Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Judge Overturns San Fransisco Gun Ban!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Johnstown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    117

    Post imported post

    This is a HUGE victory for gun owners...and in CA no less! We need to pressure the NRA to do the same thing in DC!I will bepraying that it does not get overturned on appeal.
    http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14802338.htm
    Judge overturns San Francisco weapons ban
    DAVID KRAVETS
    Associated Press
    SAN FRANCISCO - A state trial judge sided Monday with the National Rifle Association in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco.

    Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by an alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. The NRA sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.

    In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.

    "My clients are thrilled that the court recognized that law-abiding firearms owners who choose to own a gun to defend themselves or their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem," NRA attorney Chuck Michel said. "Hopefully, the city will recognize that gun owners can contribute to the effort to fight the criminal misuse of firearms, a goal that we all share."

    The ordinance targeted only city residents, meaning nonresidents in the city or even tourists were not banned from possessing or selling guns here.

    Warren's decision was not unexpected. In 1982, a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law.

    But years later, in 1998, a state appeals court upheld West Hollywood's ban on the sale of so-called Saturday night specials, small and cheap handguns that city leaders said contributed to violent crime. And three years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Los Angeles and Alameda counties, saying local governments could ban the possession and sale of weapons on government property, such as fairgrounds.

    That decision, however, did not address the issue of private property sales and possession, as outlined in the San Francisco law.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also is considering a challenge to a similar handgun ban in the District of Columbia that alleges the law violates a Second Amendment right of individuals to bear arms.

    The NRA lawsuit here avoided those allegations.

    Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office unsuccessfully defended the law before Warren, said the city was mulling whether it was going to appeal.

    "We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession," Dorsey said. "San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence."

    In November, San Francisco recorded its 90th homicide, up two from the previouus year.

    The case is Fiscal v. San Francisco 05-505960.

    ---

    Editors: David Kravets has been covering state and federal courts for more than a decade.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA, ,
    Posts
    689

    Post imported post

    Quote - "We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession," Dorsey said. "San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence."

    Yeah, that's "narrowly tailored", all right!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Johnstown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    117

    Post imported post

    I think it is VERY "narrowly tailored"...it doesn't allow much room for interpretation...I just don't think it is "reasonable."

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Mesilla/Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    It is good the judge stood up for and reconized state law vs. local ordinances trying to rewrite the law to suit their needs, especially since that was unconstitutional. It is good the gun groups and their supporters got behind this too. Shows the pressure we can exert when we want to.

    However I would hold off the party ballons because the statement Judge Warren issued shows he really supports Kalifornia's oppressive gun control and is not really pro-gun (and this is the heart of the issue for for the law abiding citizens in California), just pro big Kaifornia government as it is written:

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...AGJSJCVF01.DTL

    Warren said California law, which authorizes police agencies to issue handgun permits, implicitly prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

    That law "demonstrates the Legislature's intent to occupy, on a statewide basis, the field of residential and commercial handgun possession to the exclusion of local government entities,'' Warren wrote in a 30-page decision.

    If the city were allowed to ban handguns within its borders, he said, nearby counties could be flooded by handguns no longer allowed in San Francisco. Such a possibility illustrates the need for gun ownership to be regulated on a state level, Warren said.

    "California has an overarching concern in controlling gun use by defining the circumstances under which firearms can be possessed uniformly across the state, without having this statewide scheme contradicted or subverted by local policy,'' the judge said.

    He declined to consider the ban on sales of other types of guns and ammunitions separately, saying it could not be detached from the handgun ban, the dominant provision of Prop. H. "The focus of the public debate ... was all on the effect of the ordinance in barring handguns,'' and there is no evidence that voters would have approved the other restrictions as a separate measure, Warren said.

    This is a good place to start but a poor place to end. California law biding citizens have fought hard and put up with a lot to reside peacefully in their state. The way it stands now, Kalifornia is most likely a lost cause.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    I'm glad to see San Francisco defeated in court. CA all ready has problems, they don't need to be worsened.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •