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

[IVC]

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?

We agree on the particular point of theft.

A "locked container" inside a home does protect, e.g., against children (your own, or visitors') from finding and operating a loaded gun. In that case the government interest is not "theft," but "safety." It's these additional government interests that expand the applicability of the law beyond the "locked empty home," so your argument applies only partially.

Note that I am not endorsing any particular government interest, merely pointing out the way they see it. Actually, I believe that *all* government interests should be itemized, then each addressed in such a way as to be minimally invasive. In case of "child safety" it would require exemption for people without children, etc.

[IVC]

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

It wasn't. It was a summary of the certiorari petition filed by Michel & Associates.

Even in the introduction the petition mentions that Heller requires "operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." You found a logical workaround to eliminate "immediate" from consideration by being very strict in language analysis surrounding this statement, while being very lax and cavalier with dropping the word "immediate" from the analysis.

[IVC]

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.

Here is what's in the petition:

In addition to deciding whether "immediate" means "immediate," we also have a "lawful firearm... operable for the purpose...".

If we throw out all the attorney games, the question remains, to pick a random time, the following: "Does the S.F. ordinance allow a person who is asleep to posses a lawful firearm that is operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense?"

[IVC]

Let's play "let's make a trigger lock law." ... I think this law is constitutional...did I miss any exceptions?

The inability to define a meaningful "trigger lock law" is the same as, e.g., the inability to define "an assault weapon."

If the government wants to ban something they cannot define, maybe there is a problem with the government and their ban, not with us being picky about not wanting such a regulation.

[Maestro Pistolero]

Once 'shall not be infringed' was treated as somehow unclear, it was game on for the lawyer shenanigans. What language could It possibly contain that would be more unambiguous?

And what did Heller, in all its historical linguistic inquiry say about it. Not much, except to quote various cases through the decades that used the language. It made no conclusion of which I am aware about what the several historical uses means to the right today.

[RobertMW]

lawful firearm in the home operable for the
purpose of immediate self-defense

What I have felt this entire time, with all these thoughts of times where mandating lock boxes as long as there are "self-defense exceptions" is that it is operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense, not the act of immediate self-defense. The first says to me that you may always have a firearm, anywhere, in any condition, ready to use for the purpose of self-defense. If you have to have a firearm in a lock of some type, that is saying that you may only make your gun ready for the act of immediate self-defense, which is NOT the language of Heller.

Something can have a purpose without actively acting on that purpose.

[IVC]

A gun with a lock is not "operable."

There is also the issue of "immediate self-defense." Why would the majority use that phrase instead of a much simpler "for the purpose of self-defense" if they didn't mean "immediate?" Or, alternatively, why wouldn't they add a sentence about "non-immediate self-defense" if they believed such a concept existed?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

It wasn't. It was a summary of the certiorari petition filed by Michel & Associates.

Which you claimed was "another way to say the same thing" that I said, which it is not.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

The inability to define a meaningful "trigger lock law" is the same as, e.g., the inability to define "an assault weapon."

You're not doing so well in this thread lol. It's really easy to define "locked containers" and "doj approved trigger locks," and to make a law that says you're required to use them. ETA: you'd think that if there was a vagueness argument somehere it would have been made, as Michel & Associates invented the "this gun law is vague" argument.

[IVC]

Which you claimed was "another way to say the same thing" that I said, which it is not.

I was talking about myself and the argument that I made.

[IVC]

It's really easy to define "locked containers" and "doj approved trigger locks," and to make a law that says you're required to use them.

*Exemptions* are hard to define if the law is required to be, say, the least restrictive way of achieving a narrow, compelling government interest.

If the reasoning behind the law is "for the children," the law needs to handle houses without children...

[IGOTDIRT4U]

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.

Ithink that was the intended sarcasm of his post. Either way, watching this as LA is pushing this, too.

[LoneYote]

We agree on the particular point of theft.

A "locked container" inside a home does protect, e.g., against children (your own, or visitors') from finding and operating a loaded gun. In that case the government interest is not "theft," but "safety." It's these additional government interests that expand the applicability of the law beyond the "locked empty home," so your argument applies only partially.

Are these children the same as the gun a felon uses for self defense? Appearing magically to create only the desired effect? A locked container inside a home occupied by children and visitors can serve the interest. An empty and locked home is no different than considering the whole home as a locked container. If a locked and empty home is insufficient to prevent children from finding and operating a weapon, why would a 5lbs metal box or a $5 cable lock be sufficient? It is a relatively simple question but you keep wandering into the rough.

[IVC]

It's "locked and not empty" that they use to justify the ordinance. Again, I'm not advocating for it, just pointing it out.

[dantodd]

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.


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.

I'm sorry, I read that over again and I still can't figure out what you make of the term "render" as specifically chosen to be included in the Heller opinion.