Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco

press1280 · Jun 10, 2015

Brooklyn said:
Give 3 reasons why the carry issue is ripe.. only a few years after heller..

Better yet ask why the court would prefer to wait....

Especially Roberts...

We think in months and years.. the court in centuries..

How many 2a cases actually exist in total.? Ripe my ass.

And given that it only effects a handful of slave states.. not surprising...

Scotus is supposed to protect and individual liberties... but not the liberty of specific individuals.. in practice that means the lower courts need to do most of the work..

Roberts stung by the effect of Roe on the opinion many have
Of his precious court..is not willing to jump in...

Slowly the public debate will progress to the point were Roberts will fell safe pushing it over th goal line.

They always lead from behind...esp conservatives..

Not surprising...
Our job has always been and will remain.. make it safe for the court to rule our way by discrediting with word and deed our opposition..

Until we do that the court will remain gun shy..

A few things here. The carry cases may not be ripe yet. We need a circuit split. Moore will always be explained away as a total ban, and the restrictive states will always say that they issue a few carry permits so it's not the same.

And there's good reasons for so few 2A cases at SCOTUS over the country's history. There were no Federal gun laws until the 1930's (where we got US v. Miller), and the 2A wasn't enforceable against the states until after McDonald. Most of the gun laws are state creations so 5 years isn't exactly a long period of time.
But I am concerned that the lower courts are trying to essentially Slaughterhouse the 2A. Jackson should have been one that the Heller 5 could have agreed upon.

pilotguy · Jun 10, 2015

I think the only way to get a 2A case in front of SCOTUS is a reverse challenge from a 2A friendly circuit. Have someone challenge the a 2A friendly law and appeal it all of the way up.

press1280 · Jun 10, 2015

pilotguy said:
I think the only way to get a 2A case in front of SCOTUS is a reverse challenge from a 2A friendly circuit. Have someone challenge the a 2A friendly law and appeal it all of the way up.

There are several avenues through state courts to try to muddy the waters WRT public carry(in a good way so SCOTUS might take it). They haven't been tried for whatever reason, almost everything has been through Federal courts.

danb · Jun 10, 2015

pilotguy said:
I think the only way to get a 2A case in front of SCOTUS is a reverse challenge from a 2A friendly circuit. Have someone challenge the a 2A friendly law and appeal it all of the way up.

How would this work exactly? Nope, sorry the law is too lax?

Better: Get as many 2A friendly states as possible, then getting them to file an amicus brief. If a supermajority of states (33) signed on to a 2A-friendly amicus brief, it'd be hard for the court to ignore.

Jackson I think we only got a bare majority of 25 states to sign on.

BeoBill · Jun 10, 2015

gamer_jim said:
If we can't rely on the courts for justice then how much does it take to buy enough pro-2A candidates in MD?

Like what Dan Carlin talked about in his most recent Common Sense podcast, if money in politics is not only allowable but the way the system was designed, then let's start crowd-sourcing 2A candidates in MD.

How many MSI members do we have? A 1000? How many members of MD's senate would we have to buy? 20? How much does each one cost? $100k each?

We each donate $2000 and we have constitutional carry April next year. I'm in.

All we would have to buy are Mike and Mike, IMO. The rest of the cattle will follow. It's what they do best.

Besides, this part of the thread should be in the Maryland 2A Section.

Boxcab · Jun 11, 2015

An interesting read on the 2A and the SC,

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-gun-rights-withering-away-094518101--politics.html

Maestro Pistolero · Jun 11, 2015

Refusing to strike an insolent 9th circuit decision which thumbs its nose at Heller leaves me with little respect for the SCOTUS. KC is right. The question now is when to sharpen the pitchforks. The amendment could not be less unequivocal.

How much more clear could the 2A be, even in the event of a successful constitutional convention? What more could it say: "No, REALLY . . .the right SHALL NOT be infringed". . . Simon says No INFRINGEMENT . . . ????? The court is now apparently far too educated and acculturated into its archaic prose to read and understand plain english.

If only from the standpoint of institutional integrity, the decision is horrible.

Brooklyn · Jun 11, 2015

press1280 said:
A few things here. The carry cases may not be ripe yet. We need a circuit split. Moore will always be explained away as a total ban, and the restrictive states will always say that they issue a few carry permits so it's not the same.

And there's good reasons for so few 2A cases at SCOTUS over the country's history. There were no Federal gun laws until the 1930's (where we got US v. Miller), and the 2A wasn't enforceable against the states until after McDonald. Most of the gun laws are state creations so 5 years isn't exactly a long period of time.
But I am concerned that the lower courts are trying to essentially Slaughterhouse the 2A. Jackson should have been one that the Heller 5 could have agreed upon.

My point exactly.. but I think we really need quality briefs from our opposition..

And even if that never happens..I see many ways to force the issue from pro 2a juristitictions...

Brooklyn · Jun 11, 2015

danb said:
How would this work exactly? Nope, sorry the law is too lax?

Better: Get as many 2A friendly states as possible, then getting them to file an amicus brief. If a supermajority of states (33) signed on to a 2A-friendly amicus brief, it'd be hard for the court to ignore.

Jackson I think we only got a bare majority of 25 states to sign on.

A challenge to a permissive shall issue permit system arguing that no permit is needed..low courts strike. State appeals to SCotus.. SCOTUS reverses holding that only a permissive shall issue can pass IS. Or SS and president is set.. we loose but we win. And no state would ever be required to issue permits.. the could still go constitutional carry.

The court gets to look moderate. ..we get what we need and the constitutional carry movement can still proceed unmolested.

Maestro Pistolero · Jun 11, 2015

The only backhandedly positive possibility here is that were four justices who would have taken Jackson, but they knew they didn't have five to strike it. Better to leave the question unanswered indefinitely (or until there is a change in the makeup of the court) than to bury the right alive forever.

danb · Jun 11, 2015

Maestro Pistolero said:
The only backhandedly positive possibility here is that were four justices who would have taken Jackson, but they knew they didn't have five to strike it. Better to leave the question unanswered indefinitely (or until there is a change in the makeup of the court) than to bury the right alive forever.

It's a disappointment, for sure, but we only got two justices dissenting from denial. That suggests more to the story.

cad68m_m · Jun 11, 2015

BeoBill said:
All we would have to buy are Mike and Mike, IMO. The rest of the cattle will follow. It's what they do best.

How much would Mike & Mike cost? I agree the rest would follow

Maestro Pistolero · Jun 11, 2015

danb said:
It's a disappointment, for sure, but we only got two justices dissenting from denial. That suggests more to the story.

Oh there's definitely a lot more to the story.

But I wouldn't read anything into the number of dissenters. Roberts and others may not want to tip their hands as to how they might rule on a similar case in the future. It's one thing to count to two (Scalia and Thomas). The dissenters have necessarily shown their hand on this matter.

If my theory is correct, then 4 justices who might have voted for certiorari, didn't, because they knew didn't have all 5 needed to strike Jackson. I can certainly understand them not wanting to explain a four-way dissent if they strategically avoided voting for certiorari.

Would love to hear Esqappelate chime in on this theory.

kcbrown · Jun 11, 2015

Brooklyn said:
A challenge to a permissive shall issue permit system arguing that no permit is needed..low courts strike.

In what kind of fantasy world does the lower court strike a shall issue permit system in the same legal environment where most courts have refused to strike may issue permit systems?

State appeals to SCotus.. SCOTUS reverses holding that only a permissive shall issue can pass IS. Or SS and president is set.. we loose but we win. And no state would ever be required to issue permits.. the could still go constitutional carry.

The court gets to look moderate. ..we get what we need and the constitutional carry movement can still proceed unmolested.

Well, seeing how your "step 1" looks unachievable, the above clearly won't happen, seeing how it's predicated upon the state appealing a loss.

But let's presume for the moment that we're talking about the fairy tale world where "step 1" is actually achieved:

SCOTUS reverses holding that only a permissive shall issue can pass IS. Or SS and president is set.

