Local governments now have the right to tell you how to store your guns thanks to the inaction of the US Supreme Court.
The court Monday refused to hear an appeal of a US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld a San Francisco ordinance requiring owners in their own home either to store firearms in a locked container or disable them with trigger locks when not in use. Gun owners can wear the gun in a holster, but other than that, the gun must be put away.
As is usual, the Supreme Court did not explain why it didn’t hear the case, although two justices argued the court should have heard it.
“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,” US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a six page dissent about the case, Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco.
My Personal Defender: Low Cost Way To Defend Yourself Against Lowlife Criminal Scum!
Justice Antonin Scalia joined Thomas’ dissent.
“In an emergency situation, the delay imposed by this law could prevent San Francisco residents from using their handguns for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” Thomas stated. “And that delay could easily be the difference between life and death.”
Thomas added, “The law thus burdens their right to self-defense at the times they are most vulnerable – when they are sleeping, bathing, changing clothes, or otherwise indisposed. There is consequently no question that San Francisco’s law burdens the core of the Second Amendment right.”
According to the San Francisco ordinance, violators could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Six San Francisco residents joined the NRA and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association in 2009 in challenging the law in federal court.
Conflicts with Landmark Heller Ruling
Thomas contended that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Jackson conflicts with a landmark US Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment gives citizens a right to own firearms and possess them within the home for self-defense. Heller struck down a Washington, D.C. law that banned the possession of handguns.
The court’s ruling means that the San Francisco ordinance and similar laws in states and territories in the Ninth Circuit can be enforced. The Ninth Circuit covers Hawaii, Alaska, California, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington state.
But the law also gives a boost to gun control advocates outside of the Ninth Circuit who want to see other cities pass similar ordinances.
The court Monday refused to hear an appeal of a US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld a San Francisco ordinance requiring owners in their own home either to store firearms in a locked container or disable them with trigger locks when not in use. Gun owners can wear the gun in a holster, but other than that, the gun must be put away.
As is usual, the Supreme Court did not explain why it didn’t hear the case, although two justices argued the court should have heard it.
“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,” US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a six page dissent about the case, Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco.
My Personal Defender: Low Cost Way To Defend Yourself Against Lowlife Criminal Scum!
Justice Antonin Scalia joined Thomas’ dissent.
“In an emergency situation, the delay imposed by this law could prevent San Francisco residents from using their handguns for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” Thomas stated. “And that delay could easily be the difference between life and death.”
Thomas added, “The law thus burdens their right to self-defense at the times they are most vulnerable – when they are sleeping, bathing, changing clothes, or otherwise indisposed. There is consequently no question that San Francisco’s law burdens the core of the Second Amendment right.”
According to the San Francisco ordinance, violators could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Six San Francisco residents joined the NRA and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association in 2009 in challenging the law in federal court.
Conflicts with Landmark Heller Ruling
Thomas contended that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Jackson conflicts with a landmark US Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment gives citizens a right to own firearms and possess them within the home for self-defense. Heller struck down a Washington, D.C. law that banned the possession of handguns.
The court’s ruling means that the San Francisco ordinance and similar laws in states and territories in the Ninth Circuit can be enforced. The Ninth Circuit covers Hawaii, Alaska, California, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington state.
But the law also gives a boost to gun control advocates outside of the Ninth Circuit who want to see other cities pass similar ordinances.
4 comments:
So how soon will the local courts as well as the Law Enforcement use this Decision for their Benefit to get people behind bars?
Will it come down to that if bullets are in the gun at anytime except for being at an enclosed shooting range the person will be criminally charged, even if there is an intruder?
The basic law would be that if you need the gun for self defense you will required to get it out of the safe, load the gun, remove the trigger stop, and then just point it at the intruder while you call the police for them to save your life or you could be criminally charged.
Its All Bull Shit It DID NOT HAPPEN LIES ,LIES ,MAN THESE FOLKS WILL DO AND SAY ANYTHING JUST TO BE NOTICED !
Maybe those 9 judges would like to try to walk into my home uninvited and unannounced.
Do these black robbed devils live on another planet? What part of "shall not infringe" do they not understand? How much longer will we continue to turn our head and pretend not to see? Get a rope.
Post a Comment