Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: SCOTUS Refuses Jackson v. San Francisco. Undermining Heller

  1. #21
    Member Peally's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Guy. Sorry bud, no amount of surgery can change your chromosomes. Sucks to be you, at least until magic is invented.
    Semper Gumby, Always Flexible

  2. #22
    Member cclaxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna, Va
    I keep my handgun next to me on my bedstand when I sleep. Are they saying that would be a violation of the SF law?
    Cody
    That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;

  3. #23
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by cclaxton View Post
    I keep my handgun next to me on my bedstand when I sleep. Are they saying that would be a violation of the SF law?
    Cody
    ftp://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/c.../article45.pdf

    On the table, illegal. In a box with a lock and key in lock, legal as I read it.

  4. #24
    Member cclaxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna, Va
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    ftp://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/c.../article45.pdf

    On the table, illegal. In a box with a lock and key in lock, legal as I read it.
    I am not so sure. I would think that as long as the gun is within my direct control and all other guns are locked, that I would be safe from prosecution.
    Cody
    That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;

  5. #25
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by cclaxton View Post
    I am not so sure. I would think that as long as the gun is within my direct control and all other guns are locked, that I would be safe from prosecution.
    Cody
    On my phone so I can't copy from pdf. It says on your person. Not under your control.

  6. #26
    Member cclaxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna, Va
    FYI check out 4512 and 4511
    http://police.sanfranciscocode.org/45/
    Cody
    That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;

  7. #27
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by cclaxton View Post
    FYI check out 4512 and 4511
    http://police.sanfranciscocode.org/45/
    Cody
    Right.
    The handgun is carried on the person of an individual over the age of 18.

  8. #28
    Discussions about what San Francisco actually might require is interesting, but not really the point here. Far more interesting, and frightening, is that the way that cert was denied here tells us a bad story.

    We've been getting denied Cert on gun-rights cases for a couple of years now, and have been trying to read the tea leaves to figure out why. Maybe the SCOTUS hasn't wanted to take a criminal case, or hasn't wanted to take a carry case first, or hasn't liked the facts or the parties or maybe it was a full moon. But here, the Scalia and Thomas dissents really signal that the reason they're not taking the case is probably because they lost at least one of the pro-rights Justices.

    That's huge, and it's really bad for us. It's a signal that we shouldn't expect gun rights cases to get cert, and depending on who and how many we've lost, we have to start wondering if there's enough votes to overturn gains we already have, if given the chance. That residents of San Francisco might be allowed to put a key in their safe is really a discussion about deck chairs on the Titanic.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by DMF13 View Post
    Most likely the purpose is to allow the prosecution of a gun owner if they don't follow the law, in situations where someone who shouldn't have access to the gun gets it. Such as a kid gets the gun and accidentally, or intentionally, shoots someone.
    Already have laws against that so this is tits on a boar meant to annoy, harass gun owned and circumvent previous court rulings that the city didn't like.

    Completely unenforceable unless they want to follow up with random searches of registered owners' property just to make sure.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRoland View Post

    That's huge, and it's really bad for us. It's a signal that we shouldn't expect gun rights cases to get cert, and depending on who and how many we've lost, we have to start wondering if there's enough votes to overturn gains we already have, if given the chance. That residents of San Francisco might be allowed to put a key in their safe is really a discussion about deck chairs on the Titanic.
    It may not be so irrelevant once those laws reach our doorsteps.Every anti gun state and city is now eyeing England's safe storage laws with devious intentions .Hillary R. Clinton is among them, and has far too good a chance of being the next POTUS.

    As to the High Court, this may be a good thing . Hold on-I promise I'm not at a wine tasting festival.

    While the court has denied cert, that also means they haven't taken a case to explicitly repudiate Heller as a mistake- a sentiment echoing through the legal community since the ruling came out.Just because they went our way before doesnt mean they can't take a case and slam the door shut on the 2nd Amendment for good.

    Ill take an absentee SCOTUS over a court which views the 2nd Amendment as the legal "mistake by the lake" and Heller as toothpaste which needs to be returned to the tube ASAP.

    Quote Originally Posted by TAZ View Post
    Completely unenforceable unless they want to follow up with random searches of registered owners' property just to make sure.
    Unless you have the supreme misfortune of shooting a home invader in SF. At which point you'll end up doing time for having your defensive arm outside of a safe , if not for actually shooting Miguel H Onorstudent.

    To illustrate how this law can really wreck things-my bedroom is 15 paces from the upstairs door. Should someone break in and charge towards my bedroom, I wouldn't have time to unlock a safe. I'd barely have time to wake up and grab a loaded handgun on the nightstand before I'd be in a gunfight within my bedroom.

    Considering most San Fransisco residents live in apartments on account of the horrendously high real estate market ($1,000,000 + asking price for a two bedroom home.) this ordnance isn't just empty posturing. It practically disarms a lot of good people once they hit the rack.
    Last edited by GardoneVT; 06-09-2015 at 04:35 PM.
    The Minority Marksman.
    "When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
    -a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •