Antonin Scalia

San Francisco's Dangerously Intrusive Gun Storage Rule

The Supreme Court misses an opportunity to defend the Second Amendment.


This week the Supreme Court passed up an opportunity to get the government out of the bedroom. Counterintuitively, the case involved an ordinance adopted by the famously tolerant and progressive city of San Francisco just eight years ago.

The puzzle is solved when you learn that the ordinance deals with guns, tools for exercising a constitutional right that is decidedly unfashionable in the City by the Bay. By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court, which in 2010 affirmed that the Second Amendment binds states and cities as well as the federal government, undermines that principle, suggesting that the right of armed self-defense is constrained by local sensibilities.

San Francisco's ordinance, enacted in 2007, requires that handguns kept at home be "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock" except when they are being carried. As the six residents challenging the ordinance pointed out in their petition asking the Supreme Court to consider the case, that requirement means "law-abiding individuals must render their handguns inoperable or inaccessible precisely when they are needed most, whenever they are not physically carrying them on their persons—including when they are asleep in the dark of night."

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, the Court overturned a similar restriction in the nation's capital. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said the District's "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" violated the Second Amendment.

During oral argument in that case, Walter Dellinger, the lawyer representing the District, said he was able to remove a trigger lock in "three seconds," albeit "in daylight" and not including the time necessary to load the gun. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that someone awakened in the middle of the night by an intruder breaking into his home might not be so speedy: "You turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses…"

Although that comment elicited laughter from the audience, the delay caused by such storage requirements is no joke when you suddenly need a gun to protect yourself or your family, a situation in which even a few extra seconds can make a crucial difference. "If I heard an intruder break into my home in the middle of the night," says Espanola Jackson, the elderly lead plaintiff in the San Francisco case, "I would have to turn on the light, find my glasses, find the key to the lockbox, insert the key in the lock and unlock the box (under the stress of the emergency), and then get my gun before being in position to defend myself. That is not an easy task at my age."

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recognized when it considered Jackson's arguments last year, San Francisco's ordinance "burdens the core of the Second Amendment right" by making it more difficult to use guns for self-defense. The appeals court nevertheless upheld the ordinance, deeming the burden justified by the city's asserted "interest in preventing firearms from being stolen and in reducing the number of handgun-related suicides and deadly domestic violence incidents."

That justification—which the city added to the ordinance in 2011, after the Court made it clear that local governments must respect the Second Amendment—sounds a lot like the "freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach" that the Court rejected in Heller. Dissenting from the Court's denial of Jackson's petition, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Scalia, observed that the 9th Circuit's "questionable decision" is "in serious tension with Heller."

Thomas noted that San Francisco's ordinance "burdens [residents'] right to self-defense at the times they are most vulnerable—when they are sleeping, bathing, changing clothes, or otherwise indisposed." The government has no business intruding into these intimate settings, whether by decreeing what goes on in your bed or what goes into your nightstand.

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Can They Stop Themselves?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Guns AND the court system. Motherfucker. How are we supposed to comment on this story?

    It’s a little chilly today…

    1. A little too chilly, if you get my meaning.

    2. the impact of your statement is significantly reduced by the use of your non-family-friendly language. Supposing I were reading this with a young child on my lap, explianing to her how the highest court in the land decided to leave the residents of San Francisco to the mercies of violent intruders….. and YOUR comment comes along……. thanks for helping keep things clean.

      1. Is the young child your own? And are you clothed?

  2. Stare decisis – only really binding on precedents we agree with.

    1. Roberts pounded on the idea of stare decisis during his confirmation hearings. Every question elicited the response that he was a heavy believer in stare decisis. So he should have been the third vote. They couldn’t get Alito?

      Alito and Roberts must’ve believed that they’d lose Heller if they brought this up. Roberts in particular should have taken the lower courts divergence on their directives seriously.

      1. Alito and Roberts must’ve believed that they’d lose Heller if they brought this up

        If this is the case, it may be that Kennedy is off his meds again. The other justices would have worked with him long enough to notice the patterns of behaviour

  3. In Canada the enlightened law is to have guns stored in a different part of the house from ammunition.

    Stew on that. Think of the magnificent retardation of it. Basically, Canada is saying ‘you can’t defend yourself. While you wait for our marvelous cops to arrive, use something else – perhaps a knife or Q-tip? – to protect your family. Oh, and if you stab and happen to kill a trespasser, good luck. Ha, ha.

    That’s our law, in general, in summation.

