PA Bill Number: HB2663
Title: Providing for older adults protective services; and making a repeal.
Description: Providing for older adults protective services; and making a repeal. ...
Last Action: Referred to AGING AND OLDER ADULT SERVICES
Last Action Date: Nov 19, 2024
Supreme Court Rejects NRA Challenge To San Francisco Gun Rules :: 06/08/2015
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to block two San Francisco gun control measures that were fiercely opposed by the National Rifle Association. At least one veteran court observer says the high court's decision raises questions about how the justices interpret the Second Amendment.
First, the basics: A 2007 San Francisco ordinance requires residents to keep handguns under lock and key or to use trigger locks when they are not carrying their weapons. Another law, dating to 1994, bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, or hollow-point bullets.
Plaintiff Espanola Jackson and seven other petitioners, including the NRA, filed suit in 2012. They sought an injunction to keep the lockbox law from being enforced. But in March 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the City and County of San Francisco and left both measures intact.
In their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiffs repeated the argument they had made all along, claiming that "San Francisco stands alone in insisting that it may deny its residents immediate access to operable handguns in their own homes under the guise of regulating the manner in which they store them." They painted the picture of a law-abiding homeowner who "must fumble for the reading glasses and the lockbox while an intruder roams the premises."
The plaintiffs argued that they had precedent on their side, citing the high court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the justices ruled that under the Second Amendment a gun owner has a right to self-defense with a gun available within the home.
But only two justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, voted to review the case. Four of the nine must agree to hear a case.
In a six-page dissent, Thomas, joined by Scalia wrote that the San Francisco gun laws are "in serious tension with Heller" and that the prior court rulings had "failed to protect" the Second Amendment.
"San Francisco's law allows residents to use their handguns for the purpose of self-defense, but it prohibits them from keeping those handguns operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense when not carried on the person," Thomas wrote.
SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston writes that the court's action raises "significant new questions about how much protection the Constitution's Second Amendment actually gives to gun owners."
Denniston adds:
"Much of the uncertainty that has spread to courts across the country has involved the core question whether the personal right extends anywhere beyond the home. That has been the issue that the Justices have most often declined to sort out. The San Francisco case, however, sought to bring the Court back inside the home, to determine how far government could go to regulate access to a weapon there."
[Editor's Note:]
Some choice quotes from the dissent:
“The Court’s refusal to review this decision is difficult to account for in light of its repeated willingness to review splitless decisions involving alleged violations of other constitutional rights.”
“Since our decision in Heller, members of the Courts of Appeals have disagreed about whether and to what extent the tiers-of-scrutiny analysis should apply to burdens on Second Amendment rights. Compare Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244 (CADC 2011) (“We ask first whether a particular provision impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment; if it does, then we go on to determine whether the provision passes muster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny”), with id., at 1271 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny”). One need not resolve that dispute to know that something was seriously amiss in the decision below.”
