|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 26, 2014, 12:56 PM | #1 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco
This is a decision out of the 9th Circuit, and it's somewhat troublesome. The opinion is here [pdf].
They made two findings. The first is that San Francisco's safe-storage requirement does not unduly burden the 2nd Amendment: Quote:
Quote:
The second issue is the ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition in San Francisco. The court found that a ban on sale passed muster because a resident could still own and use such ammunition under the law. They just can't buy it. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||||
March 26, 2014, 01:51 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Wow. So much fail in one ruling.
Quote:
Imagine banning a church in SF on the basis that another one exists immediately outside the city limits. Also, the application of intermediate scrutiny to the locked storage requirement in the home is fallacy. If Heller taught anything, it is that possession of guns in the home needs no application of any form of scrutiny to be decided, let alone anything short of strict scrutiny. To simply announce that there is no evidence that standard ammunition is less effective than hollow point ammunition fails to acknowledge a mountain of evidence to the contrary, evidence which drives every police agency in the country to use nothing but hollow point ammunition. The safety reason for this (over penetration of ball ammo in an urban area) also gets no consideration. |
|
March 26, 2014, 07:36 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Unbelievable mental gymnastics in holding that the gun lock requirement was different than the one in Heller.
|
March 26, 2014, 11:27 PM | #4 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This would be one en banc petition that has much merit. The error committed by this panel on the locked gun issue is beyond the pale.
|
March 27, 2014, 12:27 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
March 27, 2014, 10:46 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
I'll also add that I disagree with the reasoning and "facts" regarding the ban on hollow point ammo. However, it has a better chance of surviving an en banc rehearing if one is granted.
|
March 27, 2014, 11:58 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,592
|
So the sale of hollow points is illegal, but you can still buy/posses them...
So would you be allowed to purchase them online? The entire decision makes no sense to me. How can the court entirely ignore what the supreme court ruled?
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen. |
March 27, 2014, 12:58 PM | #8 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
When most of the Jurists are in rebellion (against the Heller/McDonald decisions), it's actually pretty easy. I've been reporting this for far too many years, now.
|
March 27, 2014, 04:30 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 3, 2013
Posts: 1,235
|
Revisiting Jackson and SFPC 613.10(g), that section does not make the sale illegal as I understand the criminal sense of the term. That section makes the sale grounds for revocation of a license. It does not make possession of hollow points illegal and Jackson specifically notes you can buy them outside of the city and county and bring them into it.
The possession and sale of certain very specific loads, not all hollow point loads, is provided for in SFPC 618, which was not in issue in Jackson. |
March 27, 2014, 08:27 PM | #10 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
I didn't realize that intermediate scrutiny meant "if the right isn't destroyed by the law, then the law is OK!" Given how scrupulously the courts have applied the "substantially related to an important government interest" test, it might be a better description of the practical application of intermediate scrutiny by many courts.
|
March 29, 2014, 10:50 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
Quote:
|
|
April 1, 2014, 10:08 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: Campbell Ca
Posts: 1,090
|
I agree with Tim Sr
They have no business being on the bench with ethics and or a mindset like that.
|
|
|