mauserme Posted January 16, 2015 at 12:42 AM Share Posted January 16, 2015 at 12:42 AM Illinois Carry is pleased to represent the interests of Illinois firearm owners by joining several amici in urging the Supreme Court to grant cert in the matter of Espanola Jackson v City and County of San Francisco.The press release follows, and a copy of the amicus brief is attached.http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/01/prweb12449105.htm Supreme Court Urged to Take Up San Francisco Gun Control Case Firearms Policy Coalition and a dozen other civil rights groups ask the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on an NRA-backed lawsuit.ROSEVILLE, CA (PRWEB) January 15, 2015The Firearms Policy Coalition and 12 other state and national civil rights organizations filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court today for a lawsuit challenging a San Francisco gun control ordinance.According to the plaintiffs’ petition for review, the city’s law “requires all residents who keep handguns in their homes for self-defense to stow them away in a lock box or disable them with a trigger lock whenever they are not physically carrying them on their persons.”In the amicus (“friend of the court”) brief filed by attorneys Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay, the gun-rights groups argue that summary reversal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision “is warranted because [it] is plainly contrary to Heller,” a landmark 2008 ruling that held the Second Amendment protects an individual–rather than a collective–right to keep and bear arms. But the groups also argue that the Supreme Court should hear the case in order to “clarify the standard governing Second Amendment challenges, and to confirm that courts must be guided by text and history rather than judicial interest balancing.”While some Second Amendment lawsuits have been decided based on the “text, history, and tradition” standard used in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, a 2010 Supreme Court decision that applied the Second Amendment to states and local governments, many lower courts have since applied weaker standards that lets most gun control laws stand.“The Ninth Circuit’s lamentable decision in Jackson shows why it is the most overturned circuit court in the nation,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “The Supreme Court should take up this case not only to correct a clear wrong, but to stem the tide of judicial resistance in recognizing the right to keep and bear arms as fundamental Constitutional rights.”“The Second Amendment doesn’t protect second-class rights, and it’s time for courts to take the enumerated right to keep and bear arms at least as seriously as they do unenumerated rights like abortion.”Parties to the amicus brief (in order of appearance) are Firearms Policy Coalition; Second Amendment Foundation; The Calguns Foundation; Firearms Policy Foundation; California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees; The Madison Society; Florida Carry; Hawaii Defense Foundation; Illinois Carry; Maryland Shall Issue; Commonwealth Second Amendment; Virginia Citizens Defense League; and West Virginia Citizens Defense League.The brief can be viewed at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/14-704-Jackson-v-SF-amicus-2015-1-15.pdf.Espanola Jackson, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., (Supreme Court docket no. 14-704) was filed in 2009 by lawyers for 6 San Francisco residents, the National Rifle Association, and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association.Firearms Policy Coalition (http://www.firearmspolicy.org) is a nonprofit civil rights advocacy organization that serves to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms through legal efforts, direct and grassroots lobbying, education, and innovative applications of technology. 14-704-Jackson-v-SF-amicus-2015-1-15.pdf.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlockShooter Posted January 16, 2015 at 12:46 AM Share Posted January 16, 2015 at 12:46 AM This will be an interesting one to follow. Thanks for the heads up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted January 16, 2015 at 12:47 AM Share Posted January 16, 2015 at 12:47 AM Let's hope they take it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted January 16, 2015 at 01:00 AM Share Posted January 16, 2015 at 01:00 AM Looks like a big one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted June 9, 2015 at 12:21 AM Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 12:21 AM Supreme court declined to hear case and let the infringements stand. Justices Thomas and Scalia filed a dissent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted June 9, 2015 at 12:27 AM Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 12:27 AM Dissent: 2015-06 Jackson v San Francisco declined by SCOTUS.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted June 9, 2015 at 01:18 AM Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 01:18 AM I don't think this was best case that could (finally) resolve all the controversy with the 2A. The ordinance doesn't restrict the right to bear a firearm in your home as long as it was on your person. If not on your person, it had to be locked up so that's pretty murky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted June 9, 2015 at 02:33 AM Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 02:33 AM I don't think this was best case that could (finally) resolve all the controversy with the 2A. The ordinance doesn't restrict the right to bear a firearm in your home as long as it was on your person. If not on your person, it had to be locked up so that's pretty murky. Wasn't access and storage part of the Heller case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted June 9, 2015 at 02:54 AM Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 02:54 AM I don't think this was best case that could (finally) resolve all the controversy with the 2A. The ordinance doesn't restrict the right to bear a firearm in your home as long as it was on your person. If not on your person, it had to be locked up so that's pretty murky.Wasn't access and storage part of the Heller case? I think that's where the "or on your person" part of the SF ordinance comes in, to be Heller-compliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted June 9, 2015 at 02:54 AM Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 