Gun restriction upheld as SCOTUS rejects case

[Poke78]

http://newsok.com/gun-restrictions-upheldas-high-court-rejects-case/article/5426190

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to review a San Francisco ordinance that requires people to lock up their handguns or disable them at home.

Two of the court’s conservative justices argued the San Francisco law put a “significant burden” on Second Amendment rights and wanted to consider the case. However, four of the court’s nine justices must agree to grant review.

The high court effectively upheld a lower court ruling that San Francisco’s goal of reducing gun deaths justified the legal restrictions on access to weapons in the home.

“The record contains ample evidence that storing handguns in a locked container reduces the risk of both accidental and intentional handgun-related deaths, including suicide,’’ the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its opinion.

Click the link to read more.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

This seems contrary to parts of the SCOTUS decisions on reversing DC gun laws that were onerous on storage and made it impossible to bring a gun to the fight in a reasonable time.

Discuss....

 

[KOPBET]

It's for the children ...

 

[rawhide]

I read Scalia and Thomas's argument in another article and agree with them, but where are at least two of the remaining justices?

 

[Cougar]

Refusing to hear a case is not the same as upholding the lower court's opinion on a national level. Although the Ninth Circuit ruling now stands, it only stands within the Ninth Circuit. SCOTUS is still able, in the future, to hear a similar case from the Ninth Circuit, or another circuit. This future case could then be upheld or overturned.

If SCOTUS had actually upheld the Ninth Circuit ruling, it would apply nationwide. This Ninth Circuit ruling is not currently valid in Oklahoma. A future case can still be overturned (or upheld, applying it to Oklahoma)

 

[Poke78]

Refusing to hear a case is not the same as upholding the lower court's opinion on a national level. Although the Ninth Circuit ruling now stands, it only stands within the Ninth Circuit. SCOTUS is still able, in the future, to hear a similar case from the Ninth Circuit, or another circuit. This future case could then be upheld or overturned.

If SCOTUS had actually upheld the Ninth Circuit ruling, it would apply nationwide. This Ninth Circuit ruling is not currently valid in Oklahoma. A future case can still be overturned (or upheld, applying it to Oklahoma)

Excellent points. As I noted in my OP, I'm just concerned about consistency so I guess not enough Justices found this to be compelling and requiring further review. Just left me scratching my head...

 

[Cougar]

I haven't read the opinions, however, it is common for SCOTUS to refuse to hear cases until there are conflicting circuit rulings. The Ninth Circuit made their ruling. If another circuit makes an opposite ruling, it will give SCOTUS incentive to hear the case.