U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Attorneys for California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, and a California resident filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of an improperly decided Ninth Circuit ruling. The recent case filings in Rodriguez v. San Jose can be viewed at www.cagunrights.org/work.
One night in January 2013, Lori Rodriguez sought assistance for her husband. After he was compassionately placed into the care of mental health professionals, a San Jose Police Department officer told Lori that he would need to seize all of their guns, which were safely locked away out of the reach of her husband, including one handgun exclusively owned by and registered to her. In spite of the fact that Mrs. Rodriguez did not give consent and objected to it, San Jose Officer Steven Valentine took all of the family’s guns from her without a warrant.
Since then, the California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Firearms has confirmed that Mrs. Rodriguez is a law-abiding person with no firearms disability, and that the guns the City seized and continues to hold are all registered only to her. But the City of San Jose continues to refuse Lori’s efforts to recover them, even though state laws say she can.
On July 23, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants, in part on grounds that had not been raised or ruled upon below. In a published opinion the court held that the Respondents were excused from obtaining a warrant to seize Petitioner Rodriguez’s property under a “community caretaking” exception. It also shifted the burden to Petitioner to prove the availability of telephonic warrants and ignored the City’s complete lack of explanation or excuse for its failure to seek a warrant. In a separate unpublished memorandum opinion, filed the same day, the panel affirmed the district court’s rejection of Petitioners’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and her pendant state law claims.
“Mrs. Rodriguez has at all times complied with California’s many gun control laws, including those requiring locked storage. But the City of San Jose outrageously continues to refuse to return the constitutionally protected property they unlawfully took from her years ago. Governments have no reason and no right to take guns from law-abiding people who are legally eligible to keep and bear arms, full stop,” explained Donald Kilmer, the petitioners’ lead attorney. “The Constitution does not have a ‘gun’ exception to fundamental Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, but that is exactly what the Ninth Circuit’s dangerous decision means. We hope the Supreme Court will vindicate our clients’ rights and restore the rule of law in the Ninth Circuit.”
“In the United States, governments cannot take a law-abiding woman’s property, without a warrant, and refuse to give it back. And not only are the City of San Jose and its police department doing just that, they also violated her fundamental Second Amendment rights in the process,” said attorney Erik Jaffe, a Supreme Court attorney for the petitioners. “Constitutional amendments are not mere suggestions. This case offers a vehicle for the Supreme Court to remind lower courts and government agencies that constitutional principles are not different or diminished in cases involving firearms.”
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
- Whether the Fourth Amendment allows an exception to its warrant requirement for so-called “community caretaking” where the alleged danger to the community has been resolved and the premises to be searched and items then seized do not contain or pose an immediate threat making it impossible to obtain a timely warrant?
- Whether issue preclusion can bar a claim for deprivation of a constitutional right where the prior decision discussing the constitutional issue did not depend on resolving the merits of that issue, found state-law procedures remained that could moot the claimed infringement, and thus could not have been further reviewed in this Court given that the constitutional claim would be seen as unripe and potentially avoided by adequate and independent state grounds?
- Whether this Court should exercise its supervisory powers to review the improper circumvention of Second Amendment protections in the Ninth Circuit or, at a minimum, hold this case for No. 18-280, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York?
SUPPORT THIS CRITICAL 2A CASE
About California Gun Rights Foundation
California Gun Rights Foundation (www.cagunrights.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.
About Second Amendment Foundation
Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, the Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
To drain the federal judicial swamp, Trump needs four more years, a Trump Senate, and a Trump house.
You can’t drain anything in 8 years, considering Federal judges have LIFETIME appointments. Take a Civics 101 class.
Uh, HELLO???? What the hell do you think Trump & the GOP Senate has been doing for the last 3 1/2 years??? They have put more conservative judges on the bench than ANY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!
Give him 4 more years and Trump will insure that the courts stay conservative for the next 50 years!
please crawl back under that lefty rock you came from. you lemmings in the city know nothing of the real America and have been indoctrinated into thinking that you, the intelligentsia know what’s what. and please do not use my Lord’s name in vain.
@gregs – I’ll second that!!
gregs . . . Thank you for your post!
@"MCCLOUD!", Trump has appointed nearly 200 federal judges, and two S. Ct. judges. Give him four more years and he could, potentially, appoint 200 more and possibly, two more S. Ct. judges. That would be half of the federal judiciary. That is a very great draining of the federal judicial swamp.
Gee, cluck. Your reading comprehension must be ailing! The statement was a Republican majority in both houses of Congress! That could facilitate the impeachment process for recalcitrant Federal Judges! Must you have everything explained in small words and simple sentences?