SCOTUS is more likely to hold that the law in question passes the method of scrutiny and that's that. No mention of any kind of permit system that differs from what's in front of it.

But let's suppose that SCOTUS does say that only a permissive shall issue system passes scrutiny. Lower courts will read the decision and limit it to its facts. Those facts involved a permissive shall issue system, which is not what's in front of the lower courts, and therefore the lower courts will ignore the SCOTUS decision just as they have been doing with Heller.

"Precedent" is worthless unless SCOTUS actually repeatedly enforces it. If you haven't figured that out by now based on all the existing malfeasance in the lower courts, it's time you did.

What reason do we have to believe that SCOTUS will grant cert to the inevitable followup cases in which the lower courts side with the states against the right? Absolutely, positively none whatsoever, that's what. That is the lesson of Jackson.

redeemed.man · Jun 12, 2015

kcbrown said:
In what kind of fantasy world does the lower court strike a shall issue permit system in the same legal environment where most courts have refused to strike may issue permit systems?

Well, seeing how your "step 1" looks unachievable, the above clearly won't happen, seeing how it's predicated upon the state appealing a loss.

But let's presume for the moment that we're talking about the fairy tale world where "step 1" is actually achieved:

SCOTUS is more likely to hold that the law in question passes the method of scrutiny and that's that. No mention of any kind of permit system that differs from what's in front of it.

But let's suppose that SCOTUS does say that only a permissive shall issue system passes scrutiny. Lower courts will read the decision and limit it to its facts. Those facts involved a permissive shall issue system, which is not what's in front of the lower courts, and therefore the lower courts will ignore the SCOTUS decision just as they have been doing with Heller.

"Precedent" is worthless unless SCOTUS actually repeatedly enforces it. If you haven't figured that out by now based on all the existing malfeasance in the lower courts, it's time you did.

What reason do we have to believe that SCOTUS will grant cert to the inevitable followup cases in which the lower courts side with the states against the right? Absolutely, positively none whatsoever, that's what. That is the lesson of Jackson.

Sad but true. If I were a SCOTUS Justice I would be deeply offended that the lower courts were not respecting my rulings. The current group not so much. They make a ruling and then don't care if the rest of the judicial system abides.

MDFF2008 · Jun 12, 2015

I'm not flipping out over the court not taking a carry case yet, but if the court is unwilling to address someone splitting hairs over heller, we have a problem.

Brooklyn · Jun 12, 2015

kcbrown said:
In what kind of fantasy world does the lower court strike a shall issue permit system in the same legal environment where most courts have refused to strike may issue permit systems?

Well, seeing how your "step 1" looks unachievable, the above clearly won't happen, seeing how it's predicated upon the state appealing a loss.

But let's presume for the moment that we're talking about the fairy tale world where "step 1" is actually achieved:

SCOTUS is more likely to hold that the law in question passes the method of scrutiny and that's that. No mention of any kind of permit system that differs from what's in front of it.

But let's suppose that SCOTUS does say that only a permissive shall issue system passes scrutiny. Lower courts will read the decision and limit it to its facts. Those facts involved a permissive shall issue system, which is not what's in front of the lower courts, and therefore the lower courts will ignore the SCOTUS decision just as they have been doing with Heller.

"Precedent" is worthless unless SCOTUS actually repeatedly enforces it. If you haven't figured that out by now based on all the existing malfeasance in the lower courts, it's time you did.

What reason do we have to believe that SCOTUS will grant cert to the inevitable followup cases in which the lower courts side with the states against the right? Absolutely, positively none whatsoever, that's what. That is the lesson of Jackson.

I don't have time for a history lesson. The court works long term.

The job of the court is to set president.. the job of the lower courts is to enforce.. what you are seeing is a game of chess..

The answer in Jackson was not to rehear Heller. but summary reversal or remand.. I predict that the court will not rehear any of what it has held..and right now they are not yet ready for summary reversal...

The courts time is to linked for rehearing the same case.. and summary reversal is not yet consistent with how Roberts wants his Court to be viewed.. he is a very political chief..

Make of this what you may..I am not surprised by the lack of cert.