    1. Yes. But in Canada, aren’t the burglars ALSO required to keep THEIR guns and ammo in separate rooms? So what’s the problem?

      1. No, they’re just supposed to shout their threats in two languages.

        1. I suspect that is one law they actually follow. They’re just so damned considerate up there.

        2. But what if those threats are directed at a judge? Even if properly rendered in both languages doesn’t that add some extra special punishment?

        3. Je suis un burglar!

          Note to any AUSA lurkers: I’m not really a burglar. It’s just a joke. Not even a particular funny joke. Or funny at all really.

        4. thank you Rene Levesque!!!! Il’y’a un fou

    2. and a significant part of why I never returned, and won’t until that is changed. A disarmed people are an enslaved people. Either side of that 49th Parallel

  4. 7:01. Never Forget!!

    Say, what color is our magnetic ribbon?

    1. Orange?

    2. Plaid?

    3. Black of course. Like our hearts.

      1. I think every person should be allowed to select the color of his or her own ribbon.

        1. What are you? Some sort of freedom living subversive?

      2. Yes, this. And they should be scratch n sniff with the aroma of fresh wood chips

        1. It is probably a good thing for me that I have no idea what any of you are going on about, Steve, or else I might have laughed at your suggestion.

          Of course, because I have no context in which to place your suggestion I did not audibly laugh, and therefore cannot be held in any way responsible or accountable for what any of you are going on about, Steve’s suggestion, my reaction or non-reaction to any of the aforementioned, or anything/anyone else related or not related to Reason (or Popehat for that matter – whatever or wherever or whenever he/she/that/it is or was).

      3. And made of woodchips

  5. San Francisco’s ordinance, enacted in 2007, requires that handguns kept at home be “stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock” except when they are being carried.

    San Fran is forcing me to wear my sidearm when at home? That doesn’t seem very gun-controlly. Also, I say Congress forces the Supreme Court to disclose its reasons for declining to hear a constitutional argument.

    1. When you put it that way it doesn’t sound so bad, actually. Might be a little awkward in the shower, though.

      1. Sometimes my gun goes off in the shower.

    2. Did you read the fine print about which orifice they want you to wear it in?

    3. Does the ordenance say anything about cleaning the gun?

      Because if one is cleaning and oiling the gun, there is a period of time where the gun will be assembled but not yet have the lock installed.

      Some people can quickly install the trigger lock, some would be slower. I think with my hand eye coordination it may take me a couple of hours to get it done, especially if I receive an important phone call in the middle of the operation and have to take a break.

      1. Take it to a city-credentialed firearm cleaner. You just better hope you’re transporting it there legally.

        1. Just don’t forget to do the background check before handing it over, and, oh, they’ll have to do one on you before giving it back.

        2. Yup. Gun in locked hard sided case, ammunition in second, separate locked hard sided case, neither accessible to the driver or any passenger whilst the vehicle is on the road.

    4. I think this is a great idea. The SCOTUS are answerable to the Congress, at least the sEnate. One other question.. was this decision made by the full nine member court, or a smaller panel? Cannot the Congress require the court to hear it en banc, if the decline to hear was by a portion of the court?

      Now, what about that ninth…. is there a recofd of which of those judges voted in favour of their city friends? Seems that decision was some sort of a payback tit for tat kind of a deal.

    5. The congress,were it to inquire as you suggest is unlikely to get an intelligent answer from the court’s majority.

  6. Comrades, centralized committee knows what’s best…

    1. People forget. An enlightened, elected bureaucrat knows your the intricacies of your own life better than you do. Never forget that.

      And 7:01.

      1. knows the intricacies.

        I blame the banana.

    2. I always say, I wish there more more bureaucrats so I could make less decisions about my life.

      1. Freedom is such a burden

        1. True freedom is asking permission and obeying orders.

  7. OT: Meth debris “piling up” across Michigan. Stay classy, “Wolverine” State!…../28775925/

    1. I’d have thought this was a moral panic story, not a REGION WAR story.

      1. If not for Meth, Michigan wouldn’t have any manufacturing left.

        1. Hey! I work at a plant in MI that makes stuff! BIG stuff! Out of metal and everything!

          *can’t really get all worked up about this comment*

        2. and I work for a MI company that makes big – and I mean BIG – plastic parts.

      2. Why can’t it be both, small thinker?

    2. Hey, we Hoosiers have more meth debris than you guys. We’re number One. We’re #1!

      /note to law enforcement lurkers: I am NOT advocating or encouraging Meth users should try these obviously dangerous home chemistry set-ups. Obviously, they should properly get prescriptions for Ritalin like civilized people.

  8. I, for one, do not wish ill on the crafters of this ordinance in any way, shape, or form. I have never harbored thoughts or wishes related to aforementioned crafters experiencing their appendages shoved into woodchippers. I am appreciative of government officials at all levels and in no way do I wish for the existence of an unpleasant “afterlife” environment where said officials will suffer hot iron pitchforks repeatedly poked into various orifices.

    1. Does this mean we can’t make references to the end of “Fargo” any more?

      1. “People need two cent stamps whenever there’s a rate increase”

        /still has packs of ‘forever’ stamps

        1. “Three cent stamp, Margie.”

          “Well – that’s GREAT!”

          1. In my defense, it’s been years, and I was only one cent off. But I do remember it was a mallard.

            1. I couldn’t remember, either – lucky guess 🙂

              1. You betcha!

    2. I would add that should these justices encounter a revolutionary mob, that they not be the first put up against the wall. No sirreee. No walls.

      1. Not with this country’s long tradition of circular firing squads.

      2. If the firing squad were in SanFran, they’d first have to remove the trigger locks.

    3. “…and it’s such a nice day.”

      I love that line at the end of Fargo. Margie’s SO disgusted with the criminals! SO disgusted! It’s a NICE DAY, for fuck’s sake! Why you sticking someone in a [cellphone] anyway??

  9. I think San Fran is still mad at Dirty Harry C. for his misogyny and racism.

    “That’s a high price to pay for bein’ stylish….”

    “Mighty white of you….” – HC

    1. hah, that “mighty white of you” has been around long before the first Dirty Harry flick came out. Used to hear it a lot in the Bay Area. But that was back when anyone with a fiddydollabill could walk out of a pawnshop with a “heater” of quite good quality, and not show ID, an address, or even divulge one’s name. “I want THAT one, please”. Plops two twennies an a tenner on glass cuntertop, picks up .357 Mag S&W, six inch barrel, blued, rosewood grips, puts in back pocket and walks out. End of transaction. Bennie the pawn guy prolly gave ten bucks for it.

  10. Well, whatever anyone learns from this it shouldn’t be that you can’t rely on the government to protect your rights, because you certainly can. It’s full of Top Men (and Women) who spend every waking moment making sure that even those rights that might enable you to resist the state with force or free you from the need to interact with the state in some fashion are safe as houses, for you, your children, and your children’s children.

    And they’d never, ever, EVER think of prosecuting you maliciously. Not even a little bit.

  11. Enforced helplessness is sometimes needed to demonstrate the value of government.

  12. “Keep and bear” obviously means “store and disable.”

    1. Well, DUH! yeah!

  13. My first question whenever I see a law like this is: How in the hell do they plan on enforcing it?

    Short of going full-on Big Brother, or having cops performing random house searches, this seems pretty unenforceable. It’s more like one of those “nice to have” (for cops and prosecutors anyway) laws that can be enforced selectively when an opportunity presents itself. But, for the most part, it will just sit there on the books waiting for some poor sap to trip over it.

    Cops kick in your door because they got a bad anonymous tip about drugs? Perhaps a tip that came from a recently dumped lover maybe, who knows you have an unlocked gun in your nightstand? Cops find no drugs, but… Oh, what’s this? An unlocked gun in your nightstand drawer? Looks like we get to arrest you for something after all.

    1. “Short of going full-on Big Brother”

      ….aaaaaaaaand that’s exactly where they want to go. Exactly.

    2. It gets enforced when you use your unsecured weapon in self defense.

      1. “I was carrying on my person at the time the intruder broke in.”

    3. Seems pretty obvious to me.

      You end up having to defend yourself from some person or persons who have broken into your home and shoot somebody. Then the wheels of justice start to turn. “So just how did you take an unloaded, properly secured firearm, with the ammo properly locked in a separate container, out, load it, and shoot Mr. Bad Guy in less time than it would take him to get from this window and cross the room to stop you?”

      1. The absurdity is that, had the SC properly granted cert, San Francisco would be making the same argument DC did in Heller. “Well, you can clearly open the safe, undo the trigger lock and load the firearm in PLENTY of time so that this ordinance does NOT gut the core component of self-defense from the 2A.”

        And they would say the exact fucking opposite in order to prosecute.

        1. Nothing new there. IIRC, the feds have argued both that short-barreled shotguns are military weapons (and therefore not something appropriate for self-defense, so it’s OK to restrict them) and that they AREN’T military weapons (and are therefore not covered by the 2nd Amendment, since they aren’t appropriate for militia use).

