Jackson v. San Fran - Updated

[Al Norris]

In the appeals, the Appellants/Plaintiffs have just filed their Reply brief.

Briefing is complete and we should have a date for orals, soon.

I don't know who actually wrote that brief, but it was a damn fine piece of writing. It covered every aspect of the case in meticulous detail. It was a pleasure to read the many ways a gentleman can call his opponent, a jackass... without ever having to use a vulgar phrase!

[62coltnavy]

Facing threatened litigation, the City (I think through the Police Chief )has "clarified" that the ban is to be strictly construed to ban only the specific Black Talon ammunition identified and exact copies of that ammo. so it is a moot issue.
As to the Jackson appeal, the ninth is the busiest circuit in the country. I would not expect orals any time before fall at the VERY earliest. It could easily be a year, even more.

[dakota.potts]

Maybe I'm immature, but I got a chuckle out of the fact that one of their precedent cases is the United States vs. The Playboy Entertainment Group. It's a 1st amendment case so it makes some sense but still made me curious enough to look it up.

Seriously, though, how can they look at the Heller decisions, and cite Heller, while ruling exactly the opposite?

[sholling]

If I can believe what I just read, over at CalGuns.net (and I have no reason not to believe it), SanFran just passed a ban on possession of hollow-point ammo. Along with a reporting requirement for the purchase of 500 rounds (or more) of ammo.

Al I could be wrong but I thought they just banned long out of production Black Talons thinking that all JHPs were somehow Black Talons. Either way state preemption applies.

[Al Norris]

I haven't read the text of the ordinance, so I'm only going on what I've heard or read....

The Police Chief has interpreted the ordinance to mean what has been reported. Such an interpretation carries no legal weight. A succeeding Chief could very well have a different interpretation.

[maestro pistolero]

Al I could be wrong but I thought they just banned long out of production Black Talons thinking that all JHPs were somehow Black Talons.

The language included identical or similar JHPs as I recall.

[Sean Michel n Assoc]

Oral arguments have been set in this case for October 7, 2013 @ 9:00 in San Francisco.

For those that aren't familiar, this case seeks to confirm protections for hollow-point ammunition (and protections for ammunition generally), as well as the right to have a firearm unlocked in one's home regardless of whether it is being "carried." The case also addresses the still unresolved standard of review issue, and presents the court with an opportunity to address the issue in a case that involves core conduct, law-abiding citizens, protected arms, and an "in the home" setting. For those with a grasp of the standard of review issue, or for those who would like to read up on it, the opening and reply briefs may be of interest.

All filings in the case to date, including several important amicus briefs, can be viewed here:http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...cksonvsanfran/

[Patriot86]

I will have an eye on this case, if it ends up going to the SCOTUS this could help with some pesky new "safe storage" laws that were just passed in the Chicago area.

[4V50 Gary]

San Francisco will spend a million dollars to defend itself. What a waste of taxpayer money. Fix the potholes first! Pay off some bonds first! PC has a very heavy price and the poor taxpayer has to bear the burden.

[Patriot86]

I agree with you Gary but this is what cities do big and small.

The small village where I grew up spent 20+ years and millions of dollars fighting the widening of a major road that goes through the center of town from 1 lane in each direction to 2. The road is finally getting widened but it took that long legal fight over something as stupid as a road. The payoff for that is lowering the speed limit to 30MPH(from 35) so the locals can write more speeding tickets.

NYC is wasting tax dollars fighting over big gulps...the list goes on

[rwilson452]

One must always remember they are spending other peoples money. That is what they do and enjoy doing it.

[natman]

San Francisco will spend a million dollars to defend itself. What a waste of taxpayer money. Fix the potholes first! Pay off some bonds first! PC has a very heavy price and the poor taxpayer has to bear the burden.

They don't care. SF put a proposition (Prop H) on the ballot in 2005 to ban handguns. They KNEW it wouldn't stand up because it conflicted with state preemption laws. A nearly identical proposition had been previously overturned on those grounds. After it passed, the NRA took it to court, just like everyone knew they would. The NRA won on state premption grounds, just like everyone knew they would. Then SF appealed it. And lost, just like everyone knew they would.

