The United States Supreme Court enjoys the ability to decline hearing cases when they decided that’s the appropriate course of action. But the National Rifle Association won’t be pleased with the Court’s recent decision to refuse to take on the six year old Jackson v. City of San Francisco legal battle.
The Jackson case contends the rights of gun owners in San Francisco are being unnecessarily restricted by a set of 2007 laws. Among these laws is a mandate that while at home, a gun owner must keep control of their firearm on their person; otherwise that gun should either be placed in a locked container or have its trigger locked.
When the case made it before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that court affirmed San Francisco’s ordinances didn’t pose a “substantial burden on the Second Amendment right itself.”
While the Supreme Court opted not to hear the case, they didn’t do so unanimously. As noted by SCOTUSblog, Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented with the decision. They believe support for San Francisco is “in serious tension with Heller.”
That reference to District of Columbia v. Heller suggests the dissenting justices believe their opinion in that case, where people at home have the right to have a weapon available to use quickly, contradicts the San Francisco stance in Jackson.