Supremes order U.S. city to explain its confiscation of legal guns

wnd.com ^ | 4/26/2020 | WND

[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."

[I want the USA back]

I said a million times that their intention is to take guns from honest, non-violent individuals and leave them in the hands of violent criminals.

[Blue Collar Christian]

After this, and then the civil suit, the subjects, err..citizens of San Jose will have to pay her for the misbehavior of the police department.

No public employees/officals will be disciplined.

[chopperk]

Maybe San Jose should respond with a few million dollars in damages to the lady. I hope the complaint would have merit for blatantly abusing the lady”s rights. Way to go Ca.

[coloradan]

I don’t see what the big deal here is. Rapists and murderers always wait at least 8 years between when the opportunity to attack someone arises and when they actually begin the attack, so it’s not like she was actually deprived of any defensive rights.

[faucetman]

“...which were all locked in a California-approved safe...”

In other words, these firearms were USELESS!

WAIT! DON’T SHOOT. I have to unlock my safe!

When are we going to confiscate automobiles from DUI offenders? Not just their vehicles, but all the vehicles they have access to. Not to mention there isn’t any constitutional protection for possessing a vehicle.

[C210N]

...which were all locked in a California-approved safe.

Funny, my copy of the second amendment does not include any reference to a state-approved safe. Are they challenging that violation too?

Well, at least it was not a CA-un-approved safe. Or, heaven forbid, a Double-Dog CA un-approved safe.

[from occupied ga]

Seven years ago

Even if the city looses they will either

1. Not return the guns
2. return them completely rusted and worthless
3. return is so late that the lady was deprived of her rights anyway

Cop and his bosses should be held PERSONALLY LIABLE for this gross violation of constitutional rights - jail time or fat judgement.

Let's hear it for the jackboot lickers - he was just following orders - we don't know the whole story - you want him to go home to his family at night - etc.

The government is NOT your friend. The police are part of the government. Therefore the police are not your friends.

[Wildbill22]

You think this is bad?

Just wait.

It sounds like Pelosi has tagged some gun control onto the virus stimulus plan (s)...

Not sure, but don’t be surprised. We are in for some interesting times.

[rktman]

From another thread I responded to concerning part IV(vote by mail?):

And the republicrats will “compromise” saying “It’s the only way we could get the Phase 4 stimulus package passed.” I wonder what other infringements will be included in the pork wagon.

So we’re thinking along the same line.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3839337/posts?page=14#14

[litehaus]

“NOT unbelievable.”Nuttins unbelievable in KALIFORNICATIA !!

[PAR35]

All I see there is an opportunity to reply to a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Nothing about an “order to explain”. So I’ll repeat: “it shows a level of ignorance as to judicial process”

Of course, I’ve only been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States for a little over 30 years. So what do I know about federal practice and procedure.

[kiryandil]

Shining a little light on the California judicial cockroaches:

The usual Cartelfornia gun-grabbing clownshow starts up:

City petitions the Santa Clara Superior Court for an order of forfeiture of the weapons pursuant to §8102(c) on the ground that a return of them could endanger Edward Rodriguez or others. The judge, while acknowledging that Lori Rodriguez was eligible to purchase and possess other firearms, grants the City’s petition over Lori’s objection.

Thug in magic blue suit grabs guns.

Lori appealed that decision, and the California Sixth District Court of Appeal on April 2, 2015, affirmed in an unpublished opinion by Acting Presiding Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian.

Following the issuance of that opinion, Lori Rodriguez assumed sole ownership of all 12 weapons and registered them in her name and obtained gun release clearances from the California Department of Justice. In light of that, she asked for a return of the weapons.

The city declined, and she filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Lori Rodriguez then argued that the seizure and retention of the firearms violated her rights under the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and that she was also entitled to return of the firearms under California Penal Code § 33800 et seq.

Federal Judge Edward J. Davila [ClownBammy "judge", and "swell pals" with everybody in the Santa Clara Superior Court, having been elevated from there. His Democrat wife Mary Greenwood is Presiding Justice of the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District, which is also involved in this Lefty car crash] grants summary judgment in favor of Defendants (the city and others), and against Rodriguez.

Lori Rodriguez appeals to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and gets a three-judge panel consisting of J. Clifford Wallace [Nixon judge who was 90 years young at the time of this decision, and who "grew in office"], Richard R. Clifton [Dubya "judge" who "grew in office" - he's a Trump Wall blocker] and Michelle T. Friedland [ClownBammy "judge" who was confirmed 51–40, and another Trump Wall blocker. Friedland and her Globalist pal Clifton's Wall machinations later got slapped down by the Supremes 5-3.].

They affirm Democrat Davila's summary judgment in favor of the City of San Jose on July 23, 2019.

