least the part dealing with forcing a lock at home? Aren't they at odds, and isn't the en banc panel "controlling", meaning the regular 9th must obey it's decisions? Would an en banc affirming Peruta have any effect on Jackson, since portions of them are polar opposites?

Somebody help my law-impaired brain

[LoneYote]

So the law in the 9th says I can have an operable firearm outside the home, but Jackson says I can't have one inside the home? Where SCOTUS says things are "most acute"?

No conflict actually. The P.C. says you can have an operable firearm on your person. I.E. It is legal to "bear" in your home. The problem is that the law says if it isn't directly on your person it must be locked.

[IVC]

Why is my empty locked home insufficient to prevent theft but a 5lbs metal box is or a $5 cable lock?

Theft is only one stated government interest. There are others.

[LoneYote]

Theft is only one stated government interest. There are others.

What are those other interests that a locked empty home would not guard against but a 5lbs metal box or a $5 cable lock would?

[dantodd]

What are those other interests that a locked empty home would not guard against but a 5lbs metal box or a $5 cable lock would?

A child or visitor to your home finding and accidentally discharging the weapon. Also, realize that just because something isn't directly in Heller opinion doesn't mean it IS constitutional, just that SCOTUS hasn't yet directly dealt with it. I think the law violates the second amendment.

[kcbrown]

But to place so much import to "immediate" don't you have to acknowledge that all the words in the sentence are equally important? If you acknowledge that then what of the word "render?"

Doesn't the word "render" imply that it is conceivably possible that there could exist some laws that force one to make their firearms inoperable at times? Otherwise why would one ever need to be permitted to render then operable?

Of course. Storage laws that cover firearms in the home and that operate when you're not home certainly qualify. But note that such laws would not interfere with the ability to defend oneself right now.

As for the question of "what about when you arrive at home only to find a burglary in progress?" (that was FGG's, but I'll answer it here because it's consistent with the context of our discussion), the answer to that is that the right extends outside the home as well, and as such, arrival at home should not be an issue because you will already be carrying. Or, at least, you would be in the absence of rights-infringing laws to the contrary.

It is invalid to presume that a given interpretation of the decision is invalid because it fails to account for situations in which one's rights are being infringed in some other context.

There seems to be quite a bit of area between being unable to "render" a firearm ready for "immediate" use, as was the case in Heller, and a safe storage requirement for unused weapons outside of your sphere of influence. It seems that the S.F. Ordinance falls in this area and as such Heller doesnt give direct guidance but that doesn't mean it is constitutional either.

Perhaps. The problem here is that the term "immediate" must have some meaning that causes the holding to have a different effect than it would in its absence. Must we read it as saying that laws which forbid you from readying your weapon for self-defense are valid as long as the need for such defense is not "immediate"? Meaning that it is valid for the government to statutorily forbid you from preparing your defense (e.g., if you knew ahead of time that you were going to be attacked)? That is the only interpretation I can think of which is consistent with your objection above and the requirement that the term have some effect.

[dantodd]

Perhaps. The problem here is that the term "immediate" must have some meaning that causes the holding to have a different effect than it would in its absence. Must we read it as saying that laws which forbid you from readying your weapon for self-defense are valid as long as the need for such defense is not "immediate"? Meaning that it is valid for the government to statutorily forbid you from preparing your defense (e.g., if you knew ahead of time that you were going to be attacked)? That is the only interpretation I can think of which is consistent with your objection above and the requirement that the term have some effect.

Of course immediate has a meaning. If you were to be in need of a weapon for self defense it must be lawful for you to immediately render the weapon usable.

Now, it doesn't say that "rendering it useful" has to mean just picking it up and pulling the trigger. I think the court may well hold that to be the case but Heller doesn't specifically say that. It says you have have the right to lawfully render it usable without delay. So, a law requiring you to call the PD and ask for permission to use the weapon would be unconstitutional and a law forbidding you from using the weapon at all (as was the fact pattern in Heller) would be clearly unconstitutional. However; a law requiring the safety to be on, an empty chamber, or a secondary locking device until you are in immediate need of the weapon for self defense was not addressed by the ruling. (At least not that part.)

Now, like FGG, I suspect this ordinance is unconstitutional. I just don't think that Heller directly states as much. I believe that the intent of Heller and its analysis of the right should make it clear that such a law is unconstitutional but I don't think that a ruling that the law is constitutional would go directly against precedence,

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

I like the latest variation on the rule swallowing exception, it's "the trigger lock law that never applies because you're always carrying inside and outside the home" I agree that would certainly be a constitutional trigger lock law.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Let's play "let's make a trigger lock law." All guns must be trigger locked. Except if there's an emergency. Except if you're sleeping. Except if you're in the shower. Except if you're making spaghetti. Except if you're taking a crap. Except if you're watching Netflix. Except if you're carrying inside or outside the house. If you own multiple firearms, those are excepted too, because a trigger lock law can't interfere with your ability to defend yourself right now with those firearms too (thank you calguns v silvester). I think this law is constitutional...did I miss any exceptions?

[M. D. Van Norman]

Why stop with guns?

[Librarian]

Let's play "let's make a trigger lock law." All guns must be trigger locked. Except if there's an emergency. Except if you're sleeping. Except if you're in the shower. Except if you're making spaghetti. Except if you're taking a crap. Except if you're watching Netflix. Except if you're carrying inside or outside the house. If you own multiple firearms, those are excepted too, because a trigger lock law can't interfere with your ability to defend yourself right now with those firearms too (thank you calguns v silvester). I think this law is constitutional...did I miss any exceptions?

Yes - 'except on days whose proper name in English ends with the letter "y"'; or, perhaps, 'except on days when one knows for certain s/he will not need to defend him/herself'.