Difference between revisions of "Jackson v. San Francisco"

From Calguns Foundation Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Calguns Discussion Thread)
(Status)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
  '''FUTURE EVENTS'''
 
  '''FUTURE EVENTS'''
 
   
 
   
'''''Motion Hearing set for 12/9/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco.'''''
+
* December, 09, 2010 - Defendant's motion to consolidate with ''Pizzo v. Newsom'' has been DENIED
 
   
 
   
 
* September 27, 2010 - [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.215014/gov.uscourts.cand.215014.43.0.pdf MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by City and County of San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 12/9/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco.]
 
* September 27, 2010 - [http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.215014/gov.uscourts.cand.215014.43.0.pdf MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by City and County of San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 12/9/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco.]

Revision as of 16:41, 10 December 2010

Jackson v. San Francisco

May 18, 2009 NRA filed a federal suit (United States District Court, Northern District of California) against the City of San Francisco entitled Jackson v. San Francisco. First named plaintiff is Espanola Jackson.

Case number appears to be 09-2143.

Status

Case Number: 3:09-cv-02143-PJH Docket from RECAP

FUTURE EVENTS

  • December, 09, 2010 - Defendant's motion to consolidate with Pizzo v. Newsom has been DENIED
  • May 15, 2010 - Summons Issued as to City and County of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, Heather Fong
  • For events between May 2009 and May of 2010 see the Docket link above

Calguns Discussion Thread

Jackson V. San Francisco - September, 2010

NRA coalition suit: Jackson v SF ("Safe" Storage) - May, 2009

Intent

The complaint alleges that the requirement to keep handguns unloaded or trigger locked or otherwise in a locked case is exactly the kind of unconstitutional interference with the right to self defense struck down in Heller. The suit also challenges the fact that the "no discharge" ordinance has no exception for self defense. Further the suit challenges the ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition or any ammunition that is not suitable for "sporting purposes" in San Francisco.

Commentary

Case Files