Suit to overturn public housing gun bans in San Francisco
NRA filed one today.
UPDATE: this is first I heard of it. I'm of counsel to Chuck Michel & the guys, but haven't gotten any info. The news report was the first I heard. Understand, I've gotten 580 emails in the last two days, so haven't been playing close attention....
[UPDATE: typo corrected, thanks. got Heller on my mind ]
Better late than never. And that is fact, not snark. SAF and Gura have led the way. More power to them. Those of us who live here in the gun-free zone known as the PRK really appreciate their efforts. For what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful. Amen.
Posted by: RKV at June 27, 2008 08:25 PM
Any link to the pleadings ? I understand you're OC to the firm doing the legwork on this one :-)
This is the incorporation case, as I understand. The other side's judo move would be to lift the ban and then impose VERY tight restrictions, claim they were in compliance with Heller, and hope to get a friendly judge, thus depriving the plaintiff of standing, no ?
Posted by: Affe at June 27, 2008 09:08 PM
There is more than one incorporation case being litigated at this time. Not at all clear that the 9th circuit would support incorporation, in fact, given prior performance, no, not even close. See http://www.chicagoguncase.com/
Posted by: RKV at June 27, 2008 09:19 PM
RKV, the 9th circuit dropped a footnote in Silveira v Lockyer (the case which said the 2nd wasn't an individual right in CA) which came pretty close to saying that incorporation would most likely be permitted (ie. that Presser and Cruikshank were no longer good law on incorporation). See para 2 of FN 17
Posted by: Affe at June 27, 2008 10:52 PM
You might want to change that to Chuck Michel from Chuck Heller :D
Posted by: Gene Hoffman at June 28, 2008 12:32 AM
I sincerely hope the NRA does not get involved. Better that they do what they do best. Let somebody else do the heavy lifting then just claim credit. Every lawyer I have ever heard from who received NRA “help” tells the same story of sabotage. There may be some who did not experience the same thing, but they sure have been silent about it.
When I add that to my personal knowledge of their betrayals, I would just be much more comfortable if they weren’t involved.
Posted by: straightarrow at June 28, 2008 02:04 PM
I'm not happy with the NRA getting involved here. I would much prefer to see the heavy lifting be left to Gura.
Gura's Chicago case is the obvious next step and is a well crafted case. The City of Chicago ban is effectively the same as Washington DC's, so no new question is being presented beyond incorporation. The Chicago case is also based around four carefully selected plaintiffs, which include a former police officer and the purchaser of a DCM rifle.
The NRA's case is too far reaching for a next step. Not only does it bring in the question of incorporation, it muddles things with this being a public housing project. The NRA case is based on a single plaintiff.
There's also the issue of which circuit would be best for trying to get SCOTUS to establish an incorporation precedent. I prefer the 7th to the 9th.
Hopefully, Gura's case will move ahead more quickly than the NRA's.
Posted by: Samuel at June 30, 2008 10:52 AM
The whole point of the SF case (in which the public housing in question is run by a local government) is to bring about incorporation in the 9th Circuit, as CA's constitution does not have a 2nd Amendment analog. The lawyers who the NRA hired for this case have done yeoman's work for the CA firearms community in the past. I'll trust them here.
Posted by: Affe at June 30, 2008 11:30 AM