Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Gun Control/2nd Amendment
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Gun Control/2nd Amendment Discuss Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law at the General Forum; Originally Posted by Manitou The Bill of Rights is not a matter for any state to nitpick. There seems to ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 09:51 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,131
Thanks: 9,696
Thanked 8,019 Times in 4,772 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
The Bill of Rights is not a matter for any state to nitpick.
There seems to be a recent trend among the left that if you don't like a federal law, just ignore it and pass a local ordinance. And the feds generally go along.

It happens with gun rights, pot laws, illegal border violations.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 11:06 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,608
Thanks: 10,108
Thanked 15,284 Times in 9,267 Posts
Post Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
There seems to be a recent trend among the left that if you don't like a federal law, just ignore it and pass a local ordinance. And the feds generally go along.
It happens with gun rights, pot laws, illegal border violations.
The Gun law would be an illegal, constitutional violation if the local law legislation in question violates the 2nd amendment.

But beyond that, there is no requirement that the states enforce federal laws.
The federal law can be against marijuana, but there is no requirement for a state to police its citizens to prevent marijuana presence if the state does not have a marijuana law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLiberty
Yep the spineless *******s caved in to political correctness again.
Proper gun storage is "political correctness"?
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 06-09-2015 at 11:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 11:43 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,152
Thanks: 517
Thanked 6,431 Times in 4,630 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
The Gun law would be an illegal, constitutional violation if the local law legislation in question violates the 2nd amendment.

But beyond that, there is no requirement that the states enforce federal laws.
The federal law can be against marijuana, but there is no requirement for a state to police its citizens to prevent marijuana presence if the state does not have a marijuana law.
I hope you don't think the Second Amendment is a federal law, and that I understood wrongly.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 12:00 PM
MrLiberty's Avatar
professional curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,506
Thanks: 21,953
Thanked 18,612 Times in 11,938 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
The Gun law would be an illegal, constitutional violation if the local law legislation in question violates the 2nd amendment.

But beyond that, there is no requirement that the states enforce federal laws.
The federal law can be against marijuana, but there is no requirement for a state to police its citizens to prevent marijuana presence if the state does not have a marijuana law.



Proper gun storage is "political correctness"?
Gun locks and gun vaults don't deter criminals, but does get the homeowner killed.
__________________
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

Donald Trump
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 12:23 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,152
Thanks: 517
Thanked 6,431 Times in 4,630 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Proper gun storage is "political correctness"?
Proper gun storage means keep your weapons where they can easily be accessed and used by yourself or authorized people in a split second, and where dumbasses and immature individuals cannot access them.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 01:08 PM
WallyWager's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Michigan
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,852
Thanks: 1,572
Thanked 9,009 Times in 5,761 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
Proper gun storage means keep your weapons where they can easily be accessed and used by yourself or authorized people in a split second, and where dumbasses and immature individuals cannot access them.
With some people though that is a paradoxal challenge.
__________________
"I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." - Donald Trump, on pedophile Jeff Epstein.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to WallyWager For This Useful Post:
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 10:34 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 923
Thanks: 844
Thanked 1,258 Times in 584 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I find this fascinating.
I'm a little surprised that the court refused to hear the case. And also the margin (only two objecting) by which they refused to hear the case.
To draw a conclusion about the Court's sentiments on the broader constitutional issue is an overreach.

This case will come back on cert appeal to SCOTUS. This was an appeal regarding a preliminary injunction. The Court only reluctantly weighs in on important constitutional topics when the case is procedurally burdened (must show irreparable harm).

The actual conference vote to not hear a case is secret. That a dissent was written (by Thomas) to a cert denial is not a usual occurrence.

Thomas makes very strong points. The lower court was very wrong on the law, wrong on the standard of scrutiny applied to a fundamental right and wrong in its application of Heller . Certainly the lower decision was --wrong enough-- for SCOTUS to take the case.

It may or not be of note that SCOTUS has denied cert in all appeals implicating the rights secured by the 2nd Amendment since McDonald.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Looks like requirements on safe storage are constitutional (at least for now)
And exactly how do the SF demands differ from the DC demands -- which were held to be UNconstitutional by SCOTUS in Heller?

The 9th Circuit's reasoning that, "Because San Francisco’s regulations do not destroy the Second Amendment right, . . . " that they pass muster is ludicrous.

That the 9th applied intermediate scrutiny to a law that directly implicates the self-defense use of a firearm, is also absurd.
__________________
Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 11:09 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,608
Thanks: 10,108
Thanked 15,284 Times in 9,267 Posts
Post Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
And exactly how do the SF demands differ from the DC demands -- which were held to be UNconstitutional by SCOTUS in Heller?
I seriously hope you don't need me to tell you this...

Heller v DC involved the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 being struck down.
The law banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, or high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
It was an outright ban on handguns, allowing only a "grandfather" clause exception for most attempted gun owners.

As the OP stated: "... San Francisco’s law requiring that handguns be stored in a lockbox or secured with a trigger lock"
San Fran law allows handgun ownership and only regulates STORAGE of said guns, requiring a specific storage mechanism.


The 9th Circuit's reasoning that, "Because San Francisco’s regulations do not destroy the Second Amendment right, . . . " that they pass muster is ludicrous.

That the 9th applied intermediate scrutiny to a law that directly implicates the self-defense use of a firearm, is also absurd.[/QUOTE]
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 11:50 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 923
Thanks: 844
Thanked 1,258 Times in 584 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I seriously hope you don't need me to tell you this...

Heller v DC involved the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 being struck down.
The law banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, or high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
It was an outright ban on handguns, allowing only a "grandfather" clause exception for most attempted gun owners.

I seriously hope that you actually read Heller at some point.




.
__________________
Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 11:53 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,608
Thanks: 10,108
Thanked 15,284 Times in 9,267 Posts
Post Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
I seriously hope that you actually read Heller at some point.
I answered your question.
I explained how the DC demands were different from the SF demands.
If you refuse knowledge that is offered, that's on you...
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
challenge, court, francisco, gun, law, refuses, san, supreme, take

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0