Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: NRA sues San Francisco on public-housing gun ban

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/2...using-gun-ban/

    June 28, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

    The NRA has decided not to waste time in the wake of the Heller decision, but to begin pushing on a wide front to dismantle gun bans around the nation. In San Francisco, that means testing a ban on gun ownership in public housing, a new twist on the limits of government intervention in 2nd Amendment affairs. Frisco reacted …. pretty much how you’d expect them to react:



    In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city’s Valencia Gardens housing project as plaintiffs.

    The gun owner, who is gay, says he keeps the weapon to defend himself from “sexual orientation hate crimes.” He was not identified in the complaint because he said he fears retaliation.
    That’s certainly a good twist for the NRA’s public-relations efforts in the city by the bay. They showed a much better sense of that than Mayor Gavin Newsom, who uttered this deliciously stupid statement in response:



    “Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?” Newsom said. “I can’t for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority.”
    Where to start deconstructing this? Let’s start with the beginning. Newsom himself admits that the public-housing gun ban has completely failed to keep guns out of public housing. He then wonders aloud who thinks the residents need more guns. I’d guess that it’s the law-abiding tenants who believe that they need to at least have an opportunity to defend themselves against the thugs and criminals who have armed themselves to the teeth while the city created an entire class of unarmed victims.

    And then Newsom shows his true colors with his full-throated cry to defend the rights of — whom? The victims? The law-abiding citizens of San Francisco? No, Newsom girds himself for legal battle to defend the “rights” of the government agency that runs public housing. I’m certain that the founding fathers of this nation didn’t include the 2nd Amendment to protect government against the citizens, but the other way around.

    How clueless can one get and still remain in office? (That’s a trick question for anyone who doesn’t know San Francisco.)

    This case will definitely provide better clarification of Heller. The DC gun ban reflected the limits of states and cities for general gun ownership restrictions, but a court could easily conclude that the government has more expansive rights on public housing. The city owns the housing and rents it to the tenants. However, such a ruling could have a huge and negative impact on the scope of other rights for public-housing residents. Do they have lesser 4th Amendment rights on search and seizure, too? Can the government place tighter restrictions on speech and the practice of religion in public housing?

    The NRA has chosen its next battleground well. Too bad San Francisco didn’t put as much thought into electing its mayor.

    Update: Jazz Shaw doesn’t think that the public-housing aspect of the case will hold up against Heller:



    While I agree that the apparent differences are interesting, I think there is little to fear. On every level there are reams of legal text on the rights of tenants vs. landlords. While it is tempting to treat public housing differently, in this case the city truly is nothing more than a landlord. While the property owner maintains and can exert tremendous power over what goes on regarding a leased property, I did some quick checking at FindLaw and see nothing which indicates that a landlord has ever been able to supress constitutional rights which do not directly affect the physical property. (i.e. real estate.)

    The owner can prevent the tenant from painting the walls, changing the carpeting, or otherwise physically altering the property. However, they can not restrict people of a given religion from renting nor prohibit them from praying inside the property. (This is not to say that a “nod and a wink” situation won’t exist where certain renters are excluded for “other reasons” of course.) The landlord can not claim that the police can enter the rental without a warrant, etc.
    The logic is compelling, but right now, one has to ask whether Justice Anthony Kennedy would rely on logic or his impulse to impose his policy considerations, a la Boumediene. Every gun case coming to the court under this composition will hinge on that question. It’s yet another reason why the gun issue remains very relevant to this election, as well as judicial appointments.

    [line]

    Here's Gavin's news conference Part 1 and Part 2.

    It's quite nice to see this control-freak of a mayor on the defensive.


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    While I understand the NRA's enthusiasm and the concept of maintaining the momentum, I have to wonder if this is the best time to push this to the next step. We have a heavily split SCOTUS. When (more likely to my mind than if) they lose their final appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (by far the largest and most liberal circuit in the nation) they will face a split SCOTUS, likely in a third of fourth year of an Obama presidency. A death or serious illness of any of the 4 constitutionalist justices, or the death or serious illness of Kennedy, with an Obama, certainly to be leftist if not outright socialist/communist leaning liberal with disdain for our constitution, replacement, they will lose and set back the bit we recently accomplished by decades.

    I do not claim to be an expert on the matter, however, I know just enough to be concerned that a "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" approach at this moment may be wrong headed and ultimately counter productive. It is always possible to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The old saying of "you may win the battle but lose the war" is based on reality rather than hyperbole.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    As to concerns about "timing" of NRA's SF action - I don't think this is a "damn the torpedos" strategy. I suspect this case wasall butready for filing, along with others (Chicago)- just needed the finishing touches from Heller majority opinion. Plus what better reason for the "timing" - to keep the 2A on the "front page" during this presidential campaign- so Obama can't hide from the issue.Ofcourse, I'm:celebrate kind of a "damn the torpedos" type of person anyway.The people of this country have been putting up with this anti- Constitution nonsense long enough. Go get 'em NRA !Why stop swinging - when you've got your opponent against the ropes ?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    Apparently Wilmette, IL has already suspended its gun ban for homes.

    Morton Grove, IL (of the most infamous gun band) either has suspended or said it will do that too.

    Evanston, IL is reviewing it.

    Sounds like the "little cities" will let Chicago fight it if there is any fight to be had.

    And of course it is the BEST time to push liberty, both from the Constitutional perspective and because the Court could change at any time.

    This was idea of "waiting" instead of pursuing Heller was always a flawed analysis.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    If y'all will please read the complaints then you will see that each, Chicago and SF certainly, depends on incorporation into the 14th Amendment.