          1. The case is “US v. Miller” I believe?

            The irony is that the 2nd Amendment deals specifically with military weapons (arms) and not really self defense. So technically they could ban your old double barrel hunting shotgun, but not real, fully automatic assault rifles with grenade launchers.

            1. And it always tickles me when they say that the second amendment was written about muskets – without the awareness that the musket was a cutting edge military weaspon, not much of a hunting arm. It was basically the period equivalent to a select-fire, assault rifle.

              1. “And it always tickles me when they say that the second amendment was written about muskets”

                And yet, they go strangely silent when asked if they want their police force armed with musketry as well. There’s no “right of the police to bear machineguns” clause in 2A, and police forces are civilian organizations deriving their right to keep and bear arms from the same 2A as everybody else…

              2. There was a gatling gun type weapon 12 years before the revolutionary war, and any number of awesome, multi-shot rifles and pistols. So that dog won’t hunt.

            2. not quite: the term “arms” at the time meant all weapons “of military usefulness”. Not necessarily ONLY for such use, or even primarily. If any militia member could possibly want to have one, it was an “arm”, and thus protected. Some militiamen showed up with ancient Damascus barreled matchlocks of starnge bores….. they were “militia’, after all, which meant the common citizen of any and all financial station. Horse pistols, duelling pistols, arquebus, Brown Bess, long barrelled goose guns….. ALL and more were considered “arms” and thus protected.

      2. I heard him out in the yard and began to prepare for the possibility he might unlwfully enter. And that is the end of my statement, as I wish to remain silent from this point onward.

        Of course, another tactic could well be, after the smoke has cleared, to clear the weapon, unlock the safe and ammo storage containers in their separate places, and put away both the hangdun and the remianing unused ammunition, then lock them both back up. When the cops get there, demonstrate to them were the two are now located. It will surely take them a long while to show up. After all, they can’t leave their donuts uneaten just because of a shots fired man down call, now can they? Get real.

        1. Another tactic wood be to chip the body afterwards and never call the Po-pos.

    4. There was a case in NYC a ways back where some guy used his handgun to scare away an armed intruder from his condo or apartment. It was caught on security video, and the guy was promptly arrested for having an unlicensed and unregistered firearm. I don’t believe the intruder was ever caught.

      1. Linky.

        He’s looking at three years.

        1. I wonder what waters the tree of liberty.

          1. Woodchippers?

          2. Ham tears?

  14. Cops kick in your door because they got a bad anonymous tip about drugs?

    Let’s not forget the SWAT teams serving warrants for unpaid parking tickets.

  15. the lawyer representing the District, said he was able to remove a trigger lock in “three seconds,” albeit “in daylight” and not including the time necessary to load the gun.

    “Need I point out, Your Honor, this is *much* faster than any arrival time of the police. The People rest.”

  16. The thought process on this variety of law seems to be:
    1. Gun violence is bad, mkay?
    2. If everyone kept their guns locked up at home, those bad guns would unleash less violence on people
    3. As soon as you pass a law, everyone instantly obeys it
    4. By 2 and 3, Intrusive gun laws reduce gun violence
    5. By 4, if you don’t support intrusive gun laws you want people to get hurt

    They tend to get upset when you point out 3 is very false.

    1. They tend to get upset when you point out 3 is very false.

      What are you talking about? Laws are magic!

    2. “Ah, but the right people are in charge now, and we have much better enforcement technology.”

    3. They would posses a gun AND not follow the law? See! Those bitter clingers are all scofflaws and immoral hicks! Just what I had always thought.

    4. Has anyone ever gotten an actual, cogent answer to the following question from a gun-grabber?

      “So this gun possession law that you say will reduce violent crime. If someone is intent on committing murder and the penalty for that is 25 to life, just what makes you think a 5 year sentence enhancement for committing that murder with a gun is going to have any effect whatsoever?”

      1. Like I often tell them – “So why don’t we just make murder into a crime?”

      2. Exactly the same as “No weapons” signs in banks. Is a bank robber going to worry about having a tresspassing charge piled on?

        1. I decided to not rob that bank with a gun because I would have to double park the getaway car in a tow away zone.
          – Prog Bank Robber

  17. The San Francisco ordinance is unconstitutional on its face, and the failure of the court to say as much won’t change how anyone stores their weapons at home.

