Jackson v. San Fran - Updated

I just finished. NRA finally got to Heller's admonition that the right is to a gun for immediate self defense. I would have liked to see a point driven home a bit more: "I would suggest to the the court that the word immediate means nothing if not without any delay". Also there was NO reference to Heller's invalidation of the trigger lock requirement.

We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, ren- dering it inoperable.
Click to expand...

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful fire- arm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.
Click to expand...

Rarely is the guidance from SCOTUS more on point than is Heller's guidance vis a vi Jackson. I simply cannot believe this point was not made at orals. The NRA attorney sounds tired, and misses this central relevant point entirely, IMO.
 
Yet the point was made, many times in the pleadings at District and within the appeals filings. I don't know how many more times it needs to be said.
 
Understood. But to leave it unsaid at oral argument in the context of serious consideration being given by the court to the subject of whether requiring trigger locks in the home is constitutional is remiss, at best. He could have ended that particular inquiry with a direct quote or two from the holding. There are plenty of unresolved questions in Heller's wake, but this is not one of them.
 
I think most appellate judges and appellate lawyers will tell you that it's possible to lose a case on oral argument but it's rare to win a case on oral argument. The vast majority of cases are decided on the briefs.
 
Absolutely correct. In most cases, oral argument is not scheduled until at least two of the three assigned justices have agreed on a tentative decision, and it is a rare case where they change their minds based on something argued at orals. Where you lose at orals is where you trip over your own feet and make an unfortunate admission that undercuts your case. Such was the case in Nordyke v, King, where the Ninth Circuit was poised to render an important decision that necessarily would have defined the standard of review, but an admission by counsel for the County at oral argument that it would indeed allow gun shows on county property despite the ban mooted the entire case. Five years and hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted, and a slew of other cases delayed pending that decision. For example, the challenge to the California Safe Roster (Pena v. Cid) was stayed pending Nordyke, as were the three cases attacking the "may issue" requirement for CCW.

Not that this matters much--the carry cases were argued last December, and my guess is we will not see any decisions on these cases until the Supreme Court decides the cert petition in Woollard. I suspect that a decision by the Ninth Circuit on the may issue shall issue conundrum would definitely trigger review in Woollard--which is why it won't happen. We'll know soon enough--Woollard is set for conference next week.
[There is also the possibility that if the Woollard petition is granted, the Ninth will stay the cases it has pending, thus avoiding an issue it seems to want to avoid, rather than add its voice to the determination of the issue.]
 
Woollard is set for conference this Friday, Oct. 11th. We will know on Monday the 14th how things went - The decisions at conference are usually handed out in orders the following Monday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top