Jackson v. City of S.F.

Background

Six San Francisco residents who keep handguns at home and two organizations sued to block a city law that requires handguns in a residence to be stored in a locked container or disabled with an approved trigger lock, unless carried on the person or controlled by a peace officer. The law applies even if no children are present and carries penalties up to six months in jail or a $1,000 fine. Petitioners argued that the rule makes handguns inoperable for immediate self-defense, especially at night when many home robberies occur.

Reasoning

The lower courts denied preliminary relief and the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the law burdens the core Second Amendment right to self-defense in the home. That court nonetheless treated the burden as not severe, applied intermediate scrutiny, and found the law substantially related to a government interest in reducing gun injuries, suicides, and risks to children. Justice Thomas, dissenting from the denial of review, argued the Ninth Circuit’s approach conflicts with earlier decisions that protect immediate use of handguns in the home.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court declined to review, the law remains in effect in San Francisco, keeping requirements that can delay access to a handgun during emergencies. Residents who sleep, bathe, or otherwise cannot keep a gun on their person may face delays in retrieving a firearm for self-defense. The practical result preserves local officials’ ability to enforce storage rules while the constitutional debate continues.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, wrote that he would have granted review because the law imposes a significant burden on the core right to use arms for home defense.