    If a person needs to use their weapon to defend themselves, and anyone asks, they can just say “Oh, I heard a noise outside, so I unlocked the gun safe, retrieved my gun, loaded it, went down to my basement range and shot five mags for practice, then ran back upstairs to my bedroom and hid under the sheets waiting for the deceased to break down my bedroom door”, and if I’m on their jury, they’ll walk.


  18. Perhaps the “government” doesn’t want innocent residents to defend themselves in the dark when the SWAT team mistakenly invades their homes.

  19. Now that California is making a law for doctor assisted suicide then the argument to lock up guns to prevent suicide becomes a false excuse reason.

    1. Indeed.

      Why do we need assisted suicide anyway? Just make it easier for suicidal people to obtain firearms

  20. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    It seems that the constitution mandates a certain amount of regulation right in that second amendment. A better argument is if this regulation is a good one. I personally think that you should have to lock your handguns up when not being carried (more securely in a safe), as handguns are far more likely than long-arms to be stolen and used in a crime.

    Also, a shotgun makes for a better home defense weapon anyway.

    1. You know that words can change over time, don’t you?

      In the 18th century. It meant to be in good working order.

    2. You need to read more .

      1. 1. Properly controlled, governed, or directed; subject to guidance or regulations. Also: adjusted in response to, or in order to conform to, a principle, standard, set of circumstances, etc.

        Some examples from the oxford english:
        1704 T. Brown Ess. Satire Ancients in Wks. (1730) I. 16 These [verses]..had regulated forms, that is regular dances and musick.
        1731 tr. Winter Evening Tales xvi. 238 Even in the best regulated families some petty Quarrels will arise.
        1766 Compl. Farmer at Surveying, Then may you measure all the whole chains by your regulated chain.
        1828 J. M. Spearman Brit. Gunner 336 They are fired with a regulated charge of powder and shot.
        1838 Jrnl. Statist. Soc. London 1 358 Many [schools]..are close, filthy, ill-regulated, and the teachers utterly unqualified for either teaching or keeping the children in order.

        So yes, “well-regulated” did mean “in-good working order” but by means of guidance or regulations. Storage and care of guns would fall under those provisions.

        1. Well regulated MILITIA, not well regulated firearms, asshole.

          1. When this was written Militia was every white male between the ages of 18 and 45. or as the militia act of 1792 put it, “That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia”

            We use it a bit more broadly now to include women and minorities.

            1. It’s still part of US Code. It also adds veterans to the age of 60.

          2. Also, no need to get moody.

    3. Regular still retains this archaic sense when talking about bowel movements.

    4. It doesn’t MANDATE anything. The bill of rights spells out restrictions on government infringement of the enumerated right. The first clause simply lays out a broad justification for the protection of the right of people to keep and bear arms.

      Why is this so hard? I am so often hearing the commenter and talking head refer to the rights “granted” by the constitution. Jees people are thick.

    5. 1. In modern language the 2nd Amendment would read:
      “A properly trained and disciplined armed populace (A well regulated Militia), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and carry (bear) weapons capable of being carried by an individual on their person or in their clothing (Arms), shall not be infringed.”

      2. The immediate access ability of a firearm is my response to someone trying to steal it. Otherwise the thief will just steal the pistol safe.

      3.Finally, try coming around a blind corner with a shotgun; you will find very quickly that it is not very maneuverable!

      1. 2. The immediate access ability of a firearm is my response to someone trying to steal it. Otherwise the thief will just steal the pistol safe.

        I think the law should have cut out an exclusion for when its in your immediate access area (dresser while sleeping ect.) that’s why i don’t think its a good regulation. The safe (mine is bolted down and weighs 150 lbs) is for when I need to store the gun and and i’m not around.

        3.Finally, try coming around a blind corner with a shotgun; you will find very quickly that it is not very maneuverable!

        The (hopefully) properly trained and disciplined military do it with assault rifles and shotguns. Plus I the psychological impact of cocking a pump action and the reduced chances of missing are worth a reduction in maneuverability.

        1. 1. Since no comeback, I assume we agree on this one.

          2. I agree, there should be no restriction when you are in the house, however I also think you would not agree that a law that tried to mandate a bolted down, 150 lb. safe for storage of firearms, especially those designated for use in home/self defense is not a massive overstep of law.

          3. Yes, the military do use shotguns and fully automatic M4s BUT they also clear buildings as a team. Were you planning on always having a team ready to clear your house? It is quite different as an individual when you don’t even know the number and armament of the “invaders”.

    6. So, the BoR lists “natural rights” that are supposed to pre-date the formation of the US Government. How is it that the government can pre-date itself to regulate a natural right that pre-dates the government?

