Supreme Court Weighs Review of San Francisco Gun Control Scheme

[usmarine0352_2005]

Wonder what the chance of this happening is.




http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/14/supreme-court-weighs-review-of-san-franc#comment

Supreme Court Weighs Review of San Francisco Gun Control Scheme

Trigger lock requirement runs counter to District of Columbia v. Heller

by Damon Root | Reason | May 14, 2015

In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court not only struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, it also struck down D.C.'s requirement that all firearms kept at home be "unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." According to the majority opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia, the individual right secured by the Second Amendment voids such requirements because it protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

Yet despite the Supreme Court's unequivocal judgment invalidating trigger lock-type regulations for guns lawfully kept at home, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit voted last year to uphold a San Francisco gun control law which requires that any handgun kept at home be "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock." The existence of such requirements, the 9th Circuit asserted in Jackson v. San Francisco, "does not substantially burden the right or ability to use firearms for self-defense in the home."

Summary reversal means the Supreme Court would immediately overturn the 9th Circuit without bothering to consider any additional briefing or hear any oral arguments in the case.

 

[JSH1]

I doubt the Supreme Court will take a case to decide if cities can require guns to be stored in a locked container.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Isn't that the point of a summary reversal?

 

[Librarian]

See the collection of filings on Jackson here: http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/jacksonvsanfran/

See the requested relief at p 19 of the original complaint. (It's an image scan, otherwise I would have cut and pasted)

 

[ilbob]

It will be many decades before we know what the RTKBA means in any practical way.

Till then, we will be fighting every state and locality over all kinds of petty nonsense like this.

Just so you know, I am a big fan of securing one's firearms. Just not a fan of government mandates to do so that prevent one from using them if needed.

 

[natman]

I doubt the Supreme Court will take a case to decide if cities can require guns to be stored in a locked container.

I'm quite sure this is wrong because they already have. In Heller v DC this exact issue was before SCOTUS and they decided the following:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. .......the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Therefore the 9th Circus Court's decision directly and flagrantly contradicts an existing Supreme Court decision, so much so that a summary reversal seems a likely outcome, not to mention the only correct one.

 

[Old Fuff]

Therefore the 9th Circus Court's decision directly and flagrantly contradicts an existing Supreme Court decision, so much so that a summary reversal seems a likely outcome, not to mention the only correct one.

And I read somewhere that the 9th Cirucs is the grand champion when it comes to reversals. Must be something in the water.

 

[Librarian]

re: reversals

Seems to be more a product of how big the circuit is - 29 judges vs 11 for the 7th Circuit, 17 for the 5th Circuit, etc.

See also this 2002 article - http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20020419.html and this more recent article http://www.americanbar.org/content/...azine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

 

[JSH1]

I'm quite sure this is wrong because they already have. In Heller v DC this exact issue was before SCOTUS and they decided the following:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. .......the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Disassemblied or bound by a trigger lock is not EXACTLY the same as "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock."

The Supreme Court has ruled that requireing a gun to be stored disassembled is unconstitutional. They have also ruled that requiring a gun to be stored with a trigger lock is unconsitutional. They have not ruled on whether requring a gun to be stored in a locked container is unconsitutional. If they take this case it will be to decided about storage in a locked container.

 

[Rmeju]

There is no principled difference between the two. The gun is not immediately accessible, which was the point. I'm sure DC argued that there were trigger locks that could be quickly opened, just as I'm sure SF argued there are safes that can be quickly opened. But DC got overruled.

I say this as an advocate of having a safe even for your nightstand gun. I just don't see how the first can be unconstitutional, but the second one is.

 

[natman]

Disassemblied or bound by a trigger lock is not EXACTLY the same as "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock."

The Supreme Court has ruled that requireing a gun to be stored disassembled is unconstitutional. They have also ruled that requiring a gun to be stored with a trigger lock is unconsitutional. They have not ruled on whether requring a gun to be stored in a locked container is unconsitutional. If they take this case it will be to decided about storage in a locked container.

"bound by a trigger lock" and "disabled with a trigger lock" are EXACTLY the same thing.

"stored in a locked container" may not have been explicitly addressed, but the meaning is clear: you get to have a gun ready to use. Again from Heller v DC:

It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when
necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

If a trigger lock makes it nonfunctional enough to violate the Second Amendment, so does a locked box. Changing the shape of the lock changes nothing.

 

[barnbwt]

Can't we just argue that requiring "careful manipulation to make ready" is indistinguishable from requiring "reassembly?" Otherwise they'll eventually mandate one of those Get Smart gun safes with twenty locks and wireless telemetry to the local PD.

TCB

 

[JSH1]

There is no principled difference between the two. The gun is not immediately accessible, which was the point. I'm sure DC argued that there were trigger locks that could be quickly opened, just as I'm sure SF argued there are safes that can be quickly opened. But DC got overruled.

I say this as an advocate of having a safe even for your nightstand gun. I just don't see how the first can be unconstitutional, but the second one is.

We are fundamentally in agreement. I agree that there is little difference between locking a gun in a safe or using a trigger lock. The only difference I can see is that all trigger locks I know of use a key while many safes have a keypad. One doesn't need to carry a physical object with them to access a gun in a safe with a keypad. Regardless, it doesn't matter.

The Supreme Court chose to rule narrowly in Heller. They ruled on the law as it was written and struck down two forms of safe storage. They didn't rule more broadly and say that safe storage laws are unconstitutional altogether. That leaves the issue open.

BTW, I am also an advocate of securing one's firearms but opposed to mandatory safe storage laws.

 

[steve4102]

There are trigger locks available that use "Combinations" instead of a key.

 

[JSH1]

There are trigger locks available that use "Combinations" instead of a key.

I see. (You can tell I haven't shopped much for trigger locks) I was thinking more of a digital keypad not old school combination locks. Still it doesn't matter. The key issue is the narrow ruling by the Supreme Court.

There are many other issues that the court has ruled narrowly on for decades. Every ruling is followed by a slightly different law and the legal process begins again. Safe storage will be the same unless the court rules broadly and strikes down any restrictions on firearm storage in a home.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Didn't D.C. ban self-defense use of guns period, and the "either disassembled or locked" requirement was intended to implement the ban on having a gun available for self-defense?

 

[natman]

I see. (You can tell I haven't shopped much for trigger locks) I was thinking more of a digital keypad not old school combination locks. Still it doesn't matter. The key issue is the narrow ruling by the Supreme Court.

There are many other issues that the court has ruled narrowly on for decades. Every ruling is followed by a slightly different law and the legal process begins again. Safe storage will be the same unless the court rules broadly and strikes down any restrictions on firearm storage in a home.

I don't see anything narrow about SCOTUS' ruling in Heller. Just because trigger locks were the way a gun was made nonoperational in the DC law doesn't mean a slightly different way to make a gun nonoperational isn't covered. The point is that requiring a gun to be stored in such a way that it is nonoperational is unconstitutional, not the details of the specific device used to make it nonoperational.

Supreme Court decisions establish principles and aren't dependent on a specific technology. SCOTUS made this point quite clearly in Heller:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. [emphasis added]

 

[JSH1]

You have your opinion and I have mine. I guess we will just have to wait and see what the Supreme Court decides to do.

 

[Frank Ettin]

No sense speculating. Let's see what happens and then we can discuss that.