Jackson v San Francisco Why is it different than here?

[Knuckle Dragger]

Certiorari Denied: Today's Order List

Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented - full dissent is at the bottom of today's Order.

We warned in Heller that “[a] constitutional guarantee
subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is
no constitutional guarantee at all.” 554 U. S., at 634. The
Court of Appeals in this case recognized that San Francisco’s
law burdened the core component of the Second
Amendment guarantee, yet upheld the law. Because of
the importance of the constitutional right at stake and the
questionable nature of the Court of Appeals’ judgment, I
would have granted a writ of certiorari.

 

[M1911]

Crap.

 

[jar]

Ugh, SCOTUS has effectively signed off on the lower courts utter defiance of Heller.

 

[browncoat]

Rs have the house and senate. We should be looking for more work on this stuff legislatively.

 

[M1911]

Rs have the house and senate. We should be looking for more work on this stuff legislatively.

Obama would veto and we don't have votes to override. Also, no R wants to give his opponent this kind of "it's for the children" issue this close to an election.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

UFB

 

[cfbackrow]

WTF

 

[xtry51]

That sucks.

SCOTUS knows that Heller and McDonald mean the doom of the majority of gun laws on the books if they actually take the cases. This is why they won't touch any.

 

[terraformer]

Ugh, SCOTUS has effectively signed off on the lower courts utter defiance of Heller.

No, read the dissent. They didn't take this case because it raises issues they haven't seen addressed elsewhere. I never liked how this case was put together. It's a denial from a PI too. There was no fact finding re: the sleeping issue, but that seems dead now anyhow as Thomas makes it clear, how can one be in control while asleep.

This is a marathon, not a sprint.

 

[xtry51]

No, read the dissent. They didn't take this case because it raises issues they haven't seen addressed elsewhere. I never liked how this case was put together. It's a denial from a PI too. There was no fact finding re: the sleeping issue, but that seems dead now anyhow as Thomas makes it clear, how can one be in control while asleep.

This is a marathon, not a sprint.

Wouldn't the bolded section make it even more the reason to accept the case not deny it???

I can't stand the court system. It's so slow and useless.

 

[Palladin]

blows.

 

[terraformer]

Wouldn't the bolded section make it even more the reason to accept the case not deny it???

I can't stand the court system. It's so slow and useless.

They are a court of last resort, not a court of first resort. The real problem children here are the courts of first resort acting like petulant children having been told no and acting out.

 

[soloman02]

They are a court of last resort, not a court of first resort. The real problem children here are the courts of first resort acting like petulant children having been told no and acting out.

Which makes it strange that the court of last resort didn't swipe them down and re-affirm that "no."

 

[terraformer]

Which makes it strange that the court of last resort didn't swipe them down and re-affirm that "no."

The issue is in Heller, there was an allowance for some storage laws. They didn't specify how comprehensive they could be, just to say that DC was far beyond that. I am confident San Fran's will be too far. I just think they want more opinions to see just how far they can be. They don't want to take this case, then be forced to take another one, etc;

I suspect most states would be under the line. ie; Only when kids are in the home, the storage requirement is a trespass standard instead of a criminal access standard like here in MA, etc.

 

[xtry51]

Which makes it strange that the court of last resort didn't swipe them down and re-affirm that "no."

This. The fact they pass up just issuing summary judgments striking down laws is ridiculous. The court should always be smacking down government and erring on the side of caution to protect individual rights.

Letting these cases go is no different than outright supporting tyranny. It sets the tone that earlier rulings are meaningless.