SCOTUS Refuses Jackson v. San Francisco. Undermining Heller

[RoyGBiv]

SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Major Gun Rights Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt Second Amendment supporters a major defeat today by refusing to hear an appeal filed by San Francisco gun owners seeking to overturn that city's requirement 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." Today’s action by the Court leaves that gun control ordinance on the books.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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

Chas.

[Beiruty]

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

[jason812]

So in San Fransisco where anything that should stay in the bedroom is celebrated, the citizens there have their bedrooms regulated. I don't see how they can enforce this unless the popo's do random searches of people with registered firearms.

Our freedom is under constant attack.

[EEllis]

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

Chas.

As soon as anti's stop using the phrase "assault weapon"

[K.Mooneyham]

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

This goes to my line of thinking, too, that they just didn't want to mess with it, for whatever reason.

[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?

[b322da]

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

[RoyGBiv]

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.

[b322da]

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

With respect, yesterday's "decision" was not a decision with respect to any issue before the Court in Heller.

Jim

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[RoyGBiv]

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

With respect, yesterday's "decision" was not a decision with respect to any issue before the Court in Heller.

Jim

Seems directly on point to me... and Justice Thomas.
In what specific way do you think it's not... ?

And here's the ordinance, FYI.... http://police.sanfranciscocode.org/45/4512/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[b322da]

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

With respect, yesterday's "decision" was not a decision with respect to any issue before the Court in Heller.

Jim

Seems directly on point to me... and Justice Thomas.
In what specific way do you think it's not... ?

And here's the ordinance, FYI.... http://police.sanfranciscocode.org/45/4512/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was not a decision as to any issue in Heller because it was simply a denial of a writ of certiorari, which means they chose, as was the Court's right, to not decide the case, notwithstanding the comments of the eminent Justice Thomas, who with his infinite wisdom and judicial knowledge, would have heard the case, and reversed the circuit court. It was "bad." Just as Chas. noted in his earlier post, where I agreed with him. Recently he went further to note that a denial of the writ maintains the decision of the circuit court, which is why I also agreed with him earlier when he said that it was bad. With that I also agree. In short, it was a bad result, from this forum's general viewpoint, but it still did not affect Heller either explicitly or implicitly. While it was a "bad decision," all it decided was to make no decision.

And I am very familiar with the ordinance.

I will be the first to agree with anyone who might say that this is just lawyer-gobbledegook. It is -- and that is how many lawyers make a living. But without at least a limited understanding of lawyer-gobbledegook one simply cannot understand the true impact of words coming out of SCOTUS.

Did this writ denial set the stage for eventually impacting its opinion in Heller? Possibly. But possibly not. They will apparently at least let this one simmer a bit and take a look at what comes out of other circuits. I would not be surprised to see SCOTUS revisit this case someday. But maybe not. Only time will tell.

Jim

[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?

[b322da]

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