    These are the first shots in the next battle, the battle for incorporation as a 'civil right' protected by the Constitution.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    HerbM wrote:
    Apparently Wilmette, IL has already suspended its gun ban for homes.

    Morton Grove, IL (of the most infamous gun band) either has suspended or said it will do that too.

    Evanston, IL is reviewing it.

    Sounds like the "little cities" will let Chicago fight it if there is any fight to be had.

    And of course it is the BEST time to push liberty, both from the Constitutional perspective and because the Court could change at any time.

    This was idea of "waiting" instead of pursuing Heller was always a flawed analysis.
    Some citations of the actions would be nice. I haven't been able to find but news reports.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    News reports is all I have so far -- what else would you expect at this time?

    Google: "CITY_NAME" "gun ban" Heller | "Supreme Court"

    Sort by date to get the stuff prior to the decision out of the way.

    (I believe that is what I used excactly but it is close.)

    Incorporation is virtually guaranteed (as long as the Court composition doesn't change) for a NATURAL and fundamental right as the 2nd Amendment is declared to protect.

    Of course they were not explicit about incorporation but this was beyond the scope of the Heller case.

    Just search the DC v Heller opinion for "fundamental right" (appears once I believe), and for "natural right" (appears a handful of times.)

    Summarizing:
    (natural) Individual right, not dependent on military service, protects all bearable arms.


    The only part I don't like is the hint about "sensitive places" which mentions "schools" explicitly -- not binding but it would have been better to have it use, "jails and prisons" as the examples.



    And notice please: I was referencing concession and/or suspensions (press reports and statements actually) by various cities, not the complaints or actions that might prompt these.





  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I have posted elsewhere on OCDO the URL of the Chicago complaint

    http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-con.../complaint.pdf

    I was hoping, expecting something similar for the other Illinois actions, I have a URL for the San Francisco complaint.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    While I understand the NRA's enthusiasm and the concept of maintaining the momentum, I have to wonder if this is the best time to push this to the next step. We have a heavily split SCOTUS. When (more likely to my mind than if) they lose their final appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (by far the largest and most liberal circuit in the nation) they will face a split SCOTUS, likely in a third of fourth year of an Obama presidency. A death or serious illness of any of the 4 constitutionalist justices, or the death or serious illness of Kennedy, with an Obama, certainly to be leftist if not outright socialist/communist leaning liberal with disdain for our constitution, replacement, they will lose and set back the bit we recently accomplished by decades.

    I do not claim to be an expert on the matter, however, I know just enough to be concerned that a "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" approach at this moment may be wrong headed and ultimately counter productive. It is always possible to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The old saying of "you may win the battle but lose the war" is based on reality rather than hyperbole.
    This is exactly the time to do it. Thise NRA case is identical to the Heller case except that it will raise one additional issue: incorporation (that is, the application of the Bill of Rights to the states). After Heller, the 2nd Amendment still only applies to the Federal Government.

    Also keep in mind that the court is more pro-gun now than it was when the Heller (at that time Parker) case was filed. At that time, O'Conner was still on the Court.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    HerbM wrote:
    This was idea of "waiting" instead of pursuing Heller was always a flawed analysis.
    Exactly. The NRA had been "waiting for the right time" for 30 years until some millionaire lawyer said, "hey why not now" and plunged ahead and won! The NRA tried and failed to get involved and had to stay waiting on the sidelines.

    Well, not this time. They filed these cases 15 minutes (no exaggeration) after Heller came down from the Court.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    I agree with the above posters: we have the enemy in retreat, and we have the upper hand. This is the best time to attack. We have no way of knowing how long our advantage will last, so this is the best time to take advantage of what we have. The Chicage and SF cases sound fine to me.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Perhaps you guys are right. Certainly the SAF and NRA learned counsel agree with you.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    I will be contacting my House Rep & Senators today - to incourage sponsorship and emergency passage of a federal firearm law "preemption" statute in order to relieve DC city government from the "awesome responsibility" of responding to Supreme Court rulings, and "regulating" the RKBAin this nation's capitol. Obviously a federal CCW law is in order(maybe even with an OC provision ?) Perhaps a side-bar comment for our OC movement - The opposition to the Heller "verdict" is displaying extremely irrational responses.It would be reasonable , I think, to expect extreme measures at the "local" level (more MWAG calls, or attempts to lobby city hall for anti- OC restrictions.) We need to be on "alert" status.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    SANDCREEK wrote:
    I will be contacting my House Rep & Senators today...
    Please post any correspondence so others here may use your general format for doing the same. Thanks in advance!
    I just finished e-mailing Rep Doug Lamborn (R- CO) : ( suggest using http://www.nraila.org/ representative contact format) Hon. Doug Lamborn : Thank you for supporting HR 4900 (curbing BATFE abuses). I would also incourage you to support /sponsor FEDERAL FIREARM LAW PREEMPTION legislation for Washington DC, since local "home rule" obviously is not up to the task of compliance with the recent SCOTUS "Heller v DC" ruling. Included in such legislation relieving DC citygovernment fromjurisdiction over WHO may lawfully excercise their right toOWN and CARRY firearms for personal protection - should be provision for the PERMITTED OPEN and CONCEALED CARRY of handguns for the lawful purpose of personal protection - without restriction on type of handgun preferred. Thank you for your support in this effort. Your local constituency in [Colorado Springs] will view your efforts very positively. (signed)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    So whatever happened?

Posting Permissions

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