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

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Yes - 'except on days whose proper name in English ends with the letter "y"'

Are you trying to gut the entire law? That exception would mean guns never have to be locked.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

On second thought, I'm not liking "All guns must be trigger locked," it sounds a little bossy. I'm going to change it to "Trigger locking of all guns is gently encouraged."

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

...'except on days when one knows for certain s/he will not need to defend him/herself'.

lol.

[kcbrown]

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.

Not if Fabio's reading is correct.

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

Would it? One would think, but if Fabio's interpretation (that "immediate self-defense" merely means "emergency requiring self-defense") is correct, then the Constitutional enjoinment in Heller applies only to laws which prohibit one from "rendering operable" the firearm for an "emergency requiring self-defense". Which means two things:

1. The decision says nothing about how long an imposed delay can actually be and remain consistent with the decision -- all that matters is whether or not the law forbids one from readying the weapon in an emergency. And if that's the case, then a law requiring you to call the PD to, say, get the combination to the safe, would in fact be "Constitutional" (or at least not addressed by Heller, a condition that lower courts have been treating as synonymous with "Constitutional"), because the law would not be forbidding you from readying your weapon in an emergency, only imposing an artificial and arbitrarily long delay before you can. In practical terms, that would of course result in failure to mount a self-defense effort, but clearly the law's practicality (or lack thereof) is irrelevant in Fabio's world (it remains to be seen whether it is also irrelevant in the world of the Supreme Court).
2. If the need for self-defense is anticipated in advance, then a law prohibiting making the weapon ready in that case could be Constitutional (depending on whether or not such a situation would be considered an "emergency").

Everything depends on exactly what "immediate" applies to here. My interpretation is that it applies to the act of self-defense, i.e. the point in time one can act in self-defense after the need for such arises. Fabio's interpretation is that it applies to the situation, meaning that the need itself is immediate but the point in time that one is able to respond to that need is arbitrarily, and thus can be artificially, long.

If it applies to the act of self-defense, then clearly any law that artificially increases the time required for one to make the weapon ready would be Unconstitutional, as the law would be imposing upon the immediacy of the act of self-defense. If it applies to the situation, i.e. is not a modifier on the act of self-defense but rather on the need for it, then any law which imposes an artificial delay no matter how long that delay is will not be considered contrary to Heller, because the law would not be dictating whether one can respond to an emergency, only the rapidity with which one can respond (and the latter is not a property of the immediacy of the situation, but of other things).

Heller states "immediate" as a modifier of self-defense, not of the need for self-defense. That argues for the interpretation I'm using, and against the one Fabio is using. But mine doesn't appear to be without problems, either.

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.)

Well, one has to wonder why Heller would let stand laws which would prevent you from readying your firearm in advance, but that's the only reading of the holding that is consistent with Fabio's interpretation.

[LoneYote]

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.

Dan... I don't know who gave you "the talk" but children do not spring into existence randomly. Also, I have never had a visitor to my home that would have to break into my home.

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?

[9M62]

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.

The vehicle code defines possession (in a vehicle) as within reach of the driver, or in the passenger compartment in most vehicles.

So, by that notion, I'll consider EVERY AREA of my house to be in my possession, and thus, unnneccasary to lock up my firearm.

[LoneYote]

The vehicle code defines possession (in a vehicle) as within reach of the driver, or in the passenger compartment in most vehicles.

So, by that notion, I'll consider EVERY AREA of my house to be in my possession, and thus, unnneccasary to lock up my firearm.