      Also, a suppressed, short barreled carbine with a 30 round mag makes the best home defense weapon. Too bad I’ll have to wait on my tax stamp for the Sig MPX.

    7. I also believe that people should lock up their firearms when not in use. In fact, I have a very large, heavy safe just for my firearms – minimum half inch thick steel walls.

      But it is not acceptable for the government to make anybody do this. That is outside the government’s authority and they are usurping the rights of the people when they assume the power to do that.

    8. You seem to have missed the subtle point that the second amendment doesn’t grant the right to bear arms, it acknowledges it as pre-existing and forbids the government from infringing it.


    9. +1 Joe Biden

  21. I favor gun rights, but don’t see a trigger lock requirement as a major imposition. I paid all of $15 for mine, and removing it was easy.
    I would have a much more hostile reaction to a British requirement that any firearm be locked in an expensive safe.

    1. How about a license and fee to exercise your free speech, or vote, or pay a fee to go to church. Maybe we should require people to get special permits to exercise their right to refuse to testify against themselves at trial.

      How about a transfer requirement for purchasing news content from a news organization in another state – interstate commerce and all?

      Rights come with the genome. They are not granted, gifted, or otherwise transferred from government to the citizen. Therefore ANY breeze of restriction (unless there is an adjudicated determination of the individual exercise of a specific person’s right being justified by a compelling interest of the collective people) is a step toward the cancer of tyranny.

      1. well, in this case, the supreme court determined a persons individual exercise of the right to keep and bear arms was justified by a compelling interest of the collective people not to have guns lying around unsecured.

        1. “…by a compelling interest of the collective…”

          Resistance is futile.

      2. The trigger lock “fee” actually can accomplish something, even if less than advertised.

        If one wants the USSC to take the heat for voiding a statute, they are more likely to oblige if the loss to the appelant is more than trivial.

  22. This particular law seems to be there so your kids (or dumb adults) don’t accidentally shoot themselves with a gun you left out. I think securing your weapons when you are not in immediate possession of them Is a good regulation, but this seems poorly designed. If “locked container” covered locked bedrooms or single person residences, It would be far more reasonable.

    1. Or if you left your car unlocked with the keys in it. Somebody could steal it and drive through a school bus stop full of kids. And it would be the fault of the owner and not the idiot that committed the crime.

  23. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

  24. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

  25. More proof that SCOTUS is part of and works for the Federal Government not “The People”. When are we going to learn this and start electing politicians that make laws for “The People” and not for a “Democratic Party Platform”?

    1. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Yes, the supreme court works for the federal government, in this case determining whether the a local ordnance is in violation of the constitution. To which it said, “This case has been decided by lower courts.”. The supreme court isn’t elected and does not make laws. Gun control laws are very popular in California, so in this case, the supreme court did reflect the will of a majority “The People”, but that’s incidental to its job of interpreting what laws mean and if and when the constitution applies to them.

      1. Except for one small discrepancy:
        “In District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, the Court overturned a similar restriction in the nation’s capital. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said the District’s “prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home [un]operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense” violated the Second Amendment.”

  26. Among all those in power that need to be removed from power is the entire judicial branch of government, foremost the villains on the U.S. Supreme Court! The judicial branch consistently sanctions and furthers tyranny in this land, and the rulings relating to how me must store our firearms are but one of a great many examples. Once control of government is attained, a new constitution must be instituted, one which has freedom at its heart.
    In respect to firearm storage on one’s premises, the goddamn state has no business dictating to us how we’ll store our weapons, including whether fully loaded and ready to fire or not! And if you value this freedom, your position must be that this is the case, regardless of any increase in gun accidents and suicides that may occur–for in that event, that would be a cost of freedom, a real cost of freedom.

    Robert Farrior
    New Jersey

  27. Nonsense. Keep the gun in a holster or in a gunvault. Both are designed for rapid access.

    The only time it is responsible to leave a gun unlocked in a drawer is when no one else ever visits your house. In which case you won’t get in trouble.

    1. Do you practice what you preach, I wonder. Even if you do, your choice, there are millions of others, people as thoughtful as you may be, who pursue a different course

  28. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

  29. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

  30. I find myself curious re the following, USSC foolishness aside. Exactly or even approximately how are the idiots in the city and county of San Francisco government going to determine whether or not their idiotic ordinance or law is obeyed, and or how might they go about enforcing same? As it’s been may years since I resided in the area, my question/curiosity is academic.

  31. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.