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 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Yet another victim of NJ gun laws | Main | An insight into the black market for guns »

Jackson v. San Fran: cert denied, with dissent

Posted by David Hardy · 8 June 2015 09:53 AM

Order here. The Court denies cert., not a big surprise, but Thomas and Scalia dissent and say the Court should have accepted the case, even though there is no split in the circuits.

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Jim | June 8, 2015 10:57 AM | Reply

Kind of scary that only two justices signed on to this dissent. Perhaps more scary is that it only takes four justices to grant cert, and they didn't.

David Lawson | June 8, 2015 12:01 PM | Reply

Doesn't Jackson attempt to overrule part of Heller? Seems like this would trump even a circuit split.

Anonymous | June 8, 2015 6:45 PM | Reply

Again we are reminded that elections have consequences.

joel stoner | June 11, 2015 11:01 PM | Reply

Sounds as if Justice Thomas and Scalia are saying that Strict Scrutiny is the proper level for Second Amendment cases. If only this meant something outside of an actual SCOTUS decision.

Jackson is virtually identical to Heller, and the decision by the lower courts is counter to Heller. Which does create a split. In other words, in California Heller doesn't exist.

Leave a comment