"We hold that Lori’s Second Amendment claim is barred by issue preclusion and that her Fourth Amendment claim fails on the merits. We therefore affirm."

==============================

Talk about running a gauntlet of gun-grabbing Lefty judge-thugs...

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca9-17-17144/pdf/USCOURTS-ca9-17-17144-0.pdf

[kiryandil]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1057.html

No. 19-1057
Title:	         Lori Rodriguez, et al., Petitioners
                 v.
                 City of San Jose, California, et al.
Docketed:	 February 25, 2020
Linked with 19A653	
Lower Ct:	 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  Case Numbers:	        (17-17144)
  Decision Date:	July 23, 2019
  Rehearing Denied:	September 24, 2019

DATE	        PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS
Dec 11 2019	Application (19A653) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 23,
                2019 to February 21, 2020, submitted to Justice Kagan.
                
Dec 12 2019	Application (19A653) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until February 21, 2020.

Feb 21 2020	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 26, 2020)

Apr 08 2020	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/24/2020.

Apr 20 2020	Response Requested. (Due May 20, 2020)

[kiryandil]

Here's the Petition for a writ of certiorari:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1057/133818/20200221125837603_Rodriguez%20Cert%20Pet-Final-PDFA2.pdf

Appears as though someone(s) might be getting a trip to the Supremes' Woodshed:

This case involves the unconstitutional seizure and retention of legal firearms from a person legally entitled to have them, both at the time of the seizure and now.

The initial seizure violated the Fourth Amendment because it was made without a warrant for lawfully possessed firearms that posed no imminent danger.

The continuing refusal to return such firearms, despite it being undisputed that it is entirely lawful for Petitioner Rodriguez to purchase and possess firearms and her complete compliance with state law and procedures for ensuring the safe storage and control of such firearms violates the Second Amendment under any conceivable standard given its complete irrationality.

Indeed, because Petitioner stated such an obviously meritorious Second Amendment claim, the Ninth Circuit manufactured a meritless issue preclusion defense in a now-familiar bid to circumvent the Second Amendment.

At a minimum, this case should be held for a decision in No. 18-280, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which could provide intervening authority bearing favorably on the Second Amendment question and thus eliminate any prospect of issue preclusion even as improperly manufactured by the Ninth Circuit...

[kiryandil]

I wonder who is writing this Petition?:

The district court also rejected Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment takings claim with the circular conclusion that because the confiscation of the firearms was supposedly lawful, the refusal to return the firearms could not be a compensable taking.

Suffice it to say, that holding is embarrassingly wrong, contradicts the City’s concessions that Petitioner retained a property interest in the firearms, App. E8, E17, but is not independently cert.- worthy.

It does reinforce, however, the disdain with which the rights of firearms owners are treated by some judges in the Ninth Circuit.

The Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim and the pendent state law claim were summarily dismissed and are not at issue in this Petition.

    

[wastedyears]

And if they don’t respond by some arbitrary date?

[rktman]

Like most dem run enclaves, they’ll just ignore knowing they won’t be called to task.

[wastedyears]

When does the Supreme Court stop coddling government tinpot dictators who trample on the rights of Americans?

Because half of the SCROTUS are tinpot dictators.

[kiryandil]

Moar hilarity from the Petition:,p> The undisputable lack of exigent circumstances, the failure of Respondents even to proffer evidence that a telephonic warrant was unavailable, and the Ninth Circuit’s complete disregard for such facts and established burdens of proof all amount to that court applying its now-well-known gun exception to the Constitution. See infra, at 21-23.

When even the California Legislature, the California Department of Justice, and the California Supreme Court are more solicitous of the constitutional rights of firearms owners than the Ninth Circuit, it should be obvious that there is a serious problem.

This Court should grant review to resolve the conflict between the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court, to resolve the conflict between the decision below and this Court’s cases narrowing the exceptions to the warrant requirement, and to remind the court of appeals that there is no Ninth-Circuit-policy-preference-exception to the Fourth Amendment or any other part of the Constitution.

     

[kiryandil]

Moar hilarity from the Petition:

The undisputable lack of exigent circumstances, the failure of Respondents even to proffer evidence that a telephonic warrant was unavailable, and the Ninth Circuit’s complete disregard for such facts and established burdens of proof all amount to that court applying its now-well-known gun exception to the Constitution. See infra, at 21-23.

When even the California Legislature, the California Department of Justice, and the California Supreme Court are more solicitous of the constitutional rights of firearms owners than the Ninth Circuit, it should be obvious that there is a serious problem.

This Court should grant review to resolve the conflict between the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court, to resolve the conflict between the decision below and this Court’s cases narrowing the exceptions to the warrant requirement, and to remind the court of appeals that there is no Ninth-Circuit-policy-preference-exception to the Fourth Amendment or any other part of the Constitution.