Good news for San Francisco


DrDavidM

New member
The state of CA has said SF can not legally prevent handgun ownership.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...10/BAQIUC21G.DTL&hw=Bob+Egelko&sn=001&sc=1000

Municipalities can't ban people from owning handguns, court rules


Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
T Link Removed
Printable Version
Email This Article
Link Removed




Georgia (default)
Verdana
Times New Roman
Arial

Link Removed
Link RemovedLink RemovedLink Removed


San Francisco's ban on handguns, blocked by a legal challenge since voters approved it in November 2005, suffered a possibly fatal blow Wednesday when a state appeals court ruled that local governments have no authority under California law to prevent people from owning pistols.
The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco agreed with a June 2006 ruling by Superior Court Judge James Warren, who said state laws regulating gun sales, permits and safety leave no room for a city or county to forbid handgun possession.
State courts have upheld some local restrictions, including prohibitions on the sale or possession of guns on public fairgrounds, Presiding Justice Ignazio Ruvolo noted in the 3-0 ruling. But in general, "when it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly," he wrote.
San Francisco's ban was challenged by the National Rifle Association, whose lobbyist Chris Cox called Wednesday's ruling "a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA members of San Francisco."
Alexis Thompson, spokeswoman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the ruling was disappointing, "particularly in light of the continuing plague of handgun violence here in San Francisco."
The city could ask the state Supreme Court to review the case. History would not be on the city's side, however, as the state's high court refused to review a 1982 ruling by the same appeals court striking down an earlier San Francisco ordinance that prohibited handgun possession in the city limits.
Drafters of the 2005 measure, Proposition H, sought to comply with the 1982 ruling by limiting the handgun ban to San Francisco residents. The ordinance allowed only law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes to possess handguns.
It also prohibited the manufacture, sale and distribution of any type of firearms and ammunition in San Francisco.
Prop. H was approved by 58 percent of the voters but was challenged by the NRA a day after the election in a suit on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers. The proposition has never taken effect.
In Wednesday's ruling, the court said the city ordinance would interfere with an elaborate system of gun regulation enacted by the Legislature.
State laws allow law-abiding Californians to possess handguns in their homes and businesses and let them request a concealed-weapons permit or a judge's permission to carry guns in public, the court said. In addition, the court said, a 1999 state law banning the sale of the cheap handguns known as Saturday night specials, and setting safety standards for legal firearms, implicitly prohibited local governments from outlawing all handguns.
San Francisco argued that its measure was a legitimate response to violent crime. But Ruvolo said in the court ruling, "The ordinance will affect more than just criminals. It will also affect every city resident who has not, through some demonstration of personal disability or irresponsibility, lost his or her right to possess a handgun."
The Legislature, Ruvolo said, has determined the statewide balance between the public's interest in being safe from gun violence and law-abiding citizens' right to buy guns "to deter crime, to help police fight crime, to defend themselves and for certain hunting and recreational purposes." A local government has no power to disrupt that balance, he said.
The court also refused San Francisco's request to allow the city to enforce Prop. H's ban on the manufacture or sale of rifles and shotguns, saying the city must first rewrite the ordinance to narrow its scope.
Online resources

To read the appeals court ruling, go to:

links.sfgate.com/ZCAF

E-mail Bob Egelko at [email protected].


Link Removed
 

gvaldeg1

NRA Member
A step in the right direction. Thanks for posting.
It's a huge step in the right direction! Now the NRA-ILA or someone should go after the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) and the Clark County (Las Vegas) District Attorney for flagrantly and openly flouting the registration provisions of Nevada SB 92. The LVMPD still insists (and posts on its web site) that anyone staying in Clark County for 24 hours or more must register their gun(s) with the LVMPD. Nevada SB 92 was signed into law by the Governor and became effective on 1 Jan 2008. LVMPD continues to ignore it and the DA says it's ambiguous. Here's the text of SB 92:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/SB/SB92_EN.pdf
The only thing "ambiguous" is the idea that these entities are representing their constituency in upholding the Law. The registration provisions were clearly changed to the following:
(a) A period of at least 60 days of residency in the county
before registration of such a firearm is required.
(b) A period of at least 72 hours for the registration of a pistol
by a resident of the county upon transfer of title to the pistol to the
resident by purchase, gift or any other transfer.
This registration issue has been a "sacred cow" for Clark County and the LVMPD. This law (per SB 92) also makes it clear that Nevada state law preempts most of the draconian ordinances in North Las Vegas and Boulder City. Unfortunately, the average Joe can't afford to challenge these issues in court.
 
Last edited:

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
How about letting the NRA go after New Freaking Damn Jersey! We're feeling like the forgotten stepchild over here, fercryinoutloud! Nevada already has a viable concealed carry law, albeit limited in Clark County. At least you guys have some opportunity to protect yourselves in Nevada, especially in light of the new development of reciprocity with Florida. We here in New Jersey have Squat . . . but we have a lot of it!
 

gvaldeg1

NRA Member
How about letting the NRA go after New Freaking Damn Jersey! We're feeling like the forgotten stepchild over here, fercryinoutloud! Nevada already has a viable concealed carry law, albeit limited in Clark County. At least you guys have some opportunity to protect yourselves in Nevada, especially in light of the new development of reciprocity with Florida. We here in New Jersey have Squat . . . but we have a lot of it!

