This is the Ninth Circuit we're more used to seeing... also includes ruling that prohibition on the sale of hollowpoint ammunition is legal... but allows possession and use...

Full article on Volokh Conspiracy Washington Post blog:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/25/ninth-circuit-upholds-requirement-that-guns-be-either-locked-or-carried-on-ones-person/

First two paragraphs:

Ninth Circuit upholds requirement that guns be either locked or carried on one’s person

The case is today’s Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2014). The court concludes that the ban is constitutional, even though it applies even to people who aren’t living with children (most such locked storage requirements apply only when children could otherwise access the gun), and even to people who are living alone. The court also upholds the ban on sale of hollow-point bullets, though it repeatedly stresses that the law doesn’t ban possession or use of such bullets.

The court’s general approach does seem to take the Second Amendment seriously; for instance, the court allows the challengers to challenge the statute on its face, and rejects arguments that this sort of restriction is just outside the scope of the Second Amendment. But I’m not wild about the court’s decision about the particular restrictions in play here.

does this apply to trades?  Like I'll trade you a case of hollowpoints for a nice pair of gold earings or a gold bracelet/chain...

does this apply to trades?  Like I'll trade you a case of hollowpoints for a nice pair of gold earings or a gold bracelet/chain...

The decision is quite clear that the ordinance in question, which was upheld, applies only to the "sales" of hollowpoint ammunition within the City/County boundaries. Possession is completely legal. Thus trades are not prohibited. Nor are gifts. Nor are internet purchases. Two people could also go to the city/county boundary line, take one step over it, and legally exchange hollowpoint ammunition for cash or other financial remuneration. I'm sure the court is correct and that this ordnance makes everyone in San Francisco much safer. How could it not?

As for the "must be carried or locked within the home", the comments section of the Volokh article has many scenarios pointing to the absurdity of this law. Here's mine: suppose you are carrying your firearm in your home (you are alone and all the doors and windows are locked), and you need to squeeze into a tight space in the utility closet to reach behind the water heater. In order to do so safely, you must momentarily (10 seconds?) remove and/or set down your firearm/holster. When you do, you are a criminal.  Now that's what I'd call a "common sense gun safety reform"!

This lawsuit was filed May 15, 2009 and the oral arguments took place October 7, 2013. Chuck Michel argued for the plaintiffs (which included the NRA) and Christine Van Aken argued for the City and County of San Francisco. I believe she is the person who argued for Kealoha against Baker. The three judge panel included two judges appointed by G. W. Bush, and one appointed by Carter, and it was still a unanimous decision! That doesn't bode well for an en banc review of Peruta.