@"MCCLOUD!", lifetime or term of good behavior.
Like where, Frisco or LA? Chicago? Baltimore? New York? Go ahead blame Trump for all the inner city troubles. What else Corona Virus too? Keep slurpin the koolaid, maybe you’ll drown.
Psst… your TDS is showing. This is what you look like right now:
When tyranny comes to your doorstep, it will come in a uniform.
So fear all postal workers…..
Ahh, the troll known as superturd finally crawls out from under a rock to display its stupidity. Anyone with a brain knows I was referring to police & military. Or have route carriers been armed by the USPS and no one told me? How about you shut your piehole till you have something constructive and edifying to say???
Yes, Superturd is a total turd and should go back to his safe place.
clark has a point, they do call it going “postal”
@Gregs – Seriously. We all know that those that “go postal” are taking out their anger on supervisors, management and the occasional ahole coworker. Never in the history of the USPS did a delivery carrier whack people at home. Honestly, I remember when “going postal” became a thing (yeah I’m that old) and is probably why there’s a federal ban on guns at postal property nationwide. And I’d bet ya solid money that those that “went postal” were probably all proud Demorat union employees.
Go away Cluck because you are ignorant of history and the common excuse of the Jackboot brigades. “ I was just doing my job.” It’s was no excuse then and it sure isn’t now. Too bad we don’t hang Jackboots anymore!
Now Clark, we all have seen Three Days of the Condor.
Don’t know about you sooperkook but mine are dressed pretty normal like I usually am. And they deliver all my gun goodies with a smile.
We have an inherently binary political system, so hell no, I’ll vote red to keep that commie POS Bernie (or Bloomturd) from seizing power. Not that I like Trump, but that 4 more years to prepare for the boogaloo would be nice. Consider this: the right-wing community has NEVER caused a democide, but over a quarter BILLION people have been murdered by their own governments thanks to socialism! And before you say it, NO, Hitler was a PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST – he said so OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH. His party was the NATIONAL SOCIALIST German Workers’ Party. THE GOP IS… Read more »
@OV – Not necessary. The first SCOTUS case in history, Marbury v Madison, unanimously ruled that ALL laws repugnant to the Constitution are VOID, as if they never existed. UNANIMOUS RULINGS OF SCOTUS HAVE THE IMMEDIATE AND UNALTERABLE EFFECT OF LAW short of a constitutional amendment to the contrary, excepting the Bill of Rights, which is itself unalterable. You know where else SCOTUS ruled unanimously?? CAETANO v MASSACHUSETTS, where they stated “ALL BEARABLE ARMS ARE PROTECTED BY THE 2A”. Period. End of argument, forever. Again, statutes enacted by Congress that are in conformity to the Constitution and Bill of Rights… Read more »
@OV, That is a good idea. Codify the notion, rather than just relying on a S. Ct case.
Nope, no matter how severely they stack the court, as long as there’s even one dissenting justice, SCOTUS cannot overturn Marbury v Madison because that was a UNANIMOUS ruling founded on the most solid of arguments and the words of the Constitution itself. It would take another unanimous ruling of SCOTUS and that just won’t happen. PLUS, you would need a virtually identical case to float that before the High Court, and BECAUSE of Marbury, lower courts would rule in Stare Decisis and therefore it would never even GET to SCOTUS. TOO MANY IF’S TO EVEN BE A REMOTELY PLAUSIBLE… Read more »
@OV, Overrulling Marbury would be no different than overruling any other S. Ct. case. Same rules. Having said that, Marbury having become such a cornerstone of our S. Ct tradition and power, that overruling Marbury would be extremely, extremely unlikely.
I see we have another turd/troll on the board! Get thee back under thy rock! Or, henceforth into the Alquida!
Will Flatt . . . YUP!!!
What good are laws when the criminals are the government?
the Supreme Court has already ruled on that – https://takebackthepower.us/Not-Laws.html The Supreme Court has also already established your right to defend yourself against unlawful arrest – https://uaptsd.org/2014/02/12/your-right-of-defense-against-unlawful-arrest/
MICHAELJ . . . THANK YOU FOR YOUR POST!!! YOU PUT YOUR FINGER RIGHT ON THE PROBLEM!!! WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO AMERICA’S SECOND CIVIL WAR!!!
Need to instruct all family members not to allow LEO’s into the home and to always require a warrant to enter if they do show up.
@GetOut – Just be careful how you refuse. ANY physical resistance will be considered an attack and dealt with accordingly. Do not start violence you are not prepared to finish – remembering radios and that response time is considerably shorter when police lives are at stake.
