Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

City of Berkeley Loses Semi-Auto Gun Ban

Discussion in 'Legal' started by steverjo, May 7, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. steverjo

    steverjo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Messages:
    169
    Location:
    Southern California
    I received the following email today. Good news for us!!

    FACED WITH NRA / CRPA FOUNDATION LAWSUIT, BERKELEY REPEALS BAN ON POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES


    In response to a pre-litigation demand letter sent by lawyers for the NRA and CRPA Foundation, on Tuesday, May 4, 2010, the Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to repeal that city's ban on the possession of certain semiautomatic rifles, which had remained “on the books” as Municipal Code Section 13.47 despite being obviously preempted by state law.

    The repeal is the culmination of discussions between attorneys for the NRA and CRPA and the Berkeley City Attorney’s office. The City of Berkeley initially resisted all requests by the NRA and CRPA to repeal this ordinance. But the City Attorney’s report to the City Council makes clear that the motivation to finally repeal the ordinance was the threat of litigation from NRA/CRPA.

    One person objected to the repealing of the ordinance during public comment, but the City Attorney quickly corrected him that, as explained by the NRA/CRPA letter, this is a settled legal matter for which the City of Berkeley has no recourse. The City Attorney conceded the preemptive effect of the Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, 158 Cal.App.4th 895 (2008) case, and that a court would rule in NRA/CRPA’s favor in a lawsuit in this matter.

    This is a victory not only for gun owners who live in or pass through the City of Berkeley and who feared prosecution under this ordinance. The repeal confirms that, contrary to the gun ban lobby’s claims, there are limits to what restrictions cities can place on firearms, and that Fiscal has preemptive effect throughout California. The repeal demand letter and staff report can be read at ww.calgunlaws.com.

    The repeal efforts were funded by the NRA / CRPAF Legal Action project. To contribute to the NRA / CRPAF Legal Action Project (LAP) and support Second Amendment cases that directly benefit California gun owners, visit www.crpafoundation.org. LAP is a joint venture between the Nation Rifle Association (NRA) and the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys fight against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and educate state and local officials about the programs at their disposal that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.


    C.D. Michel
    Senior Counsel
     
  2. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Awesome!
     
  3. GunsAreGood

    GunsAreGood Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    101
    As a California resident as well as a Bay Area resident I am very glad to hear that. Thank you for posting.
     
  4. Alabama2010

    Alabama2010 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    136
    Eh, it's like the Dutch boy and the dike. We ought to just sell California to Mexico- or just give it to them. Sorry to offend any of you decent folks out there, but man I really hate that state- and I was born there!
     
  5. wishin

    wishin Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,430
    Location:
    Georgia
    The pity is that this should not even be necessary given the State's preemption law. It wouldn't be the first time a local law without teeth remained "on the books". Inane and archaic laws come up from time to time. It's hard to understand their reluctance. I suppose evil guns do that to some........
     
  6. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Should fire the dumb**** that placed the ban in effect for wasting taxpayers dollars for their attorney fees for an unconstitutional ban (as with any politicians that put such bans in place).
     
  7. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,762
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    This and the news from CO, all kinds of good news today.
     
  8. dvcrsn

    dvcrsn Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    :banghead:Wishin--Berzerkley, SF and Lost Angeles need to be regularly reminded that the 2nd amendment exists:banghead::fire:
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2010
  9. seldomseensmith

    seldomseensmith Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    SLC, UT
    It's funny, having lived in SF (the mission district) where there were 