Supreme Court Urged to Take Up San Francisco Gun Control Case

Coalition of rights organizations files amicus brief in U.S. Supreme Court Case challenging San Francisco gun control ordinance.

US Supreme Court
US Supreme Court

ROSEVILLE, CA -( The Firearms Policy Coalition and 12 other state and national civil rights organizations filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court today for a lawsuit challenging a San Francisco gun control ordinance.

According to the plaintiffs’ petition for review, the city’s law “requires all residents who keep handguns in their homes for self-defense to stow them away in a lock box or disable them with a trigger lock whenever they are not physically carrying them on their persons.”

In the amicus (“friend of the court”) brief filed by attorneys Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay, the gun-rights groups argue that summary reversal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision “is warranted because [it] is plainly contrary to Heller,” a landmark 2008 ruling that held the Second Amendment protects an individual–rather than a collective–right to keep and bear arms. But the groups also argue that the Supreme Court should hear the case in order to “clarify the standard governing Second Amendment challenges, and to confirm that courts must be guided by text and history rather than judicial interest balancing.”

While some Second Amendment lawsuits have been decided based on the “text, history, and tradition” standard used in Heller and

Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition

McDonald v. Chicago, a 2010 Supreme Court decision that applied the Second Amendment to states and local governments, many lower courts have since applied weaker standards that lets most gun control laws stand.

“The Ninth Circuit’s lamentable decision in Jackson shows why it is the most overturned circuit court in the nation,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “The Supreme Court should take up this case not only to correct a clear wrong, but to stem the tide of judicial resistance in recognizing the right to keep and bear arms as fundamental Constitutional rights.”

“The Second Amendment doesn’t protect second-class rights, and it’s time for courts to take the enumerated right to keep and bear arms at least as seriously as they do unenumerated rights like abortion.”

Parties to the amicus brief (in order of appearance) are:

  • Firearms Policy Coalition
  • Second Amendment Foundation
  • The Calguns Foundation
  • Firearms Policy Foundation
  • California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees
  • The Madison Society
  • Florida Carry
  • Hawaii Defense Foundation
  • Illinois Carry
  • Maryland Shall Issue
  • Commonwealth Second Amendment
  • Virginia Citizens Defense League
  • West Virginia Citizens Defense League.

The brief can be viewed at

Espanola Jackson, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., (Supreme Court docket no. 14-704) was filed in 2009 by lawyers for 6 San Francisco residents, the National Rifle Association, and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association.

Firearms Policy Coalition ( is a nonprofit civil rights advocacy organization that serves to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms through legal efforts, direct and grassroots lobbying, education, and innovative applications of technology.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hugo Sam

In light of this mess, and so many others especially regarding 2nd Amerndment rights, but also 1st Amendment etc, eneeds to be a strong Federal Law passed, that would make it a stiff Felony to do anything purposeful to enact or enforce a law directly opposed and negated by the Constitution. Minimum penalty would be 10 years in prison and all citizenship rights permantly forfeit. You violate the 2nd Amendment and you go to jail a long time. That is what is needed.

brian winters

When concealed carry reciprocity was before the us house and senate the new jersey state police commander stated that the new jersey state police would ignore the law until upheld by the us supreme court. This is the same attitude as in San Francisco.