Saturday, May 16, 2015

Supreme Court Weighs Review of San Francisco Gun Control Scheme

Yet despite the Supreme Court's unequivocal judgment invalidating trigger lock-type regulations for guns lawfully kept at home, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit voted last year to uphold a San Francisco gun control law which requires that any handgun kept at home be "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock." The existence of such requirements, the 9th Circuit asserted in Jackson v. San Francisco, "does not substantially burden the right or ability to use firearms for self-defense in the home."

To put it mildly, that judgment is wholly inconsistent with what the Supreme Court said in Heller.

More Here


Wireless.Phil said...

Probably paid by Bloomberg.

20 miles west of Cleveland.

Sandy Hook parent speaks

Anonymous said...

Since the Supreme Courts Ruling supersedes the 9th circuit ruling the 9th circuits ruling is void on its face. Common sense should make that clear.

Dean Weingarten said...

It should be clear. It is clear to me that the judges who made the ruling on the 9th circuit are trying to role back the Heller and McDonald decisions by parsing the second amendment from "shall not be infringed" to "only allow the bare minimum that we can get away with"

Anonymous said...

To Me this is a clear example of an unconstitutional activist judge exceeding his authority in an attempt to over rule the Higher court. The precedent has been set and he is required to accept that precedent and enforce it. It is a failure to uphold an existing ruling that he does not have the power to over rule. That constitutes a violation of his oath of office and is grounds to impeach him and remove him from office. According to volume 16 second edition of American Jurisprudence, Penalties for violating the oath of office, he must resign or be impeached and removed from office and disbarred. Once removed for violating the oath of office he can never hold another position requiring an oath of office or be paid with any form of government funds. That is in the book at about section 152 or 155.