This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 04/27/2020 5:42:53 AM PDT by rktman
he U.S. Supreme Court has ordered officials in San Jose, California, to explain why they confiscated the legally owned guns of Lori Rodriguez.
They still have them.
The case was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation on behalf of the woman.
The Supreme Court justices have instructed city officials to respond by May 20.
"We’re encouraged by this development in the case," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "If the city thought they could just ignore this case and make it go away, they’re wrong."
"Her firearms were seized seven years ago after her husband was taken to a hospital on a mental health issue," the foundation said. "At the time, a San Jose police officer advised Rodriguez he had authority to seize all firearms in the residence, including those belonging solely to her, which were all locked in a California-approved safe. The guns were taken without a warrant, and over Rodriguez's objection."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The basis of “Red Flag” laws.
The police don’t need no reason or justification. Those political connected will not be touched.
Funny, my copy of the second amendment does not include any reference to a state-approved safe. Are they challenging that violation too?
Unfortunately it takes years to play out.
This is wrong on so many levels. Let’s see if the Supreme Court throws the bastard cop and city officials in jail. Oh, that’s right, the Supreme Court can’t do that. So, no harm, no foul. What is the resource so this doesn’t happen ever again? It’s called the people exercising their rights when the government fails to. It’s the reason we have a 2a. String the bastards up.
I’m a life member of the SAF and I’m so glad they push this kind of case.
Three outfits that are more conservative than the NRA are the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, The Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of America.
The story at the link doesn’t seem to support the headline. And it shows a level of ignorance as to judicial process. The Supreme Court doesn’t issue show cause orders to parties.
Yeah, kind of my first thought when I read the header as well. Butt, these crazy days, who knows?
Ping worthy.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Post 6— Thanks for the information.
You're right. What happened is the appellant filed a petition for certiorari, and the appellee (the city) filed a waiver of their right to respond. This is good practice, because filing a response to a petition for cert can pique the court's interest when the case is reviewed prior to going to conference, which may result in the petition being granted. As the appellee, you lose noting by doing this, because if the court is interested, they will direct you to file a response later. This is what happened here. It still doesn't mean that the petition will be granted, or that the appeal will be heard, but it does mean that there is some interest in it.
You're right. What happened is the appellant filed a petition for certiorari, and the appellee (the city) filed a waiver of their right to respond. This is good practice, because filing a response to a petition for cert can pique the court's interest when the case is reviewed prior to going to conference, which may result in the petition being granted. As the appellee, you lose noting by doing this, because if the court is interested, they will direct you to file a response later. This is what happened here. It still doesn't mean that the petition will be granted, or that the appeal will be heard, but it does mean that there is some interest in it.
Their response is due 20 May.
Does the request for response mean the case was not heard at conference on 24 April?
Agree.
Going to track this.
I would think so.
The other thing they get you on here in the bay area is whether the weapon is registered to you or not. There isn’t really a registration system but they want to see some verifiable sign of ownership, either a receipt with your name, not your husband’s, a firearm transfer form, or something like that that would be in their system, otherwise it is not considered yours and it goes.
All 50 states have,for many years,had well established laws giving police the power to take a person who displays certain degrees of mental instability into custody and deliver that person to a psychiatric hospital.I know this because I worked in a big city ER for years and saw that happen on more occasions than I can recall.
Once such a person is hospitalized it's up to medical professionals to determine how serious,and how long lasting,that condition or those symptoms are.And,of course, the courts are involved in all such cases.
IOW,the police already have the power...even without these "Red Flag" laws...to take an "unstable" person into custody.And,to repeat,that's true in all 50 states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.