Appeals Court Upholds Mandatory Trigger-Lock, Ban on Hollow Points in San Franciso

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


Apparently they did not read DC v. Heller.


From DC v. Heller:

"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional....."





http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/03/25...-mandatory-trigger-lock-ban-on-hollow-points/

.
Appeals Court Upholds Mandatory Trigger-Lock, Ban on Hollow Points

By
Joe Palazzolo
CONNECT

Associated Press

A federal appeals court upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires handgun owners to keep their weapons locked up or on their person when they are at home.

The Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals also blessed the part of the city code that prohibits the sale of hollow-point bullets, which expand upon entering a target.

Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the challengers, said he would ask the full Ninth Circuit to review the decision. Failing that, he said he would ask the Supreme Court to take the case.
.

.

 

[Red Wind]

No worries. Will be overturned.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

No worries. Will be overturned.

But will it have to go to SCOTUS to be overturned?
.

 

[pendennis]

Not necessarily. This, again, was a three justice panel. Just the other day, another judicial panel in the 9th Circuit reversed itself to comply with the Peruta ruling. This may very well be another reversal if re-reviewed.

There is the possibility, however small, that this would go to the en banc court. If upheld throughout the 9th, it could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[Red Wind]

^ Totally agree with your entire post.

 

[MErl]

Just from that summary, Locked up or on their person. Still available for self defense.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

But isn't that chance of the en banc hearing from the full circuit unlikely as they don't often do that?
.

 

[wildbilll]

Here’s what Judge Sandra S. Ikuta, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said in response:


The record indicates that a modern gun safe may be opened quickly. Thus, even when a handgun is secured, it may be readily accessed in case of an emergency. Further, section 4512 leaves open alternative channels for self-defense in the home, because San Franciscans are not required to secure their handguns while carrying them on their person. Provided San Franciscans comply with the storage requirements, they are free to use handguns to defend their home while carrying them on their person.

So I must now be forced to purchase a device in order to exercise one of my civil rights?

 

[JRH6856]

Well, you are already forced to purchase a device (firearm) to exercise the right. Unless you make your own firearm. And I suppose you could make your own gun safe.

If the 9th does not reverse, either the panel reversing itself or en banc, there is no guarantee SCOTUS will grant cert. I don't see this being reversed, especially since the allowed alternative (in home carry) makes the weapon even more readily available and is thus less restrictive.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Well, you are already forced to purchase a device (firearm) to exercise the right. Unless you make your own firearm. And I suppose you could make your own gun safe.

If the 9th does not reverse, either the panel reversing itself or en banc, there is no guarantee SCOTUS will grant cert. I don't see this being reversed, especially since the allowed alternative (in home carry) makes the weapon even more readily available and is thus less restrictive.

This logic is sound.

CA already requires that the purchase of a handgun be accompanied by the purchase of a lock to secure the action. This confirmation only requires that owners use them...or carry the gun on their person. It sounds like a matter of the owner controlling access to the weapon from unauthorized users

 

[Hypnogator]

No worries. Will be overturned.

On what grounds? All this is saying is that you must not leave your weapon unsecured when you aren't carrying it. Unlike the DC laws Heller overturned, you may carry it loaded in your home to your hearts content. It is odious and burdensome, but I don't see how it infringes on your right to keep and bear arms.

 

[wildbilll]

Well, you are already forced to purchase a device (firearm) to exercise the right. Unless you make your own firearm. And I suppose you could make your own gun safe.

If the 9th does not reverse, either the panel reversing itself or en banc, there is no guarantee SCOTUS will grant cert. I don't see this being reversed, especially since the allowed alternative (in home carry) makes the weapon even more readily available and is thus less restrictive.

If I want to have a gun that is immediately accessible, I don't want to have it on my person in my house. That is nonsense.
The best answer to this is to tell me to buy a gun safe:

Here’s what Judge Sandra S. Ikuta, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said in response:


The record indicates that a modern gun safe may be opened quickly. Thus, even when a handgun is secured, it may be readily accessed in case of an emergency. Further, section 4512 leaves open alternative channels for self-defense in the home, because San Franciscans are not required to secure their handguns while carrying them on their person. Provided San Franciscans comply with the storage requirements, they are free to use handguns to defend their home while carrying them on their person.

This flies in the face of the Heller opinion. I remember Scalia mocking the government lawyer about having to fumble for the keys to open the safe, right after he found his glasses in the middle of the night.
Am I to sleep with the gun on my person? It's absurd.
This crap ruling comes from some idiots that don't understand what it is like to be awakened by a intruder.

Oh, yeah, what if my gun is a shotgun? Am I supposed to lay in bed asleep with that strapped to me?

 

[Claude Clay]

locked up or on their person

and when you answer the front door wearing one?? expect screaming blissninnies followed by SWAT & black copters

and if it is Men in Blue knocking?? I'm sure they will understand that you are legal as they ventilate ya.

