## Facts

- San Francisco enacted Police Code § 4512 requiring handguns kept in a residence to be stored in a locked container or disabled with an approved trigger lock unless carried on the person or under a peace officer’s control; violations were punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine up to \$1,000.
- San Francisco also enacted Police Code § 613.10(g) restricting sales of certain ammunition types, including ammunition lacking a “sporting purpose” and certain expanding or fragmenting designs.
- Individual residents who kept handguns at home for self-defense, along with gun-rights organizations, challenged the ordinances under the Second Amendment.
- Plaintiffs argued the storage requirement made handguns unavailable for immediate self-defense when not physically carried, including while sleeping.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction against enforcement.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, upholding both provisions under intermediate scrutiny.
- The Supreme Court denied certiorari; Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented from denial.

## Issues

1. Whether San Francisco’s handgun safe-storage requirement violates the Second Amendment by burdening armed self-defense in the home.
2. Whether San Francisco’s restrictions on sales of specified ammunition violate the Second Amendment.
3. At the certiorari stage, whether the Ninth Circuit’s intermediate-scrutiny approach to the safe-storage requirement is consistent with the Second Amendment framework recognized in *Heller* and *McDonald*.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.
- The Ninth Circuit’s judgment affirming denial of a preliminary injunction remained in place.
- Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented from denial, arguing the Court should have reviewed whether the storage requirement unlawfully impairs immediate self-defense in the home.

## Legal Principles

- A denial of certiorari leaves the lower-court judgment intact and does not decide the merits.
- The Ninth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny to a regulation found to burden (but not eliminate) the core Second Amendment interest in armed self-defense in the home.
- Under intermediate scrutiny, a firearm regulation may be upheld if it is substantially related to an important governmental interest, including reducing firearm-related deaths and injuries (such as suicides, domestic violence, and accidents involving children).
- A limited ammunition-sales restriction may be upheld where it does not materially prevent law-abiding residents from obtaining ammunition suitable for lawful self-defense.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court declined to review San Francisco’s handgun safe-storage and ammunition-sale ordinances, leaving in force the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding them under intermediate scrutiny, while a dissent argued the storage rule impermissibly restricts immediate self-defense in the home.


Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 135 S. Ct. 2799 (2015)