Judge overturns San Francisco weapons ban


PDA






71Commander
June 12, 2006, 08:54 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/12/state/n154229D74.DTL&type=politics


(06-12) 16:38 PDT San Francisco (AP) --

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.

If you enjoyed reading about "Judge overturns San Francisco weapons ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MidnightRambler
June 12, 2006, 08:57 PM
I'm very glad to hear this was struck down.

Thefabulousfink
June 12, 2006, 09:00 PM
Huzzaahh!!!!:D

Headless Thompson Gunner
June 12, 2006, 09:00 PM
Good job, NRA!

thesneakyrussian
June 12, 2006, 09:01 PM
now someone has to file a lawsuit against chris daly and jail him for life for wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers money.

71Commander
June 12, 2006, 09:17 PM
Wonder what happens to the people's firearms who complied before a judgement?:confused:

MidnightRambler
June 12, 2006, 09:25 PM
I have the uneasy feeling those firearms have gone bye-bye.

gbran
June 12, 2006, 09:29 PM
I hear, but can't confirm that SF does not recognize CCW permits, which are state permits. I would hope somebody could bring this before the courts also.

torpid
June 12, 2006, 09:30 PM
Uh oh, with the ban out of the picture I'm now scared to to to SF with all those handguns still in the possession of all those law abiding gun owners there.

You mad fools- we have just lost Utopia!!!

.

Live Free Or Die
June 12, 2006, 09:30 PM
Excellent.

BTW, this must be very late breaking news, because it doesn't look like the mass media outlets (CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT) are running the story yet. Either that, or they don't want to report news that they don't agree with. :D

Interestingly, just about all these news outlets have front-page stories about how a popular NFL QB got into a motorcycle accident. Because, you know, that's pretty important. :rolleyes:

thesneakyrussian
June 12, 2006, 09:31 PM
Wonder what happens to the people's firearms who complied before a judgement?


what are you talking about? have you been misinformed in some way? the ban never took effect by ruling of the same judge.

thesneakyrussian
June 12, 2006, 09:33 PM
it sucks in a way, because if it passed people in other towns with more sane (or pro-gun) residents could ignore any state-wide bans and allow to own _any_ "assault rifle" type weapons. too bad.

thesneakyrussian
June 12, 2006, 09:36 PM
I hear, but can't confirm that SF does not recognize CCW permits, which are state permits. I would hope somebody could bring this before the courts also.


that is not true.

Haymaker
June 12, 2006, 10:00 PM
Checked with my local Sheriff's office, CCW's issued by any county sheriff or municipal CLEO are valid anywhere in the state, but in the "Urban Blighted Zones" would serve mainly as a "Get Out Of Jail" ticket chances of getting your permitted weapon BACK from the local LEO agency that lifted it (for whatever reason) are riskey:mad: One reason why I DON'T go into the City & County of San Francisco for ANY reason!:cuss:

leadcounsel
June 12, 2006, 10:01 PM
When will Denver come to its senses?

Haymaker
June 12, 2006, 10:07 PM
Checked with my local Sheriff's office, CCW's issued by any county sheriff or municipal CLEO are valid anywhere in the state, but in the "Urban Blighted Zones" would serve mainly as a "Get Out Of Jail" ticket chances of getting your permitted weapon BACK from the local LEO agency that lifted it (for whatever reason) are riskey:mad: One reason why I DON'T go into the City & County of San Francisco for ANY reason!:cuss:

50 Freak
June 12, 2006, 10:11 PM
I have a CCW and it's good in SF. Hell one good thing about having a CCW in CA is no one expects that you have it.

So the only "no loaded firearms" signs you will ever see are at gun stores and gun shows....:fire: :fire:

Everywhere else (unless it specifically prohibited on your permit) is fair game.

thesneakyrussian
June 12, 2006, 10:17 PM
When will Denver come to its senses?


as soon as Denver locals will chase all the california drifters out and use tar and feathers on the mayor and his gang.

