Other State SCOTUS orders city to explain confiscation

[41mag]

Supremes order U.S. city to explain its confiscation of legal guns | WND | by WND Staff

The United States Supreme Court has told officials in San Jose, California, to explain their actions from a few years back when they confiscated the legally owned guns of Lori Rodriguez.

www.wnd.com

Read More

 

[Slobray]

In 2013, police seized all the weapons from Rodriguez' home then refused to return them.

In the lower courts, judges quickly concluded Rodriguez had done nothing wrong and was allowed to buy new weapons. But city law-enforcement officers still kept her old ones.

I wonder how many more years are going to pass before (and/or if) she gets all of her guns back....................



Ray

 

[mortar maggot]

By denying him his rights and property especially after being order to return the guns, should bankrupt the city.

 

[CHLChris]

And this on the same day SCOTUS declared the NY Rifle Pistol Club against NYC to be moot. That was a travesty, but this is a good step!

 

[GunSmoke]

Wow.... yeah they jacked her. I dont know how you reprimand a municipality but just giving them back isn't good enough in my opinion which, they better end up doing. She should get 7 years worth of rental fees from the city for this at least

 

[DB is Here]

She should get 7 years worth of rental fees from the city for this at least

And at an hourly rate like you'd pay at the range, plus a public apology from the Mayor.

 

[SOrez]

I wonder if the San Jose PD even still has the guns.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I wonder if the San Jose PD even still has the guns.

Yes they do. In their personal safes at home.

 

[Stomper]

IT SHOULDN'T TAKE A PHUCKING DECADE TO GET JUSTICE!!!

 

[titsonritz]

IT SHOULDN'T TAKE A PHUCKING DECADE TO GET JUSTICE!!!

Nor should have to take the SCOTUS to do so.

 

[coop44]

Likely the guns have been destroyed or stripped, she may only get back bare frames/receivers at best.

 

[nwslopoke]

I wonder how many more years are going to pass before (and/or if) she gets all of her guns back....................



Ray

This is not meant to be anti cop but this is a clear case where government refuses to punish itself. That department and the DA or who ever prosecutes there needs to lose what ever amount she would win in a lawsuit from their budget. Since this was not an honest mistake. They seem to have gone to great lengths to cancel her rights to her property.

 

[2A2Dend]

What corruption?

 

[awshoot]

I'm changing my username to WetBlanket. Unfortunately, this case is less straightforward than it looks in the WND article. The sequence went like this:

1. Police confiscated 12 of Husband's guns and one of Lori's. H was legit nuts based on the description of his behaviors.
2. Lori sued to get her gun back and the ones in which she had a community property interest. Trial court refused.
3. Lori appealed to CA appeals court. Court ruled against her, affirmed trial court.
4. Lori DID NOT appeal this decision and it became final and binding against her. <--- problem! (*)
5. Lori and H transferred all the guns to Lori's sole ownership, she changed the safe combo.
6. Lori filed Federal case.
7. Federal District Court ruled that #3 above represents a final determination against her and ruled against her in the Fed case (there was a 4A issue too, but she lost that as well) (*).
8. Lori appealed to the 9th circuit, it affirmed the Federal District Court.
9. Lori appealed to the SCOTUS.
10. SCOTUS asks city to explain.

The main issue is whether she can even have the second Federal case because of claim or issue preclusion. (*) If SCOTUS decides to do nothing, it will be on this basis because claim/issue preclusion are extremely powerful and kill subsequent cases even if the first one was wrongly decided -- these are serious trump cards. Whether SCOTUS is scolding the city or not, let's not forget that it made NYC go through all the motions of arguing a case, before it copped out and said it was moot.

(*) Claim/Issue preclusion prevents harassing lawsuits by saying you get one chance to bite the apple, and once the case has come to a final conclusion, you don't get to try again in a new lawsuit. There are two basic forms: res judicata which applies to identical cases and parties, and collateral estoppel which applies to an issue between two parties that was litigated previously and applies even if the new case as a whole is not identical, at least as to that previously litigated issue. These are powerful concepts and will kill a case whether or not the prior decision was wrong.

Res judicata - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Collateral estoppel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

9th Circuit opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-17144/17-17144-2019-07-23.pdf?ts=1563901363

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I'm changing my username to WetBlanket. Unfortunately, this case is less straightforward than it looks in the WND article. The sequence went like this:

1. Police confiscated 12 of Husband's guns and one of Lori's. H was legit nuts based on the description of his behaviors.
2. Lori sued to get her gun back and the ones in which she had a community property interest. Trial court refused.
3. Lori appealed to CA appeals court. Court ruled against her, affirmed trial court.
4. Lori DID NOT appeal this decision and it became final and binding against her. <--- problem! (*)
5. Lori and H transferred all the guns to Lori's sole ownership, she changed the safe combo.
6. Lori filed Federal case.
7. Federal District Court ruled that #3 above represents a final determination against her and ruled against her in the Fed case (there was a 4A issue too, but she lost that as well) (*).
8. Lori appealed to the 9th circuit, it affirmed the Federal District Court.
9. Lori appealed to the SCOTUS.
10. SCOTUS asks city to explain.

The main issue is whether she can even have the second Federal case because of claim or issue preclusion. (*) If SCOTUS decides to do nothing, it will be on this basis because claim/issue preclusion are extremely powerful and kill subsequent cases even if the first one was wrongly decided -- these are serious trump cards. Whether SCOTUS is scolding the city or not, let's not forget that it made NYC go through all the motions of arguing a case, before it copped out and said it was moot.

(*) Claim/Issue preclusion prevents harassing lawsuits by saying you get one chance to bite the apple, and once the case has come to a final conclusion, you don't get to try again in a new lawsuit. There are two basic forms: res judicata which applies to identical cases and parties, and collateral estoppel which applies to an issue between two parties that was litigated previously and applies even if the new case as a whole is not identical, at least as to that previously litigated issue. These are powerful concepts and will kill a case whether or not the prior decision was wrong.

Res judicata - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Collateral estoppel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

9th Circuit opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-17144/17-17144-2019-07-23.pdf?ts=1563901363

But in #7 above, the state did not argue for preclusion or collateral estoppel. Rather, the court took it upon itself to rule on issues not raised by the defendant. That's a problem.

 

[awshoot]

But in #7 above, the state did not argue for preclusion or collateral estoppel. Rather, the court took it upon itself to rule on issues not raised by the defendant. That's a problem.

That's true -- tells you how biased the court is to tell the state, hey there, here's a great argument you missed.

 

[ma96782]

So then.....What if??? The guns were given back today.

Rrrrright…..
I guess the SCOTUS could say the issue is, "moot". And so, they won't have to hear anymore about it. And NOT move to prevent a similar occurance in the future.

HA, Ha, ha..... Rrrrrright…...

Justice

Aloha, Mark

 

[clearconscience]

The biggest problem is "justice" systems have become political arenas where it's no holds bar against your opposition regardless of laws and once caught in violation of a citizens rights there is no repercussion to the oppressor.
gaurantee you if judges/prosecutors started losing their jobs, pensions, licenses, and had personal liability against them the tune would change:
But we have become a society of politics where elitist can bend, break, and manipulate the rules in their favor without punishment.
Our systems favor the tyrants. Not what our forefather's fought for.

 

[Xaevian]

So...a law is only unconstitutional if a court says it is? The danger of former lawyers becoming law makers...