Thursday, June 11, 2015

Supreme Court Rejects NRA Challenge To San Francisco Gun Rules

NPR

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to block two San Francisco gun control measures that were fiercely opposed by the National Rifle Association. At least one veteran court observer says the high court's decision raises questions about how the justices interpret the Second Amendment.

First, the basics: A 2007 San Francisco ordinance requires residents to keep handguns under lock and key or to use trigger locks when they are not carrying their weapons. Another law, dating to 1994, bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, or hollow-point bullets.

Plaintiff Espanola Jackson and seven other petitioners, including the NRA, filed suit in 2012. They sought an injunction to keep the lockbox law from being enforced. But in March 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the City and County of San Francisco and left both measures intact.

In their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiffs repeated the argument they had made all along, claiming that "San Francisco stands alone in insisting that it may deny its residents immediate access to operable handguns in their own homes under the guise of regulating the manner in which they store them." They painted the picture of a law-abiding homeowner who "must fumble for the reading glasses and the lockbox while an intruder roams the premises."

The plaintiffs argued that they had precedent on their side, citing the high court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the justices ruled that under the Second Amendment a gun owner has a right to self-defense with a gun available within the home.

But only two justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, voted to review the case. Four of the nine must agree to hear a case.

19 comments:

  1. Here's my take on it (excerpt):

    Gun rights advocates must decide how much longer we are willing to play a rigged game, in which all the government's checks and balances have united in favor of government over the people, leaving the government both unchecked and unbalanced. If we grant the black-robed high priests of American "justice" the role of ultimate arbiters of what our rights are, we have surrendered any claim on our own power to tell the government--our servants--what they are.

    Liberty advocate Claire Wolfe once famously said that, "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." As bad as that sounds, we are deluding ourselves if we ignore the very real possibility that we are rapidly approaching the
    next stage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, what, each individual is to decide what's right for himself - and tell the government when they come a-calling?

      Delete
    2. So, what, each individual is to decide what's right for himself . . . ?

      Um . . . yeah. Who else, apart from the individual, is qualified to decide where that individual's line in the sand is?

      Delete
    3. Who else? Are you nuts? No laws of any kind? Is that your idea of freedom?

      You may be even more fanatical than I'd thought.

      Delete
    4. Who else?

      That was my question.

      Are you nuts?

      Nope.

      No laws of any kind? Is that your idea of freedom?

      I've never advocated that. Ever.

      You may be even more fanatical than I'd thought.

      I think the word that belongs after "more" is "principled."

      Delete
    5. Well then, what were you talking about, only gun laws, or only this specific San Francisco gun law?

      Delete
    6. Well then, what were you talking about, only gun laws, or only this specific San Francisco gun law?

      You've completely lost me. I'm arguing that each person most decide for herself/himself what laws to comply with, and what laws to defy. I don't know how you have gone from that to the notion that I believe there should be no laws.

      Remember, Mikeb, that you said that if you had lived in mid-19th century America, you would "probably" have defied laws like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. That would have been your decision, as an individual. No one else would be making that decision for you. No one else can make that decision for you. We, as individuals, must all decide--for ourselves--which laws we obey, and which we defy. Then we must live with the consequences of that defiance, or the consequences of that obedience.

      Delete
  2. There are whole bunch of reasons when and why the Supreme Court decides to hear a case or not, of which I don't take the time to follow. The real issue for me is how their previous ruling on this exact thing has no teeth. Cities can just ignore it, and the lower courts can freely not follow precedence set by the highest court with no repercussions. They already ruled on this exact thing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe, in this case some of the Supremes who agreed with Heller have changed their minds.

      Delete
    2. Even that shouldn't matter. The legal precedent is set. This should bother you. What if this were happening to a ruling you cared for?

      Delete
    3. If they changed their mind, they could take the case and rule the safe storage provision as constitutional, setting a new precedent.

      Delete
    4. But Heller is not a law that I like. So, if some of the Supremes responsible for that mistaken decision have wavered or actually changed their minds, new precedent may be in the offing.

      Delete
    5. But there is no new precedent right now. Lower courts are not following the current precedent on storage laws set by Heller. They are essentially forcing the Supreme Court to rule on every single city that that requires guns to not be available for home defense. Sure, it's a decision that you don't like, but what about when this happens to decisions that you do like?

      Delete
    6. Can you clarify what you meant when you said this:

      MikeB: "Well, I think I would have been an abolitionist. And in that case I probably would have been a scofflaw. But when the democratically elected legislative body passes a law regarding gun rights it should be obeyed until it's changed through the system."

      The Supreme Court already ruled on this. Even though you don't like it, don't you think the lower courts should obey the ruling until it is changed through the system?

      Delete
    7. That's exactly what they're doing, trying to change it through the system. And when the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, is not that precedent?

      Delete
    8. Wait... What the lower courts are doing is ignoring the ruling- and action which you specifically say is not working through the system if an individual ignores a gun law. What gives?

      Delete
    9. Mike: "And when the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, is not that precedent?"

      Oh my, no. That's not how it works.

      Delete
  3. And now a safe storage law in Los Angeles is getting some objections from law enforcement.

    "Los Angeles lawmakers have been mulling new rules that would require residents to lock up their handguns or disable them with a trigger lock when they are not being used..
    But the plan, championed by Councilman Paul Krekorian as a way to spare children from deadly accidents, spurred opposition from the city police officers' union, which argues that current and former officers shouldn't be held to those rules."

    "The proposed rules would exempt active-duty and reserve officers, but the Los Angeles Police Protective League argued that retired officers should be excluded as well, warning of possible dangers to former officers and their families."

    So after reading this article, here's my question, what is in the law that makes a body of police officers believe that following the rules as mandated in the ordinance will potentially put them in danger.
    And following that comes the question, why then is it ok to subject regular citizens to added restrictions with a resulting slower response time to danger? If the exemption makes police officers safer, wouldn't it have the same effect on regular folk?

    ReplyDelete