 

[Red Wind]

On what grounds? All this is saying is that you must not leave your weapon unsecured when you aren't carrying it. Unlike the DC laws Heller overturned, you may carry it loaded in your home to your hearts content. It is odious and burdensome, but I don't see how it infringes on your right to keep and bear arms.

^ See above post #13 for common sense.

It is odious and burdensome, but I don't see how it infringes on your right to keep and bear arms.

So "shall not be infringed" does not enter into your thinking? You contradict yourself within one short sentence.

 

[JRH6856]

Oh, yeah, what if my gun is a shotgun? Am I supposed to lay in bed asleep with that strapped to me?

From the quoted article: "A federal appeals court upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires handgun owners to keep their weapons locked up or on their person when they are at home."

How does that apply to your shotgun.

and when you answer the front door wearing one?? expect screaming blissninnies followed by SWAT & black copters

We recently discussd this in another thread. Just because you are wearing the gun doesn't mean it has to be visible.

What to do with the handgun while sleeping might be a weakness that opens a door for challenge. Have to hope SCOTUS would think it important enough to grant cert.

 

[Red Wind]

What to do with the handgun while sleeping might be a weakness that opens a door for challenge. Have to hope SCOTUS would think it important enough to grant cert.

A brainy thought here. Thank you.

 

[BSA1]

Problems;

What about other members of the family that are legally allowed to use a firearm? The Court expects every family member to be packing a heater?

What happens when a person steps out of his house to pickup the newspaper or checking the mail while wearing his Roscoe? Remember the recent post about the guy with the gun tattoo getting a visit from the Police?

Does the resident have to carry concealed or openly? What happens if someone passing by on the sidewalk saw him through a window walking around in the house packing his Roscoe?

What about the "castle doctrine" and expectation of privacy? Will government officials be given the authority to check homeowners for compliance? It will be to protect the children. This goes to the core of The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[JRH6856]

What about the "castle doctrine" and expectation of privacy? Will government officials be given the authority to check homeowners for compliance? It will be to protect the children. This goes to the core of The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I don't think California has a castle doctrine, and federal law doesn't have one beyond what might have been recogized in Heller (if it can be found there at all).

 

[wildbilll]

From the quoted article: "A federal appeals court upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires handgun owners to keep their weapons locked up or on their person when they are at home."

How does that apply to your shotgun.



We recently discussd this in another thread. Just because you are wearing the gun doesn't mean it has to be visible.

What to do with the handgun while sleeping might be a weakness that opens a door for challenge. Have to hope SCOTUS would think it important enough to grant cert.

Yep, you're right. Re-stated, What if my gun is an AR-15 pistol? If I'm asleep. do I need to keep it strapped to my side if I want it to be at the ready?

 

[JRH6856]

Yep, you're right. Re-stated, What if my gun is an AR-15 pistol? If I'm asleep. do I need to keep it strapped to my side if I want it to be at the ready?

Or maybe under your pillow?

 

[wildbilll]

I know you are trying to be funny, so I will ask-- if I forget to take the AR pistol out from under the pillow and take it with me each and every one of the 10 times a night I have to get up and take a leak, will I be breaking the new law?

 

[JRH6856]

I know you are trying to be funny, so I will ask-- if I forget to take the AR pistol out from under the pillow and take it with me each and every one of the 10 times a night I have to get up and take a leak, will I be breaking the new law?

Probably. The question is, who would know? I can't find anything (yet) regarding mandatory surprise inspections to insure compliance. (It being California, those may come later)

What the law does, in effect, is create an add-on charge should the police respond to an AD or worse or be in the home for some other legal purpose, and find the firearm involved (or others present) were/are not properly secured.

There is always the danger of nosy neighbors complaining about unsecured firearms which might give rise to a search warrant. I don't know how likely it is that a warrant would be sought only on that basis.

Does anyone know the operative definition of "on your person"?. Does the firearm have to be connected to the body or just within the person's effective control such as sitting beside them on a table?

 

[9mmepiphany]

I don't know how likely it is that a warrant would be sought only on that basis.

About as likely as being stopped for only not wearing your seat belt or for not securing your dog in the bed of your pickup truck

Does anyone know the operative definition of "on your person"?.

I haven't seen the actually ordinance, but I would think it would follow general federal guidelines as to immediate area of control

 

[Dain Bramage]

My two beans on the hollow point issue:

1. The judge allows the infringement because it is only on the sale of HP's, not possession. What if the whole state bans sales? How many miles radius does a sales infringement become unconstitutional?

2. IIRC, the law bans hollow point or expanding bullets of a "non-sporting" nature. I can think of a lot of sporting uses for my .44 mag 240g XTP loads. Is this going to result in unintended consequences, sort of like the normal capacity magazine ban squelching wondernines in favor of the .45 ACP? Are the neighborhood Dirty Harrys going to start packing large-frame revolvers?

 

[wildbilll]

The Ezell case with Chicago dealt with the ban of gun ranges in the city, the city argued that people can just go somewhere else to go to a range. The court was having none of that. As I recall, Chicago cut a check to the other side over that law.