SCOTUS Refuses Jackson v. San Francisco. Undermining Heller

[jimlongley]

This is a very bad decision folks! Perhaps now those who insist on referring to unlicensed open-carry as "constitutional-carry" will stop.

Chas.

While I agree that this is bad news, to me it looks like better news than if they had taken the case and then rendered a decision against the plaintiff. This does not mean that next week they might not take up a similar case with the same ramifications. Denying a writ of certiorari while being effectively similar is not the same as actually rendering a decision, although Justice Thomas' dissent reads as though other, unnamed, justices are treating it that way.

But I would like to ask what this has to do with whether unlicensed open carry is a constitutionally protected right?

Denying cert means the 9th Cir. decision stands. That will encourage other cities to pass similar regulations/restrictions knowing SCOTUS has already refused to hear and reverse the decision. Denial of cert in a case of first impression is very telling!

Chas.

Yes, denying cert means that the current 9th Cir decision stands, but that does not mean that they will not grant cert on the next similar one that comes along. How many times were Heller type cases denied before Heller happened? Several times the cert was denied because the case was basically too weak, there was a question of standing, or the challenge was overly broad. Since they are not required to provide a reason for denying cert, we may never know.

[The Annoyed Man]

All what it means, that the government can regulate firearms, or the supreme court does not want to re-consider existing regulation in question.

It means precisely what Chas. just said it means, and it is quite arguable whether this "undermines" Heller.

Jim

Are you suggesting this has no impact on Heller?

Heller says.... quoting from the Reason article in the OP.

[In the Heller decision] the Court voided not only D.C.'s ban on handguns, it also voided D.C.'s requirement that all firearms kept at home be "unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." According to Heller, the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

Now you have the Court refusing to hear a case where lower Courts have upheld a San Fransisco ordinance requiring....

that all handguns kept at home and not carried on the owner’s person be "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock."

How is yesterdays decision to deny certiorari in this case NOT exactly the opposite of Heller?

I think I'm going to take Thomas's word on it..

Less than a decade ago, we explained that an ordinance requiring firearms in the home to be kept inoperable, without an exception for self-defense, conflicted with the Second Amendment because it “ma[de] it impossible for citizens to use [their firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self- defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 630 (2008). Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it. Because Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document, I would have granted this petition.

While I agree with you Roy that there is cause for some pessimism, as a result of SCOTUS's refusal to grant cert., I'd like to revisit the part of the ordinance in question that you quoted above:

that all handguns kept at home and not carried on the owner’s person be "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock."

Mainly, what it seems to me that they are saying is, if it is not carried on your person, lock it up. So...... carry it on your person. If a visiting cop doesn't like that, tell him you are trying to comply with the 9th "most often overruled by SCOTUS" Circuit court's decision in Jackson v. San Francisco.

[baldeagle]

My question is, will the 9th Circuit now hear the case en banc? Or will the decision stand? What's the process? Do the plaintiff's have to file a petition for an en banc hearing?

I will stick my neck out and hazard a rather uncertain answer for you, Baldeagle. I say uncertain because I am not at all familiar with the rules of either the district court making the original decision nor those of the 9th Circuit, and these rules take much study and compliance. This action was one seeking a preliminary injunction, and the district court denied the plaintiff's' petition. It looks to me, in my ignorance of the rules at play here, that this will go back to the district court, and that it is not officially all over yet. On the other hand, given the action by SCOTUS, I would be surprised if the ultimate outcome in the district court, 9th Circuit and SCOTUS change.

Chas. perhaps could give you a real answer, given his much better chance of knowing what the NRA legal staff is thinking about now, the NRA being a party, but I would certainly understand if he felt it inappropriate to discuss the litigation strategy of the NRA, and I certainly have no intention of even asking him.

Jim

You bring up something very interesting. SCOTUS denied cert on a preliminary injunction. That's quite a bit different from denying cert on a court ruling on the case. I assume plaintiffs brought the PI to get immediate relief, but the case will proceed and they may well win on the merits. Perhaps that's why SCOTUS decided not to intervene at this point.

[RoyGBiv]

My question is, will the 9th Circuit now hear the case en banc? Or will the decision stand? What's the process? Do the plaintiff's have to file a petition for an en banc hearing?

I will stick my neck out and hazard a rather uncertain answer for you, Baldeagle. I say uncertain because I am not at all familiar with the rules of either the district court making the original decision nor those of the 9th Circuit, and these rules take much study and compliance. This action was one seeking a preliminary injunction, and the district court denied the plaintiff's' petition. It looks to me, in my ignorance of the rules at play here, that this will go back to the district court, and that it is not officially all over yet. On the other hand, given the action by SCOTUS, I would be surprised if the ultimate outcome in the district court, 9th Circuit and SCOTUS change.

Chas. perhaps could give you a real answer, given his much better chance of knowing what the NRA legal staff is thinking about now, the NRA being a party, but I would certainly understand if he felt it inappropriate to discuss the litigation strategy of the NRA, and I certainly have no intention of even asking him.

Jim

Jim,
Interesting observation... thanks for expounding.