QuarterBoreGunner
June 12, 2006, 10:49 PM
50 Freak is correct; I've had a CCW since 1999 and it's good anywhere in the state except federal property. Check my location and see.

chances of getting your permitted weapon BACK from the local LEO agency that lifted it (for whatever reason) are riskey Unlikely. And of questionable legality. Though the law states: Section 3: Restrictions, Part 7: While exercising the privilege (*sigh*) granted to them under the terms of this license. licensees shall not (their emphasis):
"...(snip) Refuse to produce their license or concealed firearm to a Law Enforcement Officer for inspection, upon demand."

And that's why the 'concealed' part of 'CCW' is so very important.

Kim
June 12, 2006, 10:58 PM
REASONABLE AND NARROWLY my you know what. :fire: :fire:

gunsmith
June 12, 2006, 11:03 PM
I am gloating right now...I will continue to gloat for a few days.

Dmack_901
June 12, 2006, 11:28 PM
"Reasonable and Narrow"

Yeah, if by "reasonable" you mean unfounded, and by "narrow" you mean broad. Sure, then it works.

Mannlicher
June 12, 2006, 11:28 PM
a "High Five" to the judge :)

QuarterBoreGunner
June 12, 2006, 11:53 PM
"San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence."
...yeah... last time I checked 58% voting yes on H, was not exactly the landslide he's making it out to be.

4v50 Gary
June 13, 2006, 12:01 AM
Thank you you stupid politicians of SF for putting it on the ballot. You just wasted $1 mil of the taxpayer's money that could have been better spent on health care, existing overtime, reducing raw sewage dumpage into the SF Bay, road improvement, or other unimportant matters that affect the quality of life in that city.:fire:

crazed_ss
June 13, 2006, 12:07 AM
Nice.. I think Im gonna go join the NRA now.

They are our only hope in CA. People often complain about the NRA not getting the Assault Weapons Ban repealed here, but the NRA actually does help us a lot here and they pick their battles carefully. This is proof that they actually get stuff done.

RugerSAFan
June 13, 2006, 01:38 AM
Proposal H scared the fire out of me, and I don't even live in California!

Wold have set a bloody poor precedent.

Not sure if it's true, but I've heard that at one time, Native California was not overly liberal. Something about the '60's....

Thank you NRA!!

RioShooter
June 13, 2006, 01:49 AM
My NRA dues are worth this outcome, alone.

:) :) :)

sfhogman
June 13, 2006, 01:51 AM
Take it from a San Franciscan- for a little while longer at least-

Join the NRA. Whether you agree with them 100% or not, join. They are the ones the politicians have to listen to. Join other groups as well- I have- but the NRA is the big dog on our block.

Rant Over,
Jeff

cbsbyte
June 13, 2006, 01:53 AM
This ruling has little to do with the competance of the NRA, it has do to with State Law. Anyway, I though it would be better if the SFs banned guns. It would be better to point out to them when they are awashed with violent crime due to their lefist policiys, they should have sloved their problem when they banned firearms

No_Brakes23
June 13, 2006, 04:10 AM
So the only "no loaded firearms" signs you will ever see are at gun stores and gun shows...

Down here in SoCal, the only CCW related signs I have seen in Turner's or other stores is a sign that requests that they carrier keep his CCW holstered.

Good on this judge for respecting the constitution.

gunsmith
June 13, 2006, 04:19 AM
This ruling has little to do with the competance of the NRA

Well that must be true I read it on the innernet:rolleyes:

The fact is the competence

of the NRA had everything to do with this astounding victory over the evildoers!

Henry Bowman
June 13, 2006, 10:31 AM
I give at least as much credit to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

Creeping Incrementalism
June 13, 2006, 10:43 AM
This ruling has little to do with the competance of the NRA, it has do to with State Law. Anyway, I though it would be better if the SFs banned guns. It would be better to point out to them when they are awashed with violent crime due to their lefist policiys, they should have sloved their problem when they banned firearms

The state ignores its own laws whenever convenient. Chuck Michel doesn't work for free, and the NRA paid him. I'm also tired of people in other states wishing for California to martyr itself for RKBA.

Now, hopefully Chuck will be able to spend time on getting back the 219 seized off-list AR lowers...

txgho1911
June 13, 2006, 11:01 AM
Did the order include court costs to be paid by city and county?

odysseus
June 13, 2006, 05:48 PM
Did the order include court costs to be paid by city and county?

Keep in mind, that the S.F. voters did this to themselves. They voted for this Prop H., so in the end as usual - the lawyers win. ;)

SteveS
June 14, 2006, 10:44 AM
I am confused. I got an e-mail from SAF, stating that they, along with the NRA won this suit. I also noticed that GOA is claiming some credit. I am not trying to start a debate over the pros and cons of each group, but I want to give credit where credit is due.

Selfdfenz
June 14, 2006, 11:25 AM
It would be better to point out to them when they are awashed with violent crime due to their lefist policiys, they should have sloved their problem when they banned firearms

1. They [SF .gov in particular and .govs in general] don't care about solving crimes
2. This law was not about reducing crimes and if left in force it would have failed to do that
3. Neither city government or apparently 58% of SF city voters care about #1 or #2
4. I'm unconvinced governemnt, in general, cares about enforcing laws already on the books that would fight crime to near the extent they care about passing new regulations that will not as long as they have media appeal and are symbolicly positive in their own minds

There is a completely different dynamic than a logical understanding of the facts at play with elected officials and voters in this city. Sf is not alone among cities in that respect.

S-

Creeping Incrementalism
June 14, 2006, 11:36 AM
I am confused. I got an e-mail from SAF, stating that they, along with the NRA won this suit. I also noticed that GOA is claiming some credit. I am not trying to start a debate over the pros and cons of each group, but I want to give credit where credit is due.

All three worked on it, but when you get down to it, the NRA paid Chuck Michel, the lawyer who argued against the ban in court.

GOA was founded by the guy who wrote the law that Chuck used to get the law overturned, so they joined in too and reminded the judge what the law meant in the first place, by the guy who wrote it.

I don't know what 2AF did, other than reminding the judge that they helped bring the lawsuit that overturned the last ban, using the same law.

QuarterBoreGunner
June 14, 2006, 12:48 PM
There is a completely different dynamic than a logical understanding of the facts at play with elected officials and voters in this city. Sf is not alone among cities in that respect.
Very true. With the mayor, the SFPD POA and the SF Chronicle all coming out against this proposition before the vote, you'd think that logic would prevail... fat chance. This isn't about crime so much as it's about Chris Daly making feel good gestures and being able to say "see see? I'm doing something about crime in this city!"
Reminds me of my Shakespeare: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing." Though Daly will still make political hay out of it.

Phetro
June 14, 2006, 02:45 PM
"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession," Dorsey said.

REASONABLE? You call 58% of the population oppressing the other 42% REASONABLE?! And you think they have a "right" to do it?

Think again, pal.

"San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence."

No, they spoke on the issue of gun banning, deceptively portrayed as being related to "gun violence," whatever that is. Guns seem quite docile when not held by aggressive people, actually.

And thank God the 58% of Ban Francisco voters were rightly ignored.

Carl N. Brown
June 14, 2006, 04:02 PM
The San Francisco police association came out against this
useless waste before ithe election.
Remeber that next time ant anti tells you police want more gun control.

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."
Remeber this next time an anti talks about "reasonable restriction"
because Proposition H was a ban on manufacture, sales and
possession of handguns in San Francisco. "Reasonable restrictio" is
a code word for total prohibition. DO NOT FORGET THIS LESSON.

Councilman Chris Daly knew when he put Proposition H on the
ballot that it was illegal under California state law and was doing
it as a symbolic gesture, knowing it would be overturned..
Rember that next time an anti chides us about bowing to
the rule of law.

If you enjoyed reading about "Judge overturns San Francisco weapons ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!