The 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.”
SAF has been joined in the case by the California Gun Rights Foundation.
“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.”
Gottlieb said the inquiry is “a significant development, because it signals the Supreme Court is interested in the case.”
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.
“Lori Rodriguez is not a criminal, nor is she prohibited by law from owning firearms. Yet she’s essentially been robbed by the city of San Jose and its police department, with the cooperation of lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Gottlieb said.
“When a municipal government agency can seize property without a warrant, and be protected by the lower courts in so doing, it is time for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and right this dangerously tilted ship before it capsizes.”
Don Kilmer, a civil rights lawyer working on the case, said 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.”
He said 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.”
“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.”
