SOCUS won't hear NRA appeal on San Fran gun lock law...here it comes !

[ob1]

The Supremes just turned their back on a NRA challenge to the San Francisco law requiring handguns to be locked or disabled while stored at home. Since most anything created in California is viewed to be "nifty" by our local politicians...how long will it be ?

And remember guys, we live in that same "Ninth Circus Court of Appeals".

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

why is the NRA always wasting $ trying to challenge defunct cali gun laws...... this is the second time that I can recall since the anti gun assault on the north west began.....YOUR NOT GETTING ANY PRO GUN PASSED IN CALIFORNIA WITHOUT DOUBLE THE ANTI LAWS IN RETALIATION, thats all there is to that.

why are they ignoring us in the north west....not enough north west NRA members? cant justify spending any of our support money on us? or is it cheaper to challenge defunct cali gun laws and pay a single lawyer for a cali court case to get POSITIVE press time, than it is to stand up for the 2nd & us here in Oregon

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Unconscionable.

 

[balaperdida]

The SCOTUS ruled in Heller that a gun kept in the home can't be rendered unusable, and McDonald extended this to the States. Seems like the doddering old fools on that bench are forgetting their own history.

 

[Martini_Up]

Alert! Alert! A post critiquing the NRA!!! Here they come!!!

It is amazing to me that government continues to ignore the 2nd amendment as well as ruling which support the 2nd (heller). They have an agenda and just don't care.

Remember, a right is something you exercise.

 

[ob1]

The SCOTUS ruled in Heller that a gun kept in the home can't be rendered unusable, and McDonald extended this to the States. Seems like the doddering old fools on that bench are forgetting their own history.

They didn't forget...if you don't hear the case, you don't have to worry about your own precedents.

 

[Outrider]

The SCOTUS ruled in Heller that a gun kept in the home can't be rendered unusable, and McDonald extended this to the States. Seems like the doddering old fools on that bench are forgetting their own history.

Although not explained in the article, the brief from San Francisco presented the distinction between the law in the D.C. case and the law in the San Francisco case. In the D.C. case, the law required firearms to be disabled (unloaded, disassembled or locked up) regardless of whether the owner was home. The owner was forbidden from having the firearm in readily operable condition in the home. A gun owner could not have a loaded gun in his own home under the D.C. law. He could not carry it in the home or use it in self-defense at home under the D.C. law.

In the San Francisco case, the law requires the handgun to be locked up when not being carried by the person. It has no similar requirement for long guns. Basically, if a person is at home, he can carry his loaded handgun around as much as he wants. That's different than D.C. If the person chooses to not carry his handgun in the home, the law still allows it to be assembled and loaded. That's also different than D.C.

The way the law is written, they are using "storage" to indicate that the handgun's owner is not physically present to control it. This is how it differs from bearing arms. Carrying a firearm is different than storing a firearm. They're making a distinction between "use" and "storage" in a way that the D.C. law did not.

The San Francisco law is much more focused than the D.C. law. It permits "use" while imposing "storage" burdens. It's going after the situation where people leave loaded handgun unattended and unsecured in the home. It's structured to address the familiar scenario where parents have left a loaded handgun in the bedroom nightstand, their child (or their child's friend) has access to it because the adults are in another room, and then BLAM there is a tragedy.

In the briefs, San Francisco argued there are modern storage options that still allow for quick access to handguns should an emergency arise. Further, there is no similar law for long guns so if an adult wants to have a loaded rifle or shotgun left unsecured at home, he or she still has that option for self-defense.

None of this is a defense of the San Francisco law. It's simply an explanation so people understand what the law is and how it differed from the law in D.C. that was overturned.

The bigger issue in the case is the level of scrutiny used to review it. There are three levels. The higher the level of review, the less likely the challenged law is to survive.

Rational Basis is the most permissive. It favors the government. Almost every law the government passes will survive the Rational Basis test. Under this standard, the law only has to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest for the law to survive review.

Intermediate Scrutiny is the middle test. It does not favor the government but it allows governmental regulation if the government's interest is significant, substantial, or important, and whether there is a reasonable fit between the challenged law and its asserted objective. The rule does not have to be the least restrictive means of achieving the objective.

Strict Scrutiny places the burden on the government and forces it to use the least restrictive mechanism to achieve its goal. Strict Scrutiny is the hardest level of review for a law to survive.

Here, the court just used Intermediate Scrutiny to uphold the storage requirement. Heller did not specify the level of review to be used for gun rights so we now have an appellate level case that says the government only has to meet the medium level of review for a challenged gun law to survive.

 

[Dave Workman]

The Supremes just turned their back on a NRA challenge to the San Francisco law requiring handguns to be locked or disabled while stored at home. Since most anything created in California is viewed to be "nifty" by our local politicians...how long will it be ?

And remember guys, we live in that same "Ninth Circus Court of Appeals".

<broken link removed>

Very astute!

SCOTUS decision will open door to 'safe storage' initiatives

Yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to turn down an appeal of restrictive gun laws in San Francisco throws the door open to more billionaire-funded initiatives to require so-called "safe storage" of firearms, and push for bans on some of the most common ammunition available for hunting, self-defense and competition.


<broken link removed>

 

[Kid@Heart]

Well written.

Even I could understand...