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; Over the objections of two justices, the Supreme Court declined Monday to review a decision leaving intact San Francisco’s law ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2015, 08:00 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
Default Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Over the objections of two justices, the Supreme Court declined Monday to review a decision leaving intact San Francisco’s law requiring that handguns be stored in a lockbox or secured with a trigger lock.

Justice Clarence Thomas said his fellow justices were derelict in not accepting cases in which challengers say state and local restrictions on gun ownership and use infringe on the Second Amendment rights recognized by the Supreme Court in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The court also accepted cases for argument in the term that begins next fall, including:

● A case arising from Maryland’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan, which has been criticized as one of the most gerrymandered in the country. The Supreme Court will not look at the specifics of the redistricting but whether a judge made a mistake by dismissing the challenge instead of referring it to a special three-judge panel.

● A challenge of a $2.9 million award to workers at a Tyson pork-processing plant in Storm Lake, Iowa. The company claims that courts improperly relied on averages, rather than individualized harm, in computing the damages, and the outcome could have a major impact on similar class-action lawsuits.

In the gun case, individuals and gun rights groups tried to break through the reluctance of the Supreme Court to provide guidance on its 5-to-4 decision in Heller, which said that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to gun ownership for self-defense.

The court has turned aside requests that it examine laws related to carrying guns outside the home, who is qualified to receive licenses to carry weapons and other restrictions.

Under San Francisco’s law, handguns kept at home must be kept in a lockbox or outfitted with a trigger lock. Besides an almost total ban on handguns, the District of Columbia’s law contained similar restrictions on the few guns that were allowed.

The challengers said San Francisco’s law was the same.
Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law - The Washington 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.

Looks like requirements on safe storage are constitutional (at least for now)
__________________
“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
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2015, 08:05 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,588 Times in 1,078 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law - The Washington 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.

Looks like requirements on safe storage are constitutional (at least for now)
I think the way to read it is that local jurisdiction carries the day and has a lot of clout. And in a way, that's the way it should be because at least with THAT, people have the choice to move somewhere without such an overbearing law. Yet another reason I'll never live in San Fransisco.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2015, 08:20 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 Joe Shoe View Post
I think the way to read it is that local jurisdiction carries the day and has a lot of clout. And in a way, that's the way it should be because at least with THAT, people have the choice to move somewhere without such an overbearing law. Yet another reason I'll never live in San Fransisco.
Question.
If the federal government adopted legislation which mandated all gun owners store their equipment in lock boxes, are you saying you would see no 2nd amendment violation?

Note: I'm not talking about whether or not you want to see it at local or federal government implementation.
I'm talking about the people who raised that lawsuit said it was a 2nd amendment violation, and your response seems to indicate either you don't think it is a 2nd amendment violation or you think it's okay for local governments to pass laws that violate the 2nd amendment.
__________________
“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
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2015, 08:34 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,588 Times in 1,078 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Question.
If the federal government adopted legislation which mandated all gun owners store their equipment in lock boxes, are you saying you would see no 2nd amendment violation?

Note: I'm not talking about whether or not you want to see it at local or federal government implementation.
I'm talking about the people who raised that lawsuit said it was a 2nd amendment violation, and your response seems to indicate either you don't think it is a 2nd amendment violation or you think it's okay for local governments to pass laws that violate the 2nd amendment.
Of course that would be a violation.
But don't oversimplify the issue--I know you said you aren't talking about this, but the issue of local jurisdiction can't be separated from such a case as this. It's too intertwined as part of the issue. Lots of towns all over the country have local gun laws stricter within the city limits than outside the city limits. You can discharge a gun out in the county for any (non-crime) reason, but not in the city, for instance. Would I prefer this discrepancy not be there? Of course. But at least it's not nation-wide and there's a way to escape it if one wants to. It's no accident that many people who live in rural areas are gun rights advocates.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2015, 08:47 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
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Of course that would be a violation.
Maybe I'm going into belaboring Civics 101 now, but do you realize that if it's a constitutional rights violation for the federal government to pass a law,
then it is also a constitutional violation for a state or local government to pass that same law.

That's part and parcel to the 14th amendment. That's part of what it does.

The state / local government has no capability to violate the federal constitutionally protected rights.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
But don't oversimplify the issue--I know you said you aren't talking about this, but the issue of local jurisdiction can't be separated from such a case as this. It's too intertwined as part of the issue. Lots of towns all over the country have local gun laws stricter within the city limits than outside the city limits.
Stop right there.
This isn't about whether or not "local" laws can / cannot be stricter than other laws that cover more area.
has nothing to do with that.

I am trying to point out to you that if you think it's a constitutional rights violation for that law to exist, it does not matter which governmental level adopts the law.
NONE of them can adopt a law that violates federal constitutional rights.
__________________
“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
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2015, 08:50 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,588 Times in 1,078 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Maybe I'm going into belaboring Civics 101 now, but do you realize that if it's a constitutional rights violation for the federal government to pass a law,
then it is also a constitutional violation for a state or local government to pass that same law.

That's part and parcel to the 14th amendment. That's part of what it does.

The state / local government has no capability to violate the federal constitutionally protected rights.
Yeah, that's why I don't like it when local jurisdictions do it as well. (And I think I made that abundantly clear.) All I said was at least it's a local matter and people can choose to NOT live there if they so choose.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2015, 09:02 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
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Yeah, that's why I don't like it when local jurisdictions do it as well. (And I think I made that abundantly clear.) All I said was at least it's a local matter and people can choose to NOT live there if they so choose.
So, do you have the same feelings towards things involving (what you believe are) first amendment violations?

If an area adopts a law which violates the first amendment, do you simply "don't like it" but you feel "it's a local matter and people can choose to NOT live there if they so choose."?
__________________
“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
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2015, 09:14 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,588 Times in 1,078 Posts
Default Re: Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
So, do you have the same feelings towards things involving (what you believe are) first amendment violations?

If an area adopts a law which violates the first amendment, do you simply "don't like it" but you feel "it's a local matter and people can choose to NOT live there if they so choose."?
No, I fight such violations at the local level too if I'm a part of it. But between federal (everywhere) being affected and merely locally being affected, I'd much rather have local-level, for the reasons I gave.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Joe Shoe For This Useful Post:
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 09:37 AM
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
Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to San Francisco gun law - The Washington 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.

Looks like requirements on safe storage are constitutional (at least for now)
Yep the spineless *******s caved in to political correctness again.
__________________
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

Donald Trump
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 09:44 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

The Bill of Rights is not a matter for any state to nitpick.
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 12:40 AM.


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

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0