One year ago to the hour my wife gave birth to our beautiful daughter.
During that year my little one’s?taught me to smile more, enjoy the little things, smile at people on the train, snuggle with the people you love, and to not?be afraid to get down on the floor, roll around, and clap for no reason.
This last year’s been a lot of fun and I’m looking forward to each of the next steps in our lives.
Yesterday, 9 people died in South Carolina at the hands of a killer.
His victims were disarmed by the state and left with no effective means of self-defense.
Although I can’t say if anyone there?would have carried at the church, they were denied even the freedom to choose by the South Carolina legislature who, in their <sarcasm>superior wisdom</sarcasm>, thought there was no need for anyone to carry in a church, and so made it illegal.
How many more need to die before the concept of a “gun-free zone” is universally realized as the?dangerous and illogical absurdity that it is?
So, the Supreme Court declined cert on?Jackson vs. City & County of San Francisco.
Not surprising, really, as there’s not much case law in the lower courts, nor is there disagreement between the circuits. Sure, this should have been a slam-dunk?Heller 2?for the gun-rights side, but not everything works out that way.
Personally, I don’t think it’s a big deal: on a practical level, the cops aren’t going to search people’s homes to see if they’re leaving their gun on the bathroom sink while they take a shower or if they put a gun the kitchen table while they unload stuff from a vehicle. This law would only come into play if something bad happens (e.g. someone leaves a gun out and a kid or irresponsible adult fires it), and even then it’d probably a minor worry compared to the other legal issues one would face in such a situation.
Of course,?I strongly support the notion of securing one’s guns when they’re not in one’s immediate control (especially when kids or irresponsible adults are around), but I dislike legal mandates that are effectively unenforceable and don’t make exceptions for practical, everyday situations.
In a way, I’m glad it worked out this way: the judges clearly are not of one mind in this regard, and it is better to have cert denied here and revisit the issue in the future when the composition of the Supreme Court may have?changed — hopefully with an increase in?the number of justices inclined toward individual liberty — and there’s more of a consensus.
Until then, residents of San Francisco (and other cities that may try implementing such laws) will have to deal with a minor infringement of their liberties. Fortunately, such laws practically have no effect on a day-to-day basis (unlike, say, the CA AWB).
In short: bummer, but probably better in the long run to wait and try again.