Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Jackson v. San Francisco

  1. #1
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Jackson v. San Francisco

    This otherwise silly decision which held that one must keep his guns locked up when not carrying them in one's home has a silver lining.

    In my Federal Lawsuit to Overturn California's 1967 ban on Loaded Open Carry as well as the two recently enacted bans on unloaded Open Carry the district court has thrown every roadblock it has in my way to stop me. When it runs out, it makes new ones.

    After overcoming all of the obstacles the court threw in my way prior to filing my motion for a Preliminary Injunction the district court invented a new obstacle. The court decided that I cannot have both an as-applied and facial challenge at the same time and so my challenge to the laws must be purely facial. The court then applied what is known as the "Salerno test" which is to say that a law is facially invalid only if it is invalid in every application. Having concluded that the laws are not invalid in every application, the court then applies rational basis review to all of my claims.

    The Jackson decision now precludes this kind of BS on the part of district court judges. Or at least district court judges now know that if they pull this stunt the Court of Appeals will not be amused.

    Here is a link to the decision.


    Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Just because they said that they applied "intermediate scrutiny" does not mean they did...its a BS decision all around


    Now, I see no issue in alternate pleadings containing within a pleading ... seems like the court did not like this in your case.

    These "rational basis", "intermediate & strict scrutiny" standards are made up standards...they are crap evaluations. Something is either: a) constitutional or b) not

  3. #3
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Just because they said that they applied "intermediate scrutiny" does not mean they did...its a BS decision all around
    There is Constitutional law and there is procedural law. Jackson was a bad decision under the former and not merely because Justice Roberts ridiculed the idea that one has to keep his firearms locked up until needed. The Heller decision also overturned the DC law requiring that firearms be unloaded and locked up. As to the latter it was a gift from the gods. No more of this "Salerno Test" BS in Second Amendment cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Now, I see no issue in alternate pleadings containing within a pleading ... seems like the court did not like this in your case.
    Procedural obstacles are what a court puts up to prevent it from ever having to rule in favor of one side which has a position the judge dislikes. From the beginning, I have always said that the Heller decision means exactly what it said, nothing more and nothing less. I carefully chose to challenge only three laws which ban open carry for self-defense in areas where hunters are exempt from the bans. I purposely did not challenge any law where the Attorney General could argue "sensitive places" e.g., government buildings, schools or even 1,000 feet from a K-12 public or private school.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    These "rational basis", "intermediate & strict scrutiny" standards are made up standards...they are crap evaluations. Something is either: a) constitutional or b) not
    I agree. Unfortunately, I have to play that game with the courts. Judges love the smell of BS. Had I tried to open the window to let some air in by saying exactly that, my case would have been immediately tossed.

    Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post


    I agree. Unfortunately, I have to play that game with the courts. Judges love the smell of BS. Had I tried to open the window to let some air in by saying exactly that, my case would have been immediately tossed.

    .
    Ha...I understand but I don't play it that way myself. And I would rather lose and have a non-precedent opinion written than play lawyer games of dishonor.

    At least the historical approach is actually based on facts .. not lawyers trying to see who can blow a bigger of dung out of their arses.

Posting Permissions

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