Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Testing black powder guns with modern equipment | Main | Oregon court strikes campus carry ban »

San Francisco challenge: motion to dismiss denied

Posted by David Hardy · 29 September 2011 02:59 PM

Order here. It's the [correction made] California Rifle and Pistol Assn/NRA challenge to San Francisco's ordinances, based on McDonald, and the court rejects a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The ordinances require that guns be trigger-locked or stored in a locked container, ban the sale of ammunition that has no "sporting purpose," and prohibits all discharge of firearms (including discharge in self-defense).

It's especially good in that the court calls into question the continuing vitality of some 9th Circuit rulings on the issue. The 9th Circuit is one which has two entirely different bodies of law on standing. One that usually governs follows a correctly loose concept of standing: you have standing if you have to refrain from conduct because it is forbidden by a statute you argue is unconstitutional. The other body of law applies only to gun cases and a few other classes of cases that the 9th Circuit probably dislikes: you only have standing if the enforcing agency has been kind enough to give you a one-on-one guarantee that you will be prosecuted if you violate the law. Thus the agency can never be sued unless it is foolish enough to give you that, and to guarantee it. The 9th has never bothered to reconcile the two different standards it applies.

· Chicago aftermath

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Bill Wiese | September 29, 2011 4:16 PM | Reply

Hey David,

While we Calguns Foundation folks do appreciate the kudos, they're not deserved here.

This is an NRA & *CRPA Foundation* sponsored effort. (CRPA: California Rifle & Pistol Assn, the NRA's state affiliate org in CA).

A big shout out to Chuck Michel - along with his teammates Clint Monfort and Sean Brady - for this progress.


Bill Wiese
CGF Board member
CRPA Board member
San Jose, CA

Leave a comment