Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco

[pilotguy]

Am I correct in understanding this only applies to the 9 CA since CERT was denied ?

Unfortunately it is a green light to other circuits for denial and I am sure it will be used or referenced if other challenges arise.

I believe the 2A is no more as far as the SC is concerned.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Kharn]

So what now?
This was an appeal on the denial of the preliminary injunction, so the case goes back to the district court for summary judgement or trial and in 3-4 years, we'll be back at SCOTUS?

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

All I can say is they better be saving their powder for the mother of all slap-downs, and that better be reason for this denial. That slap-down (should it occur) better foreclose all the fact patterns of every outrageous 2A cert denial of the past 5 years, starting perhaps with Woollard and certainly including Kachalsksy.

If not, I cannot imagine what besides the sharpening of pitchforks would remain in the constitutional playbook.

 

[kcbrown]

What I find amusing are all the claims that the denial of cert here is "inexplicable".

No, it is inexplicable only if you make the wrong assumptions about the Court.

If you make the right observations about the Court, and apply logic properly, then the denial of cert is not only explicable, it is expected.

The only thing unexpected about this denial of cert is the dissent, and how it says in so many words precisely what I have claimed: that the Court is a political animal, and an arbitrary and capricious one at that. It answers to nobody. People who answer to nobody do what they want, when they want, and how they want, effectively by definition. Such is the case here.

All of this is observable and obvious, but you have to actually be watching, and you cannot bring any presumptions to the table. Logic demands the conclusion that the Court does whatever it wishes, precisely because it operates under no external constraints. The denial of cert here is wholly predictable on the basis of logic applied to past events, namely the fact that the Court has denied cert to every single 2A case that has come before it.

Honestly, how much more obvious do you want it to be?

 

[Brooklyn]

Surprise, anger and hurt feelings aside...I'm wondering why only Justices Thomas & Scalia signed on to the dissent. In particular, the absence of Justice Alito is troubling. Kennedy and Roberts can be explained IMHO.

Trying to read the tea leaves, I know...

Dissent from cert is as i understand it rare.. That 2 signed on is significant. Of course if too many disent.... They may as well grant....

The point is made...

I doubt our opposition is taking much succour from this...

 

[Brooklyn]

Not quite. If they wanted to say that they would have taken the case and said so as they supported san francisco,

Now, what they are saying is that a ruling reaffirming Heller is a tossup, the judges are split and nobody knows what Kennedy will do.

So yes, elections have consequences. The next round of supreme court appointments could be make or break.

If that were so there would be no dissent.... Least of all without a defense of the denial..

What they want is for the lower courts to get a clue without a heavy hand....well Roberts does at least...

Thus silence... But a disent that restates ...

 

[Brooklyn]

All I can say is they better be saving their powder for the mother of all slap-downs, and that better be reason for this denial. That slap-down (should it occur) better foreclose all the fact patterns of every outrageous 2A cert denial of the past 5 years, starting perhaps with Woollard and certainly including Kachalsksy.

If not, I cannot imagine what besides the sharpening of pitchforks would remain in the constitutional playbook.

The purpose of the dicta was to prevent a free for all from the right...

Want the court to take a case... Let some wildcat judge strike the entire NFA...

So far only the right is heeding the high court....

The game is not even getting started...

 

[Brooklyn]

Unfortunately it is a green light to other circuits for denial and I am sure it will be used or referenced if other challenges arise.

I believe the 2A is no more as far as the SC is concerned.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Denial of cert is not afirmation. The court is not sure the issue is ripe... The disent tell us that they are divided on the question of ripeness even before the merits...

Not surprising...

 

[kcbrown]

Denial of cert is not afirmation. The court is not sure the issue is ripe... The disent tell us that they are divided on the question of ripeness even before the merits...

Not surprising...

Not quite.

The dissent tells us that the Court is divided on whether or not it wants to grant cert. Ripeness has nothing to do with it.