Wearing blue does not change the nature of a criminal gang. While most officers believe they are doing good and several are good people – as a rule they are not to be trusted.
Then why don’t YOU become a police officer and show us all how it SHOULD be done? Put up or shut up.
Perhaps because he doesn’t share your delusions of grandeur, AKA; “superman complex”?
Cluck=Boot licker!
Don’t know if you’re correct about a guy in Indy. The law allowing people to use reasonable force to stop illegal entry by LEOs came about because a guy named Richard Barnes pushed cops that forced their way into his home and the Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Barnes saying people have no right to use force against UN-lawful entry by police.
Right you are GO. Additionally, be prepared to back up your refusal of illegal entry with armed force and your life! The Continental Army did against overwhelming odds and won our freedom. We, as individuals, can do no less. Action underscores words.
Law was passed in mid-2012. I’ve looked for anyone in Indiana since that time who used the law to justify shooting a cop and got the charges dismissed. I’m coming up with nothing. I did find this article from November of last year. Guy wants the law rescinded. He makes no mention of a cop killer using the law as an excuse. Highly likely he would have used such an example if it existed.
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/its-time-to-get-rid-of-the-law-that-allows-citizens-to-shoot-police-officers/
I tell you true when I tell you that had officer Steven Valentine come for my guns, he would have left in a body bag. I am ready for this, and have for a long time now emotionally prepared myself for it. Anytime anyone, be they “sworn” to uphold the law or not, decides to take it upon themselves to violate my Constitutional rights, the very ones I swore to uphold from my eight years of military service, then know that they have a fight coming that neither of us will likely walk away from. Know that now is the… Read more »
I am ready!
Walk in grace, bro.
Three innocents have already been SHOT dead over the RED FAG laws by Sworn to Uphold the law(screw the Const,I want my pension),club.SWAT teams LOVE to be called out and pull their SHIT thug tactics.
StWayne . . . Thank you for your post. We are very, very close to America’s second Civil War! If I lived in Virginia right now, I would dare the government to come for ANY of my guns!!! I am sure that I would go down, but I would go down fighting and am equally sure that I would take a bunch of them with me!!!
The 9th Circuit needs to have its liberal ass spanked raw. President Trump is working on it slowly, but there needs to be a mass impeachment of every “justice” who agreed with the decision.
Trump has about killed the 9th in WA, Cali is the Big one, but one Judge at a time, if he makes it back to POTUS in ’20, maybe we get two more SCOTUS judges and a LOT more Federal Constitutional judges.
This is so STUPID it shouldn’t even be on the books, NO DUE PROCESS?. How about we ignore your Unconstitutional Laws?. Or all laws,legal or not?. Criminals and D.C. criminals ALL LEVELS get away with murder esp if you’re ILLEGAL or a member of the ABC’s.
Doszap . . . Unfortunately, if you as an American citizen insist on your Constitutional Rights, the government will KILL YOU! As a citizen, your greatest enemy in this day and time IS YOUR GOVERNMENT!!! We no longer have a Constitutional Republic in the United States. We are currently RULED by an Oligarchy!
Sundown at Coffin Rock, The Sequel by Raymond K. Paden. Thomas sat alone upon the cold stone, shivering slightly in the chilly pre-dawn air of this April morning. The flashlight was turned off, resting beside him on the bare granite of Coffin Rock, and involuntarily he strained his eyes in the gray non-light of the false dawn, trying to make out the shapes of the trees, and the mountains across the river. Below, he could hear the chuckling of the water as it crossed the polished stones. How many times had he fished here, his grandfather beside him? He tried… Read more »
The article doesn’t say if the SCOTUS accepted the case. Have they? They have a bad habit of turning down these kind of cases and letting unconstitutional laws stand.
donfranko . . . We certainly hope that the titmouse justices that sit on the Supreme Court would have the courage to take the case and then rule in concert with the Second Amendment to put a stop to these egregious violations of citizens rights. At this point in time, the greatest enemy of American Citizens is their GOVERNMENT!
I believe the reason they won’t return her property is that it has probably already been destroyed so cannot be returned!
The government(s) at all levels – particularly in The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia – simply just REFUSE to follow the Constitution of the United States. They force American citizens to have to resort to the court system, which many citizens cannot afford, to pin governmental units ears back and make them follow the law! It should be a part of the legal system that, should the governmental unit be found in violation of the filing citizens rights, that unit is responsible for paying all of the legal and out of pocket costs of the plaintiff along with a legally required… Read more »
@no, That is the law at the federal level: Federal Tort Claims Act and the Equal Access to Justice Act.