GOA wins battle in San Francisco courts!


PDA






coma
June 13, 2006, 10:08 PM
Here is a copy of the GOA email i just got. Looks like some good news out of Komi-forna.

GOA wins battle in San Francisco courts!
-- Thanks contributors to the Foundation for making battles like this possible

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, June 13, 2006


Good news out of California!

Yesterday, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren overturned voter-approved Measure H, a city ordinance that banned the private possession of handguns and the sale of all firearms in the city.

Gun Owners of America -- and Gun Owners Foundation along with Gun Owners of California -- underwrote the costs of filing a friend of the court (amicus) brief by the founder of Gun Owners, California state Sen. H.L. Richardson (ret.).

Sen. Richardson's amicus brief was important in this case because, while in his service in the California Senate, he sponsored the law that prohibits what the voters of San Francisco recently did. California state law preempts, thanks to Richardson, any local measures banning or registering firearms.

Gun Owners is thankful that the courts did not disregard the preemption law Richardson enacted. We all know that courts frequently have a problem following the law and seeking guidance from the record of those who made the law.

Richardson's preemption law has been upheld in previous cases, so with the obvious meaning of the law and the history of judicial rulings supporting it, prospects for overturning the plebiscite looked good.

Victory in court now frees the 42 percent of San Franciscans who voted against violating a constitutional right to own a handgun in the city. Unhappily it is for practical purposes impossible to get a concealed carry permit there, so, lots of luck when venturing forth from one's San Francisco dwelling. Unless, that is, you are someone important such as Mrs. Gun Ban, a.k.a. Sen. Diane Feinstein.

The city has already announced it will appeal the ruling, even though S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsome has reportedly said that this effort was contrary to state law. Interestingly, the San Francisco Police Officers Association opposed the ban, saying the law nullified "the personal choice of city residents to possess a handgun for self-defense purposes."

GOA would like to thank all of those who have contributed to Gun Owners Foundation, which makes lawsuits like this possible. Gun Owners Foundation is part of the Combined Federal Campaign -- Agency Number 1054.


*****************************************************************

Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.

If you enjoyed reading about "GOA wins battle in San Francisco courts!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
freedom and guns
June 13, 2006, 10:15 PM
THANK YOU JESUS!!!!

freedom and guns
June 13, 2006, 10:20 PM
http://nraila.org/ read about it and get updates there. You can also read about
it here http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=7743

freedom and guns
June 13, 2006, 10:25 PM
read the beginning of the thread and the acompanying article I shouted, jumped up, told my dad, slapped his hands, and got down on my knees and thanked God and asked him to save the judge. I was happy. VICTORY

cavman
June 13, 2006, 10:26 PM
What is the relationship between NRA and GOA?

The GOA takes some credit for significant contribution. NRA makes no mention of the GOA. Are they on good working terms?

Bartholomew Roberts
June 13, 2006, 10:35 PM
In this case the NRA filed the suit and bore the costs of the suit challenging the city's ban. They were likely in a better position to obtain standing since they are a large organization representing lots of people. they were probably also in a better position to bear the costs of the suit which would be greater than filing an amicus brief.

GOA filed an amicus brief (basically additional legal research from a third party that supports one side in the suit) by the legislator who proposed the state preemption rule that prohibited the SF law. This is unquestionably a valuable and important clarification that had some weight with the court. However, given that SF has already had gun bans shot down twice under this law and that the third attempt isn't much different from the previous unsuccessful attempt, chances were good this law would have been overturned regardless. However, better safe than sorry and it is important that GOA stepped up, got the original legislator and made sure that the best case that could be made was made.

sfhogman
June 13, 2006, 10:38 PM
The Cityand County is going to appeal Judge Warren's decision.
The beat goes on.

Jeff

beerslurpy
June 13, 2006, 10:57 PM
This was not a victory. This is a completely settled area of law and the suit could have been won by anyone that cared to put out the effort. SF had no chance at all to keep the ban.

Standing Wolf
June 14, 2006, 12:10 AM
SF had no chance at all to keep the ban.

Which may explain why San Francisco has already filed an appeal.

Joey2
June 14, 2006, 12:29 AM
Gee, are you sure it was the GOA and not the NRA? The GOA does not comprimise, the NRA DOES.

Don't Tread On Me
June 14, 2006, 12:36 AM
Beerslurpy, I have to disagree. While I understand your argument, it isn't how things work. If the people of SF voted for a gun ban, and they got it (which they did)..it WILL be enforced unless someone stands up and fights against it.


If no one fights it, no matter how wrong it is, no matter what other laws it violated (California state law, California Constitution, U.S. Constitution etc..), it will become the law of that land and be enforced.


So it is a victory when you beat it down. A majority of social-communist-leftist-liberals cannot prevent a minority of freedom loving Americans their protections under the Bill of Rights. If that were the case, then a simple majority of Americans could vote for just about anything, like slavery and make it legal regardless of what the constitution says.


Folks, this is just a great reminder that democracy is the devil. There is nothing worse than direct democracy. People are so dumb, they will enslave themselves in no time.

bigun15
June 14, 2006, 12:48 AM
We all know that courts frequently have a problem following the law and seeking guidance from the record of those who made the law.

That might be one of the most accurate things I have ever heard.

Creeping Incrementalism
June 14, 2006, 02:11 AM
GOA filed an amicus brief (basically additional legal research from a third party that supports one side in the suit) by the legislator who proposed the state preemption rule that prohibited the SF law.

Cal State Sen. H.L. Richardson wrote the law, and founded GOC and GOA, to help put things in context.

bg
June 14, 2006, 03:18 AM
Appeal means more of SF's money down the drain instead of
taking care of it's citizens. What do the city fathers care though ?
They'll still be getting THEIR paychecks and allotments each month.

SteveS
June 14, 2006, 10:52 AM
In this case the NRA filed the suit and bore the costs of the suit challenging the city's ban.

SAF, on their website is claiming victory in this suit. They do mention working with the NRA in their press release. I don't see any mention of the SAF in the NRA press release. So is the SAF trying to take credit for something they had little to do with? Why did the NRA not give some credit to the SAF? If it is the latter, then I am diappointed that they wouldn't be willing to share some of the credit.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 14, 2006, 12:42 PM
The lawsuit was filed by NRA, SAF, LEAA and individual plaintiffs affected in San Francisco. NRA and SAF also teamed up for the Katrina/New Orleans lawsuits. I agree that the polite thing to do would be to acknowledge contributions from all groups.

xcheck
June 14, 2006, 05:03 PM
No matter how minor the contribution might have been. :rolleyes:

JohnBT
June 14, 2006, 06:15 PM
I'm glad it went the right way...

...even if GOA is claiming they won a suit they didn't file. ;)

Anyone who has read the source documents knows who filed the suit. Here's one:

http://www.saf.org/san.francisco.lawsuit/petition_for_writ_of_mandate_appeals_court.pdf

the pistolero
June 14, 2006, 06:45 PM
No matter how minor the contribution might have been.

Would you rather the SAF, GOA, JPFO, etc. all sat on their duffs on the sidelines and let the NRA do all the work all the time? :confused: Yes, all the other organizations aren't as big as the NRA, and maybe the NRA could have taken care of it themselves (anyone who doesn't think so, please feel free to jump in here), but that doesn't make the other organizations' contributions any less welcome or noteworthy. We've regained ground in the last few years, no doubt about it, but that doesn't mean we should feel free to disregard all the other gun-rights-advocacy organizations besides the NRA just because they're not as big or as influential as the NRA. We do that at our peril. No matter how you feel about where we stand today, the fact is that our side is under attack and has been for the last ~40 years. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

JohnBT
June 15, 2006, 08:40 AM
"Would you rather the SAF, GOA, JPFO, etc. all sat on their duffs on the sidelines..."

Of course not. I am still bothered by the claim of "GOA wins battle..."

John

yucaipa
June 15, 2006, 10:42 AM
GOA filed an amicus brief and that is good, AB's are a way to support one side and to give judges an idea of what people are thinking, they are also great reference material (as in this one) citing precedent and case law.


GOA really pushed the envelope in their email with,


GOA would like to thank all of those who have contributed to Gun Owners Foundation, which makes lawsuits like this possible.

If GOA wants to be a gadfly on this one OK, if they want to use this for a fund raising opportunity OK.

Because they are a RKBA organization, the rest of the family lets it pass, I just wish GOA could do their fund raising without bad mouthing other people in the RKBA movement and saying things that turn out not to be true.

Socrates
August 13, 2006, 06:39 PM
In this case, you shouldn't be thanking anyone more then Judge Warren.
He is an upstanding, incredible member of the bench, who I have had the honor of being in both his chambers, and court room.

If the case had gone before another judge, it well might be the NRA/GOA appealing. I've scene a couple judges that make up law as they go along in Contra Costa County, and this is the true danger to our society.

S

Malum Prohibitum
August 13, 2006, 06:56 PM
The lawsuit was filed by NRA, SAF, LEAA and individual plaintiffs affected in San Francisco. NRA and SAF also teamed up for the Katrina/New Orleans lawsuits. I agree that the polite thing to do would be to acknowledge contributions from all groups.

The NRA never acknowledges the SAF.

Monkeyleg
August 13, 2006, 07:10 PM
The more I look at GOA, the more they remind me of Wisconsin Gun Owners (do a search on WGO here on this forum).

ilbob
August 13, 2006, 07:35 PM
The NRA never acknowledges the SAF.

They see every other gun owner group as competition. Not too surprising since that is in effect what it is.

yucaipa
August 13, 2006, 10:22 PM
Back when this was announced, every email I got, every article I read (in NRA magazines) married NRA & SAF at the hip in the first paragraph.

And vice versa with all SAF's communications.

Robert Hairless
August 14, 2006, 05:15 PM
Malum Prohibitum:

The NRA never acknowledges the SAF.

NRA:

“The NRA is determined to stop this blatant abuse of power by local politicians. It is disgraceful that any government official would further endanger the lives of innocent victims by issuing this ridiculous order. We are very grateful to the many rank and file police officers who have come forward and assisted NRA in exposing these violations of constitutional freedoms. We are also pleased that the Second Amendment Foundation is joining us in this effort,” added Cox. http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6531

The HMS Pinafore's Captain:

ALL. What, never?
CAPT. No, never!
ALL. What, never?
CAPT. Hardly ever!

Malum Prohibitum
August 14, 2006, 09:31 PM
OK. I retract what I said.

I have never seen it until your quotes, but obviously I was wrong.

Sniffle. :(

Silver Bullet
August 14, 2006, 11:20 PM
Yes, all the other organizations aren't as big as the NRA, and maybe the NRA could have taken care of it themselves (anyone who doesn't think so, please feel free to jump in here), but that doesn't make the other organizations' contributions any less welcome or noteworthy.
Not less welcome; just less significant.

Glad I donate to the NRA.

Robert Hairless
August 14, 2006, 11:22 PM
Malum Prohibitum:

OK. I retract what I said.

I have never seen it until your quotes, but obviously I was wrong.

Sniffle.

Well done. :)

If you enjoyed reading about "GOA wins battle in San Francisco courts!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!