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

[x90]

Although Texas Democrats opposed both Open Carry and Campus Carry, every single D Senator voted for the bill that decriminalizes accidentally bringing a gun into an airport security checkpoint if you have a CHL. Every single D Senator also voted for the knife-preemption bill.

Texas Ds are nothing like California Ds.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Although Texas Democrats opposed both Open Carry and Campus Carry, every single D Senator voted for the bill that decriminalizes accidentally bringing a gun into an airport security checkpoint if you have a CHL. Every single D Senator also voted for the knife-preemption bill.

Texas Ds are nothing like California Ds.

this is why I think the people saying they'll stay in California bcae all the other states will turn that way are dead wrong. Texas has asserted gun rights stridently and with finality in he last few weeks. If anything, their response to California continual infringements has been "Hell No! Not going to happen here! Ever!".

[x90]

this is why I think the people saying they'll stay in California bcae all the other states will turn that way are dead wrong. Texas has asserted gun rights stridently and with finality in he last few weeks. If anything, their response to California continual infringements has been "Hell No! Not going to happen here! Ever!".

NFA items (machine guns, SBRs and suppressors) are legal in Texas, but it was a defense to prosecution (which meant you could be arrested and go to court where the case would be dismissed once you presented your NFA tax stamp). In this latest session a bill was passed to fix that so possession of NFA items is explicitly legal by default. Every single D Senator also voted for this bill.

While it's technically true that Texas is turning blue, what that in reality means is that in 15-30 years Texas might pass universal background checks.

Texas (unlike California) has the following in its state constitution:

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

[stag1500]

I think it's pretty obvious that KC was right all along and that SCOTUS and the lower courts have completely abandoned the 2nd Amendment as an individual right with any meaning in the real world.

Then why did they give us Heller and McDonald? And why did they bother fast tracking McDonald (which came out only 2 years after Heller)? Don't you think they have better things to do with their time than to rule on something only to abandon it later?

[kcbrown]

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

Then why did they give us Heller and McDonald? And why did they bother fast tracking McDonald (which came out only 2 years after Heller)? Don't you think they have better things to do with their time than to rule on something only to abandon it later?

Because the horror that was Sandy Hook hadn't happened yet.

There might be some other reason, but that's the only visible one I know of that meets the timing and strength requirements.



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

[Untamed1972]

Then why did they give us Heller and McDonald? And why did they bother fast tracking McDonald (which came out only 2 years after Heller)? Don't you think they have better things to do with their time than to rule on something only to abandon it later?

Because via NSA spying the Exec. branch has managed to get dirt on EVERYONE, and are dangling it over their heads if they don't "get with the program."

Those that don't are outted for whatever dirt they have on them, and publicly ruined. Just look at Gen. Petraius.

[LostInSpace]

Because the horror that was Sandy Hook hadn't happened yet.

The justices are smart enough to know that having to wear a holster while asleep in bed in SF has nothing to do with preventing another Sandy Hook.

If we really think that justices Thomas and Scalia are the only ones left standing, then 3 out of the Heller five will have flipped. That's a most impressive change, impressive enough to wonder if it's likely. Perhaps things really are that far gone and the heretofore prevailing notion (on calguns) that they are just one justice short was all wrong, but it could also be something about the Jackson case itself that led to such a low support for cert.

[IVC]

Because the horror that was Sandy Hook hadn't happened yet.

Columbine was in 1999, nine years before Heller.

[LostInSpace]

Because the horror that was Sandy Hook hadn't happened yet.

It may be of interest to remember that the CA7 Moore decision came out shortly before Sandy Hook, but the en banc review was denied after Sandy Hook. At least in that group of judges, enough were still "standing" right after Sandy Hook.

Also, Justice Kennedy was reported to have reiterated his belief in the existence of the right to self-defense in one's home in a fairly recent speech somewhere (in the last 6 month or so, as I recall). Unfortunately, I can't locate a link at the moment.

[IVC]

I understand that but, as far as I know, the SCOTUS has only ruled that the 2A protects possessing hand guns in the home for self defense. That's all the 2nd Amendment protects at this time. If they keep denying cert, it's all it will ever protect.

Yes and no. SCOTUS has only ever addressed issues that involved guns in the home, so while true that at the moment we don't have an explicit ruling on the right to carry, we also don't have a ruling that would confirm that 2A applies only in the home (because it doesn't.)

We are in a limbo between rulings and for all we know KC might be right that the SCOTUS will just ignore 2A cases so it doesn't have to say explicitly that the right to carry doesn't exist, but the SCOTUS can also take a carry case and use the two-step analysis to affirm intermediate scrutiny and undermine the right, even if it's inconsistent with Heller.

The real test is coming in Peruta. Without going back into why "this time it's different," there should be enough benefit of the doubt after all this time we had to wait to allow for disposition of Peruta before joining the Dark Side.

