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

[kcbrown]

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.

The term "render" (indeed, the entire passage) was used by the Supreme Court to describe the law that it overturned. It overturned the "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense".

One might insist that the "immediate self-defense" bit is also used to describe the law in question, but one runs afoul of the fact that the law didn't prohibit unlocking and/or assembling the firearm merely for immediate self-defense, it did so for all purposes, whether or not self-defense was involved and whether or not that self-defense was "immediate" or not. So whereas the term "render" quite clearly is directly descriptive of the law SCOTUS overturned (as the law prohibited one from unlocking the firearm or assembling it while it was in the home), the context of the term "immediate" is not. That term is embodied in a phrase which describes the basis upon which the Court objected to the law. Therein lies its significance, such as it is.

As such, unless I am forced to read the holding in the way FGG apparently is, in which case absurdly evil conclusions logically arise, I read nothing into the term "render" save for the fact that it was being used to describe the law being overturned.

[IVC]

"For the purpose of immediate self defense" is quite cumbersome compared to the "for self defense" which the court could have used.

[Maestro Pistolero]

"For the purpose of immediate self defense" is quite cumbersome compared to the "for self defense" which the court could have used.

I like immediate self defense. For all the parsing that has been done here, it correlates directly to the fact that self-defense is always an urgent, immediate matter. After all, if there is no immediate threat to life and limb, there is no justification for using potentially lethal force. It's fitting, IMO.

[dantodd]

The term "render" (indeed, the entire passage) was used by the Supreme Court to describe the law that it overturned. It overturned the "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense".

One might insist that the "immediate self-defense" bit is also used to describe the law in question, but one runs afoul of the fact that the law didn't prohibit unlocking and/or assembling the firearm merely for immediate self-defense, it did so for all purposes, whether or not self-defense was involved and whether or not that self-defense was "immediate" or not. So whereas the term "render" quite clearly is directly descriptive of the law SCOTUS overturned (as the law prohibited one from unlocking the firearm or assembling it while it was in the home), the context of the term "immediate" is not. That term is embodied in a phrase which describes the basis upon which the Court objected to the law. Therein lies its significance, such as it is.

As such, unless I am forced to read the holding in the way FGG apparently is, in which case absurdly evil conclusions logically arise, I read nothing into the term "render" save for the fact that it was being used to describe the law being overturned.

FGG's, and my, reading does not require any "evil conclusions" it merely requires one to accept that the court ruled solely on the question before it and said that any law preventing you from rendering a firearm usable for immediate self-defense is unconstitutional. This does not require tone to believe that any and every law that permits one to render a firearm ready for self-defense is constitutional.

This is a logical mistake you make continually. It is the same error you make when you claim that the court's denial of cert is tantamount to a ruling supporting the Circuit in the case.

You tend to adopt the absolute worst case scenario whenever the court leaves a question unanswered.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

FGG's, and my, reading does not require any "evil conclusions" it merely requires one to accept that the court ruled solely on the question before it....

So, is the practicality of the law is irrelevant in your world too? lol.

[kcbrown]

FGG's, and my, reading does not require any "evil conclusions" it merely requires one to accept that the court ruled solely on the question before it and said that any law preventing you from rendering a firearm usable for immediate self-defense is unconstitutional. This does not require tone to believe that any and every law that permits one to render a firearm ready for self-defense is constitutional.

This is a logical mistake you make continually. It is the same error you make when you claim that the court's denial of cert is tantamount to a ruling supporting the Circuit in the case.

You tend to adopt the absolute worst case scenario whenever the court leaves a question unanswered.

I agree. Strictly speaking, such a construction does not logically follow from denial of cert alone.

However, firstly, the lower courts have been, by and large, reading Heller in the same way (limiting it to its most narrow effect possible), so my "evil conclusions" wind up becoming reality in those areas. Indeed, is not Jackson evidence of precisely that? And secondly, seeing how the Court has thus far kept such questions unanswered and, save for the difference between "persuasive" versus "binding" precedence, the end result has been tantamount to a ruling supporting the Circuit (since the effect is that the Circuit's ruling remains in place), exactly how has my adoption of the worst case scenario departed from reality?

[dantodd]

So, is the practicality of the law is irrelevant in your world too? lol.

I'm not sure what you mean. I believe the impracticality of the law is relevant. I merely believe the Heller doesn't directly address this exact situation. I think it is unconstitutional and I suspect that, if this ends up in front of the Supreme Court it will be stricken.

There are a number of impracticalities within the law. One simple example is that the law makes it virtually impossible to properly clean or repair your firearm in your own home.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

I'm not sure what you mean. I believe the impracticality of the law is relevant. I merely believe the Heller doesn't directly address this exact situation. I think it is unconstitutional and I suspect that, if this ends up in front of the Supreme Court it will be stricken.

We're on the same page, I was making fun of one of kcbrown's posts.

[kcbrown]

So, is the practicality of the law is irrelevant in your world too? lol.

Then tell me what difference the use of the term "immediate" makes in the holding.

We're on the same page, I was making fun of one of kcbrown's posts.

That is sometimes (perhaps even more often than that) easy to do. Show how that is the case here, please.

[wildhawker]

FPC, SAF, CGF, and others filed an amicus brief in support of NRA/petitioners this morning.

It can be viewed at: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-co...-2015-1-15.pdf

-Brandon

[RobertMW]

It can be viewed at: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-co...-2015-1-15.pdf

-Brandon

Daayyyyuummm

That amicus quite thoroughly calls SCOTUS out.

[wireless]

Well written indeed.

[Paladin]

Thx, Brandon. Enjoyable read.

IIRC, SF has until Feb 13th to respond. Then, it will take SCOTUS what, a month or two to decide whether to grant cert? That takes us to mid-March thru mid-April. If they grant cert., I doubt they'll hear such an important case that late this term, but rather will save it for next term in the fall w/a decision in 2016 but before July.

If SCOTUS grants Jackson cert., I'm guessing Peruta-Richards-Baker will all be stayed pending SCOTUS' opinion in Jackson. So, Shall Issue (assuming we eventually win) won't be coming to the PRK and HI until spring or summer 2016 EARLIEST?!!!

[kcbrown]

I really hope SCOTUS grants cert to this case. But, of course, I must predict that they won't, because that would be consistent with my explanation of SCOTUS' behavior in the 2A arena to date.

It's almost like we're lobbing softballs at a batter who is afraid to swing at anything, and we're trying to get them to swing at something.

[Paladin]

If SCOTUS takes Jackson, and we win it, can we get Shall Issue:

(1) via a historical/textual analysis?
(2a) via intermediate scrutiny?
(2b) via strict scrutiny?

IOW, could there be no need for Peruta, Palmer or any other "Carry Case" to win at SCOTUS if we win Jackson?