TexasCHLforum.com

b322da wrote:

baldeagle wrote:My question is, will the 9th Circuit now hear the case en banc? Or will the decision stand? What's the process? Do the plaintiff's have to file a petition for an en banc hearing?

I will stick my neck out and hazard a rather uncertain answer for you, Baldeagle. I say uncertain because I am not at all familiar with the rules of either the district court making the original decision nor those of the 9th Circuit, and these rules take much study and compliance. This action was one seeking a preliminary injunction, and the district court denied the plaintiff's' petition. It looks to me, in my ignorance of the rules at play here, that this will go back to the district court, and that it is not officially all over yet. On the other hand, given the action by SCOTUS, I would be surprised if the ultimate outcome in the district court, 9th Circuit and SCOTUS change.

Chas. perhaps could give you a real answer, given his much better chance of knowing what the NRA legal staff is thinking about now, the NRA being a party, but I would certainly understand if he felt it inappropriate to discuss the litigation strategy of the NRA, and I certainly have no intention of even asking him.

Jim

b322da wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:
...How is yesterdays decision to deny certiorari in this case NOT exactly the opposite of Heller?....

With respect, yesterday's "decision" was not a decision with respect to any issue before the Court in Heller.

Jim

b322da wrote:

Beiruty wrote:All what it means, that the government can regulate firearms, or the supreme court does not want to re-consider existing regulation in question.

It means precisely what Chas. just said it means, and it is quite arguable whether this "undermines" Heller.

Jim

[In the Heller decision] the Court voided not only D.C.'s ban on handguns, it also voided D.C.'s requirement that all firearms kept at home be "unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." According to Heller, the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

that all handguns kept at home and not carried on the owner’s person be "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock."

Less than a decade ago, we explained that an ordinance requiring firearms in the home to be kept inoperable, without an exception for self-defense, conflicted with the Second Amendment because it “ma[de] it impossible for citizens to use [their firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self- defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 630 (2008). Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it. Because Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document, I would have granted this petition.

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt Second Amendment supporters a major defeat today by refusing to hear an appeal filed by San Francisco gun owners seeking to overturn that city's requirement that all handguns kept at home and not carried on the owner’s person be "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock." Today’s action by the Court leaves that gun control ordinance on the books.