You completely missed the point! SB 92 already has been voted into law by the Nevada legislature, signed by the Governor, and the officials in Clark County are ignoring it.

BTW...I'm from Arizona...not Nevada. The Nevada issue should be a slam dunk for the NRA-ILA if they'd pursue it. As for New Jersey...I wish you luck!
 
Last edited:

joeren

New member
This is so great

and just in time. San Fransisco is cited in Brady's Amicus Brief to the courts.
Link Removed

No doubt they didn't see that coming.:D

Joe
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
BTW...I'm from Arizona...not Nevada. . . As for New Jersey...I wish you luck!
Wasn't singling you out...just venting.

I'll be visiting both Arizona and Las Vegas next month. Corporate business in Lost Wages, and I have a Friend in Kingman I haven't seen in about 3 years. Gonna mix a little pleasure with my business.

P.S. New Jersey doesn't need any "luck". What it needs is Politicians who truly represent the Constitutions of both the United States -and- New Jersey. Statesmen! What we have is Political hacks who represent the very best of stereotypical corrupt politics and Socialist ideals.
 
Last edited:

gvaldeg1

NRA Member
Wasn't singling you out...just venting.

I'll be visiting both Arizona and Las Vegas next month. Corporate business in Lost Wages, and I have a Friend in Kingman I haven't seen in about 3 years. Gonna mix a little pleasure with my business.

P.S. New Jersey doesn't need any "luck". What it needs is Politicians who truly represent the Constitutions of both the United States -and- New Jersey. Statesmen! What we have is Political hacks who represent the very best of stereotypical corrupt politics and Socialist ideals.

No problem...I understand why you were venting. Also, it's clear that your votes didn't go to those Political hacks of whom you speak.

I hope that you enjoy both Vegas and your visit with your friend. Coincidentally, I'm driving to Vegas for a few days fun on Tuesday and my wife and I always stop in Kingman on the way over.
 

tes151

New member
Wasn't singling you out...just venting.

I'll be visiting both Arizona and Las Vegas next month. Corporate business in Lost Wages, and I have a Friend in Kingman I haven't seen in about 3 years. Gonna mix a little pleasure with my business.

P.S. New Jersey doesn't need any "luck". What it needs is Politicians who truly represent the Constitutions of both the United States -and- New Jersey. Statesmen! What we have is Political hacks who represent the very best of stereotypical corrupt politics and Socialist ideals.
Don't take this personal because I don't think you are voting for them, but you gotta admit, SOMEONE in Jersey is voting those tards into office. Apparently there are a lot of people there that like the way things are going in that state. We here in PA have sort of the same problem in that we are presently stuck with a Philadelphia crook in the governors mansion due to the liberal morons in Philly and Pittsburgh.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
and just in time. San Fransisco is cited in Brady's Amicus Brief to the courts.
Link Removed

No doubt they didn't see that coming.:D

Joe

From the brief:
To combat this gun violence, San Francisco has enacted measures that limit and regulate gun possession within its borders. Cali-fornia has also passed gun regulation measures that assist San Francisco in combat-ing gun violence within its borders.
Ouch! Sounds like they got the rug pulled out from under them on this one. Hopefully this will be hitting two with one shot (must be an FMJ). :D
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
Don't take this personal because I don't think you are voting for them, but you gotta admit, SOMEONE in Jersey is voting those tards into office. Apparently there are a lot of people there that like the way things are going in that state.

Which exactly illustrates my point about the need to distinguish a "Democracy" from a "Republic". The distinctions are important and can be found Link Removed. Truth is, I have no problem with people who feel that carrying a firearm is a bad idea. They should be respected for not doing it, then. But I should be granted the same respect for how I feel, and that's where it comes apart for me.

I recently re-read the ACLU's position on gun control. They make the analogy that unrestricted freedom to carry would allow missles and bazookas and nuclear weapons to be owned, which they feel is unacceptable. They go on to say . . .
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Source: ACLU Website on Gun Control

Of course, they completely ignore the fact that there is no Constitutional Right to drive, or even own a car. You have the freedom to travel at will if you like . . . that freedom has always been yours. Cars are only a modern manifestation of the technology that makes that freedom easier. At the same time, no one would reasonably expect that you'd take a Formula 1 race car out to get a gallon of milk. BUT, you can own one! Besides, there's a case to be made that car licensure and regulation is a function of generating revenue and has nothing to do with "regulation" or "safety". There was no regulation on horses! Or buggy ownership! Perhaps car and driving regulation is simply about taxation! So it is with guns. We have always had the Right to self-defense and to bear arms. Modern firearms are simply a modern manifestation of the means to that same Right, and no one would reasonably expect to walk down the street with an ICBM under his arm. I think the ACLU takes too much a politically antisceptic position in this matter and ignores the very real Rights of those who feel as we do.

If you're going to argue for Civil Rights, you have to argue for them all.
 
Last edited:

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,368
Messages
622,751
Members
74,177
Latest member
gwags76
Top