Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco

**Question presented** Do the San Francisco rules that require a handgun kept in a home to be stored in a locked box or fitted with a trigger lock (unless the gun is being carried on a person) violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self‑defense? **Holding** The Supreme Court *did not* take the case. It denied the petition for a writ of **certiorari** (the Court’s agreement to review a lower‑court decision). Because the Court declined to hear the case, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling upholding San Francisco’s storage law remains in effect. **Core reasoning** *What the Court did (the denial of certiorari)* The brief order simply says the petition was denied; no detailed reasoning or vote count was provided in the material you gave. When the Court denies certiorari, it does not say the lower‑court decision is right or wrong—it merely chooses not to review it. *What the dissent (Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia) argued* Justice Thomas argued that the San Francisco ordinance places a serious burden on the “core” of the Second Amendment—people’s ability to use a handgun for immediate self‑defense inside their own home. He said the law forces owners to retrieve a gun from a locked container or safe, a process that could take crucial seconds in an emergency (e.g., a nighttime burglary). Because the Second Amendment protects the right to self‑defense, Thomas believed the Court should have granted review and struck down the ordinance. He also criticized the Ninth Circuit for applying only “intermediate scrutiny” (a middle‑level test of whether the law is closely related to a government interest) instead of the stricter review he says the Constitution requires for core gun‑rights cases. **Bottom line** The Supreme Court left the lower‑court decision standing by refusing to hear the case. The dissent warns that the San Francisco storage rule, in the view of those justices, improperly limits the fundamental right to defend oneself at home.