DispositionMatrix
NES Member
Rodriguez v. San Jose is 7 years old now.
SCOTUS ASKS SAN JOSE FOR RESPONSE TO SAF’s RODRIGUEZ GUN RIGHTS CASE
U.S. Supreme Court Takes Another 2A Case To Conference
SCOTUS ASKS SAN JOSE FOR RESPONSE TO SAF’s RODRIGUEZ GUN RIGHTS CASE
SAF is joined by the California Gun Rights Foundation on behalf of plaintiff Mrs. Rodriguez, who is legally qualified to own firearms in the state. Her firearms were seized seven years ago after her husband was taken to a hospital on a mental health issue. At the time, a San Jose police officer advised Rodriguez he had authority to seize all firearms in the residence, including those belonging solely to her, which were all locked in a California-approved safe. The guns were taken without a warrant, and over Rodriguez’s objection.
The city was advised that the Court had directed the Clerk of the Court to request a response from the city on or before May 20.
“This is a significant development,” Gottlieb said, “because it signals the Supreme Court is interested in the case.”
U.S. Supreme Court Takes Another 2A Case To Conference
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals bizarrely ruled that Lori Rodriguez had no right to keep her firearms, though they also noted that there was nothing illegal about her buying a gun either. The court argued that because police believed that her husband (who according to Rodriguez did not have access to her firearms) could pose a threat to public safety, firearms that had been seized from their home when her husband was taken into custody under a mental health hold did not have to be returned to her.
Under the 9th Circuit’s decision, you may have the right to own a firearm, but the police have the power to seize it and refuse to return it. As long as you can buy another one, says the court, your Second Amendment rights remain intact.Lori contended in the state court proceedings that Defendants were violating her “right to keep and bear arms” by refusing to return the firearms because of her husband’s prohibited status, even though “she was not prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms and had promised to take all steps required under California law to secure the firearms in a gun safe.” The California Court of Appeal expressly rejected this argument and the notion that the Second Amendment required returning her the guns. Highlighting that Lori had not pointed to any authority to the contrary, the court stated that the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago suggested that the Second Amendment did not “extend to keeping and bearing either any particular firearms or firearms that have been confiscated from a mentally ill person.” Ultimately, the court concluded “that Lori ha[d] failed to show that the trial court’s . . . order violate[d] the Second Amendment.”
