• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Jackson v San Francisco Why is it different than here?

Ben Cartwright SASS

NES Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Likes
1,353
Location
Massachusetts
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
I was reading in America's First Freedom about Jackson v. San Francisco suit. This is where he is suing based on the fact that SF requires a gun to be locked at all times in the home unless being carried on your person, i.e. under your direct control. They are suing based on the ordinance contradicting the Heller decision.
Isn't that what we have here? If I am cleaning my gun at the kitchen table and answer the door leaving the disassembled gun on the table I can get arrested for having an unsecured gun, not under my direct control if it is a cop at the door (I have heard it HAS happened)

Do you (Knuckle dragger) ever see that happening here?
 
I actually think that the SF law challenged in Jackson is effectively identical to the MA safe storage law. The original case also challenged the SF ban on hollow points or SD ammunition. That part was dropped when they petitioned SCOTUS.

I'd be very surprised if SCOTUS grants cert in this case, but you never know. If they do we'll jump in with an amicus.
 
If this case is won mass gun owners can use it (equal protection under the law / full faith a credit)

Must have standing however!

I think not as the plaintiffs are pleading that Mass laws allow for leaving an unlocked handgun by the bedside.

If the court spells out that close proximity is the same as possession in their decision, then it may help us some but won't be a reversal of the storage laws.
 
Orders came out this morning and Jackson wasn't on the list. That means it will likely get relisted for another conference. I am shocked they are looking at this case so closely. We didn't think the cert petition was all that good.
 
Correct, it is still in play. The conventional wisdom is that the longer this goes on, the better.

Blackman is thinking someone is working on a dissent on a cert denial. It's highly unlikely a written dissent would be taking this long. They are remarkably short usually. It's frankly just as likely that a per curiam is coming. Regardless of what happens, it is obvious they are looking very carefully at this. I am starting to kick myself for not having us write a separate cert amicus outside of the one we joined. Then again, anything I would have proposed would have likely made it more likely they denied cert so all in all, I am happy with this playing out the way it has.
 
is it on todays list or did it get pushed back more. see on the link you posted its distributed for conference on may 28. that's the last update on the site
 
Back
Top Bottom