02:54 AM http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/new-doubts-on-second-amendment-rights/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted June 9, 2015 at 03:23 PM Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 03:23 PM I thought California had firearm law preemption. How did the courts not realize that the ordinance is running afoul of preemption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted June 9, 2015 at 03:27 PM Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 03:27 PM If San Francisco had required the gun to be locked up at all times instead of requiring the gun owner to carry it at all times than it would have been in direct violation instead of indirect violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted June 9, 2015 at 04:31 PM Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 04:31 PM I thought California had firearm law preemption. How did the courts not realize that the ordinance is running afoul of preemption?Its only as far as licensing and registration, outright bans are still OK for local government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted June 9, 2015 at 05:19 PM Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 05:19 PM So if you unholster your gun and set it on the vanity while you do your business on the commode you suddenly become a dangerous criminal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackersmacker Posted June 9, 2015 at 10:00 PM Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 10:00 PM Maybe someone pointed it out, but I haven't seen it here yet: SCOTUS also refused to review San Francisco's ban on hollow point ammo. We're headed down a very dangerous path................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted June 9, 2015 at 11:10 PM Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 11:10 PM Maybe someone pointed it out, but I haven't seen it here yet: SCOTUS also refused to review San Francisco's ban on hollow point ammo. We're headed down a very dangerous path...................The hollow point bullet issue wasn't a part of the appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackersmacker Posted June 9, 2015 at 11:45 PM Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 11:45 PM Maybe someone pointed it out, but I haven't seen it here yet: SCOTUS also refused to review San Francisco's ban on hollow point ammo. We're headed down a very dangerous path...................The hollow point bullet issue wasn't a part of the appeal. Google the following words: Supreme Court San Francisco Hollow Point You'll see that......yes, it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackersmacker Posted June 10, 2015 at 12:07 AM Share Posted June 10, 2015 at 12:07 AM Here's a good article about why this decision by SCOTUS, or non-decision, is sooooo scary. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/06/foghorn/breaking-supreme-court-rejects-appeal-of-sfs-requirement-that-guns-be-kept-locked-and-disassembled-hollow-point-ban/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted June 10, 2015 at 10:52 PM Share Posted June 10, 2015 at 10:52 PM Here's a good article about why this decision by SCOTUS, or non-decision, is sooooo scary. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/06/foghorn/breaking-supreme-court-rejects-appeal-of-sfs-requirement-that-guns-be-kept-locked-and-disassembled-hollow-point-ban/The petition to the SC only concerns locks not hollow points: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackersmacker Posted June 10, 2015 at 11:21 PM Share Posted June 10, 2015 at 11:21 PM Here's a good article about why this decision by SCOTUS, or non-decision, is sooooo scary. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/06/foghorn/breaking-supreme-court-rejects-appeal-of-sfs-requirement-that-guns-be-kept-locked-and-disassembled-hollow-point-ban/The petition to the SC only concerns locks not hollow points: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari.pdf The petition's intro and question to be decided does only refer to the lock issue, though the body of the petition quotes the hollow point issue extensively. The case being appealed had decided that the hollow point law was valid. SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal of that case, which included both issues, so the decisions by the lower courts stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted June 11, 2015 at 02:19 PM Share Posted June 11, 2015 at 02:19 PM I find it ironic that they do not issue usually do not issue carry licenses for residents but they require residents to openly or conceal carry while at home or keep the gun locked up. I wander if anyone is going to openly carry their porch and/or lawn in full view of the public. I wonder how many will end up arrested for inadvertently carrying outside the home due to following the ordinance and carrying in the home and on the property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted March 11, 2016 at 02:51 AM Share Posted March 11, 2016 at 02:51 AM From a certain point of view the law can be considered compelled home carry with the requirement to lock it away when not carrying it. Also a resident of the area could host an open carry barbeque. Compelling someone to carry in their home by law increases the risks that the gun owners would forget to disarm prior to leaving the house to do errands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 12, 2016 at 08:09 PM Share Posted March 12, 2016 at 08:09 PM Compelling someone to carry in their home is government overreach. There is no justification for the government telling citizens what they may and may not do in their own homes, as long as the conduct is lawful (that's relative). It's analogous to Justice Scalia's remarks during orals in Sebelius. Could the government compel citizens to buy broccoli? No. Same basic principle applies. It's government regulating lawful conduct inside one's home. Government should have to overcome a huge burden to justify regulation of lawful conduct inside one's abode. When it comes to guns, the Ninth Circuit defaults to the "compelling government interest" in "ensuring public safety" and "keeping forearms out of the hands of children" (nowhere close to verbatim, but that's the gist of the argument) BS spewed by the government. In reality, strict scrutiny should have been applied in this case. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.