BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
Petitioners seek to enjoin a San Francisco ordinance that requires handguns kept in the home to be stored locked when not carried on the person of an adult. Pet. App. 50-51. The ordinance does not require that gun owners keep their handguns unloaded, and it places no limits on the manner of keeping long guns. In opposition to petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction, respondents submitted evidence that handguns stored in modern lockboxes can quickly and easily be retrieved in the event of a self-defense emergency; that the simple measure of storing firearms locked reduces the risks of suicide and unintentional shootings, particularly among children and teens; and that measures making guns harder to steal can reduce gun thefts, a significant source of guns used in subsequent crimes. The district court denied petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction. In a unanimous opinion by Judge Ikuta, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion by the district court. The circuit court held that although the ordinance imposed some burden on petitioners’ Second Amendment rights, San Francisco’s evidence supported the conclusion that the bur- den was insubstantial. Pet. App. 14-17. Moreover, San Francisco showed that the ordinance was reasonably likely to advance its important interests in public safety. Id. at 18-21.
The court’s interlocutory decision does not warrant further review. Judge Ikuta’s opinion was consistent with District of Columbia v. Heller, which noted that nothing in its analysis “suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents,” 554 U.S. 570, 632 (2008). Petitioners attempt to equate San Francisco’s storage ordinance – which allows gun owners an unfettered right to carry guns in the home – with the absolute trigger-lock requirement that this Court invalidated in Heller. But the court of appeals rightly relied on a critical difference between the two laws: the ordinance invalidated in Heller had no self-defense exception, while San Francisco’s storage ordinance does not need one, because it allows gun owners to carry their guns for any purpose. Pet. App. 15.
The petition should be denied for the further reason that there is no division among the circuits or the state and federal courts concerning the constitutionality of storage laws like San Francisco’s. Petitioners do not even argue there is a conflict in these cases, but nonetheless warn that the appeals court “crossed the Rubicon,” and that this Court must grant review to forestall a “disturbing trend” of cases where lower courts have upheld other kinds of gun laws, such as those restricting public carrying or gun purchases by people under age 21. Pet. 12, 18-21, 26. But petitioners never explain why this case presents a suitable vehicle for addressing decisions about different laws.
Finally, petitioners argue that the Court should summarily reverse the decision of the court of appeals in light of Heller. But, as just noted, Heller addressed a law that effectively prohibited the use of firearms in the home for self-defense, a far cry from San Francisco’s ordinance regulating only the manner of storing guns and not their use. And even if there were a conflict between Heller and the decision below, summary reversal would not be appropriate here. Several jurisdictions have storage laws similar to San Francisco’s, and a great many more have laws that treat locked storage as a safe harbor from criminal liability where a child foreseeably gains unauthorized access to a gun. Summarily striking down San Francisco’s law compelling locked storage on a facial challenge would likely invalidate storage laws in other jurisdictions, and could, at a minimum, raise doubts about the validity of state laws that require locked storage to avoid criminal liability in some circumstances. Such a result should come about only after the benefit of full briefing and argument.