Brooklyn · Jun 12, 2015

In what kind of fantasy world does the lower court strike a shall issue permit system in the same legal environment where most courts have refused to strike may issue permit systems?

Get out of CA. Go to the rest of the country where constitutional permitless carry is passing.. for real..

CA is not the center of the universe.. it is the 9th There are 8 others..

Really.. some of them will eventually force the issue by ignoring precedent just like the left..

Meanwhile for a $ I would push CA into the sea. Or more likely wait for them to do it themselves..

rlc2 · Jun 12, 2015

great article, here is the direct source...

]

Boxcab said:
An interesting read on the 2A and the SC,

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-gun-rights-withering-away-094518101--politics.html

An invaluable resource:
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/

"Because of that argument, the denial of review in this case might well mean more than all of the other denials of appeals by the Justices in gun-rights cases in recent years. There is apparently a deep-seated resistance, among members of the court, to their reopening of the Second Amendment controversy. It might be speculated that there is a sense within the court that it would be very hard to assemble a majority behind a new clarification of this personal right, so the task should be left, case by case, to lower courts. And maybe they are awaiting a “perfect” test case, although it is hard to imagine what such a case might be. Whatever the reason for remaining on the sidelines, the court has left the Second Amendment in what almost certainly is a diminished state – at least for the time being" -Denniston

Here are a couple more takes on Jackson, with comments by counsel, and various con law prof's and writers, collected at Calgunlaws.com:

http://www.calgunlaws.com/u-s-supreme-court-gun-ruling-raises-questions/

“I think they’re looking for a case where they can rule on what the standard of review is, so they don’t have to take piecemeal every single gun regulation that comes out,” said Anthony Caso, a law professor at Chapman University who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in the circuit challenge to the law. “I don’t think the court’s ruling on the merits of the issue.”

http://www.calgunlaws.com/ca-supreme-court-refuses-to-take-up-challenge-to-san-francisco-gun-law/

Chuck Michel
Senior Partner, Michel & Associates

“The Court’s action leaves San Francisco residents at a disadvantage when the need arises to defend themselves in their own homes. The highly unusual dissenting opinion however, shows the Court recognizes that the standard of review is being misapplied by the lower courts, and suggests that a future case presenting a split among the lower courts would provide an attractive vehicle to clarify the appropriate level of scrutiny for courts to use in evaluating Second Amendment challenges. The Peruta case, to be re-argued in San Francisco next week, may present just such a vehicle for the Supreme Court to set Second Amendment jurisprudence straight.”

http://www.calgunlaws.com/supreme-c...provides-hope-for-second-amendment-advocates/

The dissent sends a strong message to lower courts that the analytical framework for reviewing Second Amendment challenges cannot be overly deferential to governmental interests. It also suggests that the Court may be waiting for a better vehicle to provide further clarification of the proper scope and application of the Second Amendment.

rlc2 · Jun 12, 2015

Here are two articles from WAPO

From Robert Barnes, the wapo scotus news reporter, with a couple links inside article, including past speculation on Kennedy, in re: Abramski decision:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...752596-0de3-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html

"But some saw the decision as helping to explain the court’s steadfast refusal since then to take cases asking the justices to flesh out that right: Because neither conservatives nor liberals can be quite sure where Kennedy would come down on the issue."

From Jonathan Adler at Volokh Conspiracy, the independent blog WAPO subcontracts with, for more legal insight:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-amendment-case-over-dissent-of-two-justices/

"Given this pattern, it’s unsurprising that lower courts have done little with Heller or McDonald. If there is to be meaningful review of Second Amendment claims in lower courts, they need a signal from the Supreme Court that Heller and McDonald were for real, and were not merely symbolic nods to the Second Amendment. Until then, the Second Amendment (like parts of the Fifth) will remain one of the poor relations within the Bill of Rights."

Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Crank in the Third Row

MSI EM

Active Member

I stand with John Locke.

I stand with John Locke.

Active Member

dont be a dumbass

Member MSI, SAF, NRA

Active Member

Super Genius

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

I stand with John Locke.

Active Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics