Jackson v. San Fran - Updated

Thursday, the City of SF filed its opposition brief at the 9th Circuit.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...ancisco-and-Its-Mayor-and-Chief-of-Police.pdf

It is interesting to note 2 things. 1) The city calls for rational basis to test the law (something the Supreme Court said was off the table) or at most, a watered down version of intermediate scrutiny. And 2) The City contorts the Heller decision to say keeping a locked handgun is perfectly within the parameters of the Heller decision, and therefore, constitutional.
 
Nothing could be further from the truth. As we know, Heller invalidated the DC trigger lock law on the basis that the a functional firearm must be available for immediate use for self defense. Requiring the firearm to be disassembled was also struck for the same reason.
 
They'll get slapped down on the storage thing (maybe not by a district court, but if it goes to SCOTUS for sure) but the ammo thing who knows.

In 2011, San Francisco adopted findings in support of its Ammunition
Ordinance. S.F. Police Code § 613.9.5. The findings state that enhanced-lethality ammunition is more likely to seriously wound or kill a person who is hit by it than conventional ammunition.
Click to expand...


Ummm, this is a fact because we say it's a fact? Even if their findings are correct, that's rational basis.

And no sporting purpose? Heck, my components supplier had hollow-points on special, was the same price as my regular bullets, so I've been shooting USPSA for the last 4 months with hollow-points.
I can assure the gun prohibitionists of the Bay Area that they serve the sporting purpose just fine.

Also in the sporting purpose vein, hollow points are said to be slightly more accurate in certain situations due to beneficial aerodynamics caused by the hollow point. That would accentuate their desirability in the sporting world, if it weren't for their (normally) higher prices.

But all this is arguing rational basis crap. I don't care if we win the rational basis argument, the state has to prove it meets (at least) intermediate scrutiny.
 
Enhanced lethality - huh? Am I missing something? If a 9 expands to a diameter the size of an 45 FMJ - which is enhanced? Expansion or absolute value of diameter in your tushy or noggin?
 
I just deleted 7 off topic posts.

If I can believe what I just read, over at CalGuns.net (and I have no reason not to believe it), SanFran just passed a ban on possession of hollow-point ammo. Along with a reporting requirement for the purchase of 500 rounds (or more) of ammo.

All that needs to be done is for the Mayor to sign the bills.

The workload at Michel & Assoc. just got heavier.
 
In the appeals, the Appellants/Plaintiffs have just filed their Reply brief.

Briefing is complete and we should have a date for orals, soon.

I don't know who actually wrote that brief, but it was a damn fine piece of writing. It covered every aspect of the case in meticulous detail. It was a pleasure to read the many ways a gentleman can call his opponent, a jackass... without ever having to use a vulgar phrase!
 
Facing threatened litigation, the City (I think through the Police Chief )has "clarified" that the ban is to be strictly construed to ban only the specific Black Talon ammunition identified and exact copies of that ammo. so it is a moot issue.
As to the Jackson appeal, the ninth is the busiest circuit in the country. I would not expect orals any time before fall at the VERY earliest. It could easily be a year, even more.
 
Maybe I'm immature, but I got a chuckle out of the fact that one of their precedent cases is the United States vs. The Playboy Entertainment Group. It's a 1st amendment case so it makes some sense but still made me curious enough to look it up.

Seriously, though, how can they look at the Heller decisions, and cite Heller, while ruling exactly the opposite?
 
If I can believe what I just read, over at CalGuns.net (and I have no reason not to believe it), SanFran just passed a ban on possession of hollow-point ammo. Along with a reporting requirement for the purchase of 500 rounds (or more) of ammo.
Click to expand...
Al I could be wrong but I thought they just banned long out of production Black Talons thinking that all JHPs were somehow Black Talons. Either way state preemption applies.
 
I haven't read the text of the ordinance, so I'm only going on what I've heard or read....

The Police Chief has interpreted the ordinance to mean what has been reported. Such an interpretation carries no legal weight. A succeeding Chief could very well have a different interpretation.
 
Jackson Oral Argument Set

Oral arguments have been set in this case for October 7, 2013 @ 9:00 in San Francisco.

For those that aren't familiar, this case seeks to confirm protections for hollow-point ammunition (and protections for ammunition generally), as well as the right to have a firearm unlocked in one's home regardless of whether it is being "carried." The case also addresses the still unresolved standard of review issue, and presents the court with an opportunity to address the issue in a case that involves core conduct, law-abiding citizens, protected arms, and an "in the home" setting. For those with a grasp of the standard of review issue, or for those who would like to read up on it, the opening and reply briefs may be of interest.

All filings in the case to date, including several important amicus briefs, can be viewed here:http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/jacksonvsanfran/
 
I will have an eye on this case, if it ends up going to the SCOTUS this could help with some pesky new "safe storage" laws that were just passed in the Chicago area.
 
San Francisco will spend a million dollars to defend itself. What a waste of taxpayer money. Fix the potholes first! Pay off some bonds first! PC has a very heavy price and the poor taxpayer has to bear the burden.
 
I agree with you Gary but this is what cities do big and small.

The small village where I grew up spent 20+ years and millions of dollars fighting the widening of a major road that goes through the center of town from 1 lane in each direction to 2. The road is finally getting widened but it took that long legal fight over something as stupid as a road. The payoff for that is lowering the speed limit to 30MPH(from 35) so the locals can write more speeding tickets.

NYC is wasting tax dollars fighting over big gulps...the list goes on
 
San Francisco will spend a million dollars to defend itself. What a waste of taxpayer money. Fix the potholes first! Pay off some bonds first! PC has a very heavy price and the poor taxpayer has to bear the burden.
Click to expand...

They don't care. SF put a proposition (Prop H) on the ballot in 2005 to ban handguns. They KNEW it wouldn't stand up because it conflicted with state preemption laws. A nearly identical proposition had been previously overturned on those grounds. After it passed, the NRA took it to court, just like everyone knew they would. The NRA won on state premption grounds, just like everyone knew they would. Then SF appealed it. And lost, just like everyone knew they would.

San Francisco squandered nearly a million dollars, including $380,000 to the NRA for legal costs, on a proposition everyone knew would be overturned.

But at least they "made a statement".:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Wait...what the heck happened to Chuck? I've heard him speak lots of times but not that recently...ye Gods :(. Did he survive throat cancer or something?
 
NOT impressed with NRA attorney. Heller directly controverts this ordinance with its invalidation of the trigger lock requirement WITHOUT a standard of review. NRA has thus far (1/3 through) missed several opportunities to point that out. The Heller court literally ridiculed the idea that a locked gun could be useful at all for self-defense in the middle of the night.

Also, failing to point out in the discussion of what constitutes an unacceptable delay that life or death in a gunfight usually turns on MILLISECONDS, not SECONDS, was a mistake in my opinion. The justices ask what was an acceptable delay, and the answer should have been flatly ZERO seconds followed by an explanation as to why. The first person to fire his weapon, if only a tenth of a second earlier, is exponentially more likely to survive the fight. This is a critical point, based on nothing more than simple physics, even in a discussion involving substantial burden. There is no greater burden than the loss of ones life or limb.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top