[rlc2]

Remember the Alamo!

I don't think we have the numbers to accomplish that in California. Ever.
The demographic trends away from outdoor activities and gun ownership and the concentration of voting power in the large metro areas are dooming gun rights.
And that will not change, if ever, for generations.

California is the Alamo for gun rights. It is lost for all practical purposes, in perpetuity. I know some of you hate hearing that and are in denial. But you were just as "in denial" about The SCOTUS and were wrong then too. I still could be wrong (20% chance) and The SCOTUS could suddenly take a gun case, but they should have taken this one if they cared about local infringements and they didn't and, to me, that is a pretty clear message.

I have other reasons (crowds, lack of uncrowded outdoors, climate, cost of living, taxation relative to income, nana-state regulation, progressive mindset, etc., etc.) to eventually move either when my wife and I retire or we find attractive employment opportunities elsewhere in the West, but I will really enjoy having gun rights again as one of the key benefits.

Good metaphor. Been watching "Texas Rising" with son, and I'd extend the idea to the cultural sea change, in Hollywood, folowing the money, for ths interest by the Great Silent Majority...who spend on American Sniper, vs insipid lefty themes that no one wants to see. Conservative values and independent libertarian philosophy intersects at individual rights, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility.

That alone terrifies the Progressives who can't understand why people are abandoning this latest iteration of socialism, instead of following our betters, the Euro Elite, for example. Hows that euro thing working out? Multiculturalism in France? Foreign affairs-Anyone trust the UN to fix a problem? Enuff said.

2A rights to self defense of family are simply common-sense, and once people connect to the idea of using a gun as a way to level the playing field, by a smaller, weaker, more elderly law abiding citizen vs an illegally armed crimjnal, in extremis, the more clear and personal it becomes.

Recent trends in urban protests/paid for molotov tossing progtard activists make it cleaf whats going on. We dont need to convince the LIVs, as they wake up when it gets scary. We dont need to fight the left progtards, because their nonsense discredits them, as the new to personal responsibilty and take charge of your own self defense parent learns more. Never interrupt your enemy in the act of shooting themselves in the head...

The target is the vast reasonable and reaoity based middle that is already tired of hype, HopeyChangey, and is now really feeling it in the wallet, thanks to Obamacare, public schools disaster of top down common core, and foreign policy.

Facts, reason, helpful information, and respect for their intelligence, in how they take it all on, vs

The Lefts implied superiority and unconscious narcissism of deigning to speak down to free people, in effect telling people how to think, with the ends justify the means morality and emotional abuse of guilting and shaming, for daring to disagree with the FakeBook Social Justice Warriors, led by Bloombergs Blood Dancers, the faux mommies of the Elite Who Know Whats Best For The Little People.

Its all gotten to be laughable for the POTG, and humor attracts others, who are tired of the spin, looking for Truth. As the Immortal BlogFather would say, "Punch back with the Facts,Twice as Hard" and "Mock Them".

[pbreed]

Why...

Because via NSA spying the Exec. branch has managed to get dirt on EVERYONE, and are dangling it over their heads if they don't "get with the program."

Those that don't are outted for whatever dirt they have on them, and publicly ruined. Just look at Gen. Petraius.

This ^

[kcbrown]

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

Columbine was in 1999, nine years before Heller.

Firstly, Columbine was high school kids attacked by two of their own, not little elementary school kids attacked by an outsider.

Secondly, Columbine never had the temporal proximity (weeks!) to a 2A case that Sandy Hook had. Association is a powerful mechanism.

And finally, 9 years is a long time for the mists of time to blur the memory of an event in the absence of the kind of temporal association that Sandy Hook has.


Combine all of those together, and it becomes clear that Columbine lacked the psychological power that is present in Sandy Hook.



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

[advocatusdiaboli]

As the Immortal BlogFather would say, "Punch back with the Facts,Twice as Hard" and "Mock Them".

Mock them .Yes that is why I say Kaliforonia, Republik, Kalifornistan, Kalifornica etc. TO MOCK THEM. Just as the Colonists did King George.

Mockery unifies, and in union there is strength.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Then why did they give us Heller and McDonald? And why did they bother fast tracking McDonald (which came out only 2 years after Heller)? Don't you think they have better things to do with their time than to rule on something only to abandon it later?

Who knows? You? Oh please tell us since they are silent then!
Since you know so much.

They are inscrutable but their actions speak volumes drowning out their silence.
And the result of their actions, or in this case inaction, has palpable consequences and results. Are you saying they don't intend those consequences?

Well then, I think they indeed do intend them.

They know full well what they are doing. And they know what the results will be. And they are satisfied with them.

They have changed their minds. there. That is it. Someone got to them and they have changed their minds.