San Francisco squandered nearly a million dollars, including $380,000 to the NRA for legal costs, on a proposition everyone knew would be overturned.

But at least they "made a statement".

[Al Norris]

Today, orals (at the 9th Circuit) were heard in this case. You may listen here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/vi..._id=0000011334

[Jim March]

Wait...what the heck happened to Chuck? I've heard him speak lots of times but not that recently...ye Gods . Did he survive throat cancer or something?

[maestro pistolero]

NOT impressed with NRA attorney. Heller directly controverts this ordinance with its invalidation of the trigger lock requirement WITHOUT a standard of review. NRA has thus far (1/3 through) missed several opportunities to point that out. The Heller court literally ridiculed the idea that a locked gun could be useful at all for self-defense in the middle of the night.

Also, failing to point out in the discussion of what constitutes an unacceptable delay that life or death in a gunfight usually turns on MILLISECONDS, not SECONDS, was a mistake in my opinion. The justices ask what was an acceptable delay, and the answer should have been flatly ZERO seconds followed by an explanation as to why. The first person to fire his weapon, if only a tenth of a second earlier, is exponentially more likely to survive the fight. This is a critical point, based on nothing more than simple physics, even in a discussion involving substantial burden. There is no greater burden than the loss of ones life or limb.

[maestro pistolero]

I just finished. NRA finally got to Heller's admonition that the right is to a gun for immediate self defense. I would have liked to see a point driven home a bit more: "I would suggest to the the court that the word immediate means nothing if not without any delay". Also there was NO reference to Heller's invalidation of the trigger lock requirement.

We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, ren- dering it inoperable.

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful fire- arm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

Rarely is the guidance from SCOTUS more on point than is Heller's guidance vis a vi Jackson. I simply cannot believe this point was not made at orals. The NRA attorney sounds tired, and misses this central relevant point entirely, IMO.

[Al Norris]

Yet the point was made, many times in the pleadings at District and within the appeals filings. I don't know how many more times it needs to be said.

[maestro pistolero]

Understood. But to leave it unsaid at oral argument in the context of serious consideration being given by the court to the subject of whether requiring trigger locks in the home is constitutional is remiss, at best. He could have ended that particular inquiry with a direct quote or two from the holding. There are plenty of unresolved questions in Heller's wake, but this is not one of them.

[KyJim]

I think most appellate judges and appellate lawyers will tell you that it's possible to lose a case on oral argument but it's rare to win a case on oral argument. The vast majority of cases are decided on the briefs.

[62coltnavy]

Absolutely correct. In most cases, oral argument is not scheduled until at least two of the three assigned justices have agreed on a tentative decision, and it is a rare case where they change their minds based on something argued at orals. Where you lose at orals is where you trip over your own feet and make an unfortunate admission that undercuts your case. Such was the case in Nordyke v, King, where the Ninth Circuit was poised to render an important decision that necessarily would have defined the standard of review, but an admission by counsel for the County at oral argument that it would indeed allow gun shows on county property despite the ban mooted the entire case. Five years and hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted, and a slew of other cases delayed pending that decision. For example, the challenge to the California Safe Roster (Pena v. Cid) was stayed pending Nordyke, as were the three cases attacking the "may issue" requirement for CCW.

Not that this matters much--the carry cases were argued last December, and my guess is we will not see any decisions on these cases until the Supreme Court decides the cert petition in Woollard. I suspect that a decision by the Ninth Circuit on the may issue shall issue conundrum would definitely trigger review in Woollard--which is why it won't happen. We'll know soon enough--Woollard is set for conference next week.
[There is also the possibility that if the Woollard petition is granted, the Ninth will stay the cases it has pending, thus avoiding an issue it seems to want to avoid, rather than add its voice to the determination of the issue.]

[Al Norris]

Woollard is set for conference this Friday, Oct. 11th. We will know on Monday the 14th how things went - The decisions at conference are usually handed out in orders the following Monday.