Jump to content


Photo

Espanola Jackson v City and County of San Francisco


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
22 replies to this topic

#1 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 19,137 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 15 January 2015 - 06:42 PM

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...web12449105.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, 2015

The 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.firearms...-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.

 

 

Attached File  14-704-Jackson-v-SF-amicus-2015-1-15.pdf   211.08KB   137 downloads

.

.


.
 
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

 
Difficult days demand decisions of faith (Max Lucado)
 
On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.

#2 GlockShooter

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,453 posts
  • Joined: 12-March 05

Posted 15 January 2015 - 06:46 PM

This will be an interesting one to follow.  Thanks for the heads up!


Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.
abolt243


#3 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 15 January 2015 - 06:47 PM

Let's hope they take it.....



#4 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,736 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 15 January 2015 - 07:00 PM

Looks like a big one!



#5 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,508 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 08 June 2015 - 06:21 PM

Supreme court declined to hear case and let the infringements stand.

 

Justices Thomas and Scalia filed a dissent.

 

:pinch:


Edited by transplant, 08 June 2015 - 06:38 PM.


#6 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,508 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 08 June 2015 - 06:27 PM

Dissent:

 

Attached File  2015-06 Jackson v San Francisco declined by SCOTUS.pdf   70.74KB   131 downloads


Edited by transplant, 08 June 2015 - 06:37 PM.


#7 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,572 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 08 June 2015 - 07:18 PM

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.


Bud
 
 
Winter is coming
and the White Walkers are already attacking the cities



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW

#8 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,837 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 08 June 2015 - 08:33 PM

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?
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#9 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,160 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 08 June 2015 - 08:54 PM

 

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


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#10 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,901 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 08 June 2015 - 08:54 PM

http://www.scotusblo...endment-rights/

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#11 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,733 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 09 June 2015 - 09:23 AM

I thought California had firearm law preemption. How did the courts not realize that the ordinance is running afoul of preemption?
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#12 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,733 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 09 June 2015 - 09:27 AM

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.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#13 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,160 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 09 June 2015 - 10:31 AM

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


Edited by defaultdotxbe, 09 June 2015 - 10:31 AM.

"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#14 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,223 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 09 June 2015 - 11:19 AM

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?
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#15 quackersmacker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,778 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 09 June 2015 - 04:00 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...................


Life Member --- NRA
Life Member --- Second Amendment Foundation
Member        --- ISRA
Member        --- Single Action Shooting Society    [Lt John Dunbar]
Member        --- Aurora Sportsmen's Club
Member        --- Tri County Gun Club
 
Fellow Members:  Please consider making at least an annual $25 contribution to this fine organization, which has proven its worth -----and you will then become a member of the Supporting Members Team.   In this case, it's definitely about putting your money where your mouth is!   And, getting results.  Who knows what the future holds.....these may just be some of the best dollars you'll ever spend.

#16 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,508 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 09 June 2015 - 05:10 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.

#17 quackersmacker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,778 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 09 June 2015 - 05:45 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.


Life Member --- NRA
Life Member --- Second Amendment Foundation
Member        --- ISRA
Member        --- Single Action Shooting Society    [Lt John Dunbar]
Member        --- Aurora Sportsmen's Club
Member        --- Tri County Gun Club
 
Fellow Members:  Please consider making at least an annual $25 contribution to this fine organization, which has proven its worth -----and you will then become a member of the Supporting Members Team.   In this case, it's definitely about putting your money where your mouth is!   And, getting results.  Who knows what the future holds.....these may just be some of the best dollars you'll ever spend.

#18 quackersmacker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,778 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 09 June 2015 - 06:07 PM

Here's a good article about why this decision by SCOTUS, or non-decision, is sooooo scary.

 

http://www.thetrutha...llow-point-ban/


Life Member --- NRA
Life Member --- Second Amendment Foundation
Member        --- ISRA
Member        --- Single Action Shooting Society    [Lt John Dunbar]
Member        --- Aurora Sportsmen's Club
Member        --- Tri County Gun Club
 
Fellow Members:  Please consider making at least an annual $25 contribution to this fine organization, which has proven its worth -----and you will then become a member of the Supporting Members Team.   In this case, it's definitely about putting your money where your mouth is!   And, getting results.  Who knows what the future holds.....these may just be some of the best dollars you'll ever spend.

#19 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,508 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 10 June 2015 - 04:52 PM

Here's a good article about why this decision by SCOTUS, or non-decision, is sooooo scary.
 
http://www.thetrutha...llow-point-ban/


The petition to the SC only concerns locks not hollow points:

http://michellawyers...-Certiorari.pdf

#20 quackersmacker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,778 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 10 June 2015 - 05:21 PM

 

Here's a good article about why this decision by SCOTUS, or non-decision, is sooooo scary.
 
http://www.thetrutha...llow-point-ban/


The petition to the SC only concerns locks not hollow points:

http://michellawyers...-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.


Life Member --- NRA
Life Member --- Second Amendment Foundation
Member        --- ISRA
Member        --- Single Action Shooting Society    [Lt John Dunbar]
Member        --- Aurora Sportsmen's Club
Member        --- Tri County Gun Club
 
Fellow Members:  Please consider making at least an annual $25 contribution to this fine organization, which has proven its worth -----and you will then become a member of the Supporting Members Team.   In this case, it's definitely about putting your money where your mouth is!   And, getting results.  Who knows what the future holds.....these may just be some of the best dollars you'll ever spend.

#21 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,733 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 11 June 2015 - 08:19 AM

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.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#22 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,733 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 10 March 2016 - 08:51 PM

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.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#23 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 12 March 2016 - 02:09 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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder