[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bang / Guns Title: SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Major Gun Rights Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Major Gun Rights Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent
Petition denied in Jackson v. San Francisco. 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. If the facts of the San Francisco case sound familiar it is because they correspond so closely to the facts at issue in the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that 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." In other words, the San Francisco gun control law would appear to be plainly unconstitutional under Heller. Yet the Court still refused to hear the case. As is customary, the justices gave no explanation for their denial of the appeal. Two justices, however, did speak out in opposition to the Court's refusal to get involved. Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, accused his colleagues of undermining Heller and failing to give the Second Amendment its constitutional due. Here's a portion of Thomas' dissent: 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. The case is Jackson v. San Francisco. Justice Thomas' dissent from denial of certiorari is available here. Damon Root is a senior editor of Reason magazine Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 41. The link for the article is: http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/08/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-major-gun It is from June 8, 2015, the same date as the SCOTUS denial of cert.
SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Major Gun Rights Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent Thomas and Scalia, JJ., issued a dissent from the denial of cert. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/060815zor_8m58.pdf
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. I agree with Thomas and Scalia that the Court should have taken the case. Not taking the case cannot be legally be held as any ruling on the merits. It legally means only they chose not to hear the case. The effect is to let Jackson stand in the 9th Circuit.
If the facts of the San Francisco case sound familiar it is because they correspond so closely to the facts at issue in the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that 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." There is a great divide distinguishing Jackson from Heller. Heller states:
Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. The D.C. law required a trigger lock for any firearm in the home. The San Francisco law requires the trigger lock only when not carried on the person. The D.C. ban on home possession was total. SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional. District of Columbia banned handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; and provided separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun. The San Franciso requirement that handguns handguns be stored in a locked container at home or disabled with a trigger lock when not carried on the person, was found by the 9th Circuit to not be a substantial burden on the Second Amendment right itself because it did not prevent an individual from possessing a firearm in the home. I agree with the point argued that the trigger lock guard or lockbox should not be permitted to stand. That is not the point that was decided in Heller. If a person awakens and hears a burglar in his house, I don't think he wants to turn on a light to open a lockbox, nor does he want to fumble around with a locked weapon in the dark. If he lives alone, why does he need to lock it up to go to sleep? Ditto if no kids. The legal question is not whether the law is stupid, but whether the State has the power to issue and enforce it. SCOTUS chose not to take up this issue at this time. There is no SCOTUS opinion. This is the summary of the 9th Circuit opinion in Jackson that SCOTUS allowed to stand. If another circuit decides differently, SCOTUS could decide to take it up at a future date. https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2014/03/25/12-17803.pdf Jackson v. San Francisco, 9th Cir 12-17803 (25 Mar 2014)
SUMMARY* - - - - - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/07-290.htmll
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
#17. To: nolu chan (#13) So what does the California state constitution say about their citizens' right to keep and bear arms? Oh, it says nothing. The California state constitution does not protect this right.
#21. To: misterwhite (#17) So what does the California state constitution say about their citizens' right to keep and bear arms? If the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not delegated to the Cali government any of their authority to mess with their gun rights.
#24. To: nolu chan (#21) "If the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not delegated to the Cali government any of their authority to mess with their gun rights." No. Since the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not protected themselves from the Cali government authority to mess with their gun rights.
#25. To: misterwhite (#24) No. No. Such interpretation is directly contrary to the Cali constitution since 1849. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In Cali's constitution of 1849, Article 1, Section 21 provided:
SEC. 21. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.
#27. To: nolu chan (#25) "inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty" I agree. But where does it say the people have the right to use a gun to accomplish that? Or did you simply read that into it? In the penumbra of an emanation. What about the right to own property? If I can't afford property, can I read into it that the state has to give me some? After all, I do have the right to own it.
#30. To: misterwhite (#27)
[California Constitution] SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
I agree. But where does it say the people have the right to use a gun to accomplish that? Or did you simply read that into it? In the penumbra of an emanation. In Amendment 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the people identified their pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, and explicitly withheld any grant of power to the Federal government to infringe upon that right. The right to keep and bear arms was brought with them into the Union established by the U.S. Constitution. The government of California has only such powers as the people of California have delegated to it. Unless you can come up with some delegation of power to the state government, it does not have it. It is a government of delegated powers, not almighty government powers. All power belongs to the people in their sovereign capacity (as distinct from the capacity as citizens of the state or country). What the people do not delegate to the Federal or State government are the Amendment 10 powers reserved to the people.
What about the right to own property? If I can't afford property, can I read into it that the state has to give me some? After all, I do have the right to own it. Of course you can read into the state constitution that the state has to give you some property. You can read it to say that you have the right to own such property that you cannot afford to pay for. You may smoke medicinal pot and imagine other pleasant things as well. You can even go to court and argue you had a vision. The court will give you its opinion whether your vision has legal merit.
#32. To: nolu chan (#30) "In Amendment 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the people identified their pre-existing right to keep and bear arms" Then why even mention the California constitution if the people of California look to the second amendment for their protection? "The government of California has only such powers as the people of California have delegated to it. Unless you can come up with some delegation of power to the state government, it does not have it." The government of California, by definition, has police powers -- "the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants." So, if California decides to ban handguns for the safety of their citizens, they are allowed. Unless the state constitution protects the right to keep and bear handguns. Which it does not. "The court will give you its opinion whether your vision has legal merit." Yes they will. And we have to honor their interpretation, right?
#35. To: misterwhite (#32) Then why even mention the California constitution if the people of California look to the second amendment for their protection? Because of its explicit provision indicating your attempted strained interpretation of Cali law is impossible.
#41. To: nolu chan (#35) "Because of its explicit provision ..." The one about "defending life and liberty"? You call that an explicit provision? You think that provision means any person in California has the explicit right to use any weapon they want to defend their life and liberty? You sure do read a lot into 4 words. Sorry. That phrase says nothing of the sort. You have the God-given right to self-defense. That doesn't mean you have the right to use a gun to do so.
Replies to Comment # 41. There are no replies to Comment # 41.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 41. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|