SEC. 4512. HANDGUNS LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE TO BE KEPT IN A LOCKED CONTAINER OR DISABLED WITH A TRIGGER LOCK.
(a) Prohibition. No person shall keep a handgun within a residence owned or controlled by that person unless the handgun is stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock that has been approved by the California Department of Justice.
(b) Definitions.
(1) "Residence." As used in this Section, "residence" is any structure intended or used for human habitation including but not limited to houses, condominiums, rooms, in law units, motels, hotels, SRO's, time-shares, recreational and other vehicles where human habitation occurs.
(2) "Locked container." As used in this Section, "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock or similar locking device.
(3) "Handgun." As used in this Section, "handgun" means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm that is capable of being concealed upon the person, designed to be used as a weapon, capable of expelling a projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion, and has a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
(4) "Trigger lock." As used in this Section, a "trigger lock" means a trigger lock that is listed in the California Department of Justice's list of approved firearms safety devices and that is identified as appropriate for that handgun by reference to either the manufacturer and model of the handgun or to the physical characteristics of the handgun that match those listed on the roster for use with the device under Penal Code Section 12088(d).
(c) Exceptions. This Section shall not apply in the following circumstances:
(1) The handgun is carried on the person of an individual over the age of 18.

Not possession. Carried on the person.

[mshill]

Not possession. Carried on the person.

So cops in SF will always have guns drawn when knocking on the door of an owner of a registered handgun because it will likely be on their person when they answer the door. Don't make any sudden moves. /sarcasm

[LoneYote]

So cops in SF will always have guns drawn when knocking on the door of an owner of a registered handgun because it will likely be on their person when they answer the door. Don't make any sudden moves. /sarcasm

Firstly, I wouldn't put it past them. Secondly, if you read any of the conversation you just jumped into it should be apparent that the exception the PC allows for is the carrying on the person. They could be a registered owner with their weapon in a safe and not be in violation of the law.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Has SF argued yet that its law still allows you build a really big container in your residence that you can get inside of with your gun? You could put a really big lockable steel box in your bedroom and stick your gun, bed, dresser and a flat screen in there. Or just board up your bedroom windows so your bedroom is "fully enclosed" and lock your bedroom door, and voila, the gun is in a "locked container" and so are you! There's nothing in the law that says the locked container can't be an integral part of the residence. The law would also allows you to fully enclose your residence in sheet metal with a simplex locked opening and make the residence one big lockbox. Another no brainer would be an "in case of emergency break glass" handgun lockbox. Just smash it if you've got an intruder, you don't have to worry about lock codes, electrical or mechanical malfunctions, etc. The law doesn't say what the locked container has to be made of, just that it's "fully enclosed" and "locked."

[speedrrracer]

Has SF argued yet that its law still allows you build a really big container in your residence that you can get inside of with your gun? You could put a really big lockable steel box in your bedroom and stick your gun, bed, dresser and a flat screen in there. Or just board up your bedroom windows so your bedroom is "fully enclosed" and lock your bedroom door, and voila, the gun is in a "locked container" and so are you! There's nothing in the law that says the locked container can't be an integral part of the residence. The law would also allows you to fully enclose your residence in sheet metal with a simplex locked opening and make the residence one big lockbox. Another no brainer would be an "in case of emergency break glass" handgun lockbox. Just smash it if you've got an intruder, you don't have to worry about lock codes, electrical or mechanical malfunctions, etc. The law doesn't say what the locked container has to be made of, just that it's "fully enclosed" and "locked."

The extension of that is that the residence is the locked container, and since all residences of which I'm aware have locking doors, the law voids itself?

Gosh, then why did the 9th not see this, and we have to bother SCOTUS about such simple things?

[rlc2]

thank you for plain language summary

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.

IVC, thanks again for above. With respect to kc, fgg, and others, it really helps to have a laymans language summary from time to time, for noobs like me in the peanut gallery...here is something I found on scotusblog, that is very helpful, but doesnt often dip lower into the CA decisions:

http://www.scotusblog.com/category/plain-english/

"Program, program, can't watch the game without a program!"

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnh3Ag8yAfk

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

The extension of that is that the residence is the locked container, and since all residences of which I'm aware have locking doors, the law voids itself?

Gosh, then why did the 9th not see this, and we have to bother SCOTUS about such simple things?

Yep lol.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

IVC, thanks again for above.

Just FYI as a purported summary of what I was saying that's all screwed up lol.

[Maestro Pistolero]

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?

That's funny right there.