The reason ripeness has nothing to do with it is precisely because the Court has granted cert to other cases that had the same level of "ripeness" as this one. Hence, it's not a question of whether or not there is some uncertainty as to whether or not this case is "sufficiently ripe". That qualification had already been met in other cases of equal "ripeness".

Rather, that this case isn't as "ripe" as a case for which there is a circuit split is an excuse that is being used by others to deny cert.

To put it bluntly, the Court takes whatever cases it wants, under whatever circumstances it wishes. It applies no consistent standard to the question of what cases to take, precisely because it doesn't have to. The lack of uniformity with respect to things like ripeness of the cases the Court grants cert to is proof of that.

When the Court is capable of granting cert under whatever circumstances it wishes, any cert denial, but most especially to a case involving flat-out defiance of its precedent, occurs because the members of the Court either aren't sufficiently interested in the subject being addressed by the case or, alternatively, because the members can't count to five before taking it. The latter is most especially apropos for cases of import such as this.

No, the only logical conclusion here is that there is no longer sufficient support for the right at SCOTUS for it to grant cert to any 2A case. For if the Court will not even back its own existing precedent, there is no way it's going to go to the trouble of creating new precedent. As a 2A litmus test, this case was about as "safe" as it can ever get, and SCOTUS just failed that test. No, we will get no more attention from the Court. The judiciary has abandoned us. We are now on our own, and an Article V Convention is the only remaining peaceful means of achieving national protection of the right to arms.

 

[clandestine]

No matter how hard KCBROWNS words are to swallow, he is right and has been.

The Supreme Court is a joke.

 

[danb]

So what now?
This was an appeal on the denial of the preliminary injunction, so the case goes back to the district court for summary judgement or trial and in 3-4 years, we'll be back at SCOTUS?

SCT says: Come back in 3 years with a final judgement and case law is more ripe?

Alito did not dissent (he did just a week earlier in Maricopa, with Thomas and Scalia), so we really only had two votes for cert. I am thinking the case for cert here was not as strong as we were all thinking. Perhaps the fact that this was a PI had something to do with that.

 

[Boxcab]

{Please forgive my simplifications...}

The US VS Miller was decided in 1939. It took 69 years before (2008) another significant 2A case (Heller) came before the court that would have major ramifications of accepted 2A law. That was followed in 2010 by McDonald that applied said changes to all the States.

So it took 239 years (BOR ratified in 1771) to get the 2A applied to the States. We are now at roughly 5 years since that decision. Not a lot of time in the overall scheme of things.

One of the Justices (Scalia) has stated they want another 2A case. It appears they are looking for a specific case. I will leave it to those with a better understanding of the SC to speculate on what the "perfect" case needs to be.

The tea leaves appear to indicate:
- It must be one that 5 of the Justices can agree on
- It should be an incremental step, not a broad change to existing law
- It should...







-

 

[Dogabutila]

Wrenn would be great. We got Keep via D.C. first. Same template for Bear?

 

[gamer_jim]

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.

 

[MDFF2008]

I understand the time line for major cases can be somewhat long, but there were several cases related to Brown vs Board of Ed. that were "follow up" cases.

 

[redeemed.man]

This. We're better off without any cases making it to the courts in my opinion. You go to court to get a decision, not justice.

Want a MD CCW? Start selling 10 round magazines and carry your wares with you at all times in your firearm that you are now permitted to carry per the restrictions that will be your permit.

Yep, meets the MSP recipe.

 

[bmkoenig]

No matter how hard KCBROWNS words are to swallow, he is right and has been.

The Supreme Court is a joke.

+1

 

[press1280]

I understand the time line for major cases can be somewhat long, but there were several cases related to Brown vs Board of Ed. that were "follow up" cases.

IIRC Brown was a 9-0 opinion. Enforcing something with a unanimous court is easy. Doing it with a bare and wobbly majority is something else.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

IIRC Brown was a 9-0 opinion. Enforcing something with a unanimous court is easy. Doing it with a bare and wobbly majority is something else.

The court and our political system as a whole was a little less perverted back then.

 

[Brooklyn]

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..