San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Ass'n v. City of San Francisco
18 F. Supp. 3d 997
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- San Francisco enacted Section 619 of the Police Code banning possession of magazines with capacity to accept more than ten rounds, with specified exemptions.
- The ordinance provides a 90-day transition window to surrender or relocate such magazines, extended to April 7, 2014 by stipulation.
- Plaintiffs own magazines with capacity >10 rounds and would be forced to store them out of state or surrender if the ordinance stands.
- Plaintiffs challenge the ordinance as violating the Second Amendment; the state law bans manufacture, importation, and sale of large-capacity magazines but does not bar possession under state law.
- The court analyzes the merits under intermediate scrutiny, balancing, and public interest, and denies the preliminary injunction.
- The court relies on Heller, Peruta, and related authorities to assess the scope of the Second Amendment and the ordinance’s burdens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the ordinance burden the Second Amendment right? | Barsetti et al. argue the ban is a categorical or heightened restriction. | San Francisco contends the ban is a limited restriction not a total prohibition on self-defense. | Burden not categorical; not a total ban; scrutiny is less strict. |
| What level of scrutiny applies to the ordinance? | Plaintiffs invoke strict or heightened scrutiny on a categorical ban. | SF argues intermediate scrutiny suffices given no total ban and record of public-safety interest. | Intermediate scrutiny applied; ordinance withstands under that standard (and would under higher scrutiny). |
| Are the plaintiffs’ irreparable harms likely without injunction? | Surrender of magazines by April 7 would cause irreparable harm if prevailing later. | Harm mitigated by return of surrendered magazines if invalidated; alternatives exist. | No irreparable harm shown; relief denied. |
| Do the equities favor the ordinance or the plaintiffs? | Restricting capacity hinders self-defense needs in rare cases. | Public safety and mass-shooting deterrence outweigh individual inconveniences. | Equities favor the ordinance. |
| Is the public interest served by immediate enforcement? | Immediate enforcement harms constitutional rights and individual defense. | Public safety and police officer protection justify rapid enforcement. | Public interest favors enforcement. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes individual right to keep and bear arms and its home-defense core)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment against states)
- Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014) (limits on carry in public; confirms some safety restrictions under scrutiny)
- United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (areas inflecting scrutiny depending on core rights)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (four-factor standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious questions and hardship can support preliminary relief)