pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Supreme Court Deals Blow to Gun Rights While Justice Thomas Delivers a Silver Lining
#1
I RECIEVED THIS IN AN E MAIL ITS FROM FPC. Das
HERS THE LINK. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/lega...bd5f0ff703



[/quote]Supreme Court Deals Blow to Gun Rights While Justice Thomas Delivers a Silver Lining

Earlier today, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Antonin Scalia) issued a pointed dissent to the Supreme Court's order denying review in the Jackson v. San Francisco Second Amendment gun rights case. In the amici brief we submitted to the Supreme Court asking that they take up the Jackson case, your Firearms Policy Coalition argued, in part, that:
Notwithstanding this Court’s explicit direction, the lower courts have adopted a test that requires them to engage in the very sort of interest balancing Heller and McDonald forbid....There is thus a clear divide between those courts that nod along to Heller as they perform the post-Heller two-step (but actually apply Justice Breyer’s deferential interest-balancing inquiry), and those courts determined to review Second Amendment claims in a manner consistent with Heller and McDonald. In the meantime, as more lower courts apply more layers of scrutiny that defer to state and local government policy choices (the supposed process of reviewing Second Amendment claims under Heller and McDonald), those governments become all the more emboldened to push the envelope with regulations that become the functional equivalent of the outright bans on possession in the home (the substance of the “core” right recognized in Heller and McDonald).
In their dissent, Justices Thomas and Scalia agreed:[quote]
das, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#2
It struck me that this non-decision doesn't really merit the sort of hair-on-fire responses it has engendered. Indeed, there are plenty more Draconian gun regulations in the Golden State about which to be alarmed. At best, this one is more in the "annoyance" category.

Indeed, what is required is not much different than what the NRA recommends and what most of us would do if we had small children in the house. Yes, maybe it's ridiculous for childless adults to be unable to keep their handgun on the bedside stand, but maybe not in this age of "Ambien zombies." At any rate, it doesn't strike me as a huge burden.

And if I go in the bathroom, lock the door, hang my belt and holster on the back of the locked door, and get in the shower, I'm certainly going to claim that the firearm is "on my person" as when I'm naked in the shower, I consider the whole bathroom my "personal space."

The bright side of all of this is that California is a HUGE market. Lots of products are made worse (or better) because of California laws. This law may drive some large improvements in compact, reliable, and economical biometric gun lockers such that nobody who can afford a pistol will have an excuse to leave it laying around on a table or in a drawer.

On principle, I object to laws that tell people what they must do in their own home. Then again, we shouldn't be surprised given some of the dumbasses who've allowed their kids to shoot themselves or their playmates.
gascolator, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Nov 2012.
Reply
#3
Actually that nightstand gun safe that Dana Loesch promotes on her show allows very rapid access and still satisfies the San Francisco ordinance as long as you have it set to thumbprint mode.

ALSO: If you have nobody living under the age of 18 in the house---you're exempt from the trigger lock or gun safe requirement. You can sleep with the gun laying out on the nightstand like normal.


The SF gun ordinance is nowhere near as crazy as the one DC had which was a whole series of ordinances that were designed in a way to basically create a complete total gun ban. DC's laws that Heller struck down required you to completely disassemble your gun down to its parts and keep them in separate rooms and the ammo also in a separate place. That limited the number of guns you could own based on how big your house was, plus it also made it completely impossible to use it for home defense as putting a slide back on to a 1911 takes some feat of muscle power and good lighting. Heller tossed the DC laws because essentially they amounted to an effective total ban on firearms in the District; and they also clarified personal use/home defense 2A rights in that decision.


I don't think the Supremes in the San Francisco case were in error to refuse to hear the appeal in this case. Justice Thomas was whining that the excuse being used was there was no lower court split when it's taken up plenty of cases in the past where there was an absence of a split.

The SF law does not ban firearms although if you have under-18s in the house it imposes a financial burden on you to have a safe or to use TLs. But there's some fast-open safes out there that meet the ordinance requirement.
Reply
#4
This is going to sound crazy but, I don't think firearms should be immune to all regulation. I draw the line at regulating capacity and functionality. Otherwise it makes sense for certain, specific irresponsible choices to be criminal. As long as the law isn't designed to inhibit one's ability to defend themself from intruders, assailants or government its worthy of consideration.

Liberty is made up of freedom and responsability. You can't have one without the other.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#5
ByblosHex;166618 Wrote:This is going to sound crazy but, I don't think firearms should be immune to all regulation. I draw the line at regulating capacity and functionality. Otherwise it makes sense for certain, specific irresponsible choices to be criminal. As long as the law isn't designed to inhibit one's ability to defend themself from intruders, assailants or government its worthy of consideration.

Liberty is made up of freedom and responsability. You can't have one without the other.

Replace the word 'firearms' with anything else and see if it still makes sense. I'm not a criminal and shouldnt be treated like one. It's not someone else's place to be responsible for what I can and can't do. That's my job. Especially since I am their boss, since I pay taxes. Should someone tell you what kind of car you can own? What color motorcycle you can have? Or the type of sheets you can have on you bed.

You're right. It sounds crazy because it is crazy.
NRA Life Member, NRA Certified Instructor:  HFS, Pistol, Rifle, PPIH,PPOH
Suarez Combat Arms Instructor School
Admit nothing.  Deny everything. Demand proof.
If we lie to the government, it's a crime. If the government lies to the people, it's called politics.
Paying for welfare is slavery.
Reply
#6
ByblosHex;166618 Wrote:...
As long as the law isn't designed to inhibit one's ability to defend themself from intruders, assailants or government its worthy of consideration.
...

The issue isn't what the law is intended to do. The issue is how the law can (and eventually will) be used to harm others.

Also, I think there is a lot of merit to the government not deciding what is responsible. I mean, what is responsible to one is irresponsible to another. And exactly how responsible is the federal government? Remember, these are the same people who spent money to shut down parks when they didn't have money to maintain the parks. That is responsibility right there. Angel It was also very responsible of the government to let the country be in trillions of dollars of debt.. and the epitome of responsibility to not be able to pass a budget.Angel Oh, wait... Ninja
Reply
#7
There's a distinct difference between criminalizing car colors and criminalizing driving on the wrong side of the road.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#8
ByblosHex;166644 Wrote:There's a distinct difference between criminalizing car colors and criminalizing driving on the wrong side of the road.

Yes there is. From my perspective, magazine limits, etc. fall into the car color category, not the wrong side of the road category. Your opinion may be different and I'm ok with that.
Reply
#9
rmagill;166646 Wrote:
ByblosHex;166644 Wrote:There's a distinct difference between criminalizing car colors and criminalizing driving on the wrong side of the road.

Yes there is. From my perspective, magazine limits, etc. fall into the car color category, not the wrong side of the road category. Your opinion may be different and I'm ok with that.

I draw the line at regulating capacity and functionality. Shrug

This place never changes.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#10
Lol @ this thread
[Image: picsay-1358258813.jpg]
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  ‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules sgtsandman 2 478 02-24-2017, 08:20 PM
Last Post: sgtsandman
  BANS ON BLACK RIFLES: WILL SUPREME COURT FINALLY DECIDE CONSTITUTIONALITY? das 4 1,275 11-03-2015, 08:41 PM
Last Post: das
  Court decision paves the way for Australian-style gun ban das 5 1,379 10-26-2015, 05:19 PM
Last Post: Uinta Firearms
  Assault Weapons Ban Before U.S. Supreme Court das 4 1,227 10-13-2015, 09:55 PM
Last Post: Uinta Firearms
  U.S. District Court finds provision of 1968 Gun Control Act unconstitutional das 0 637 02-19-2015, 04:51 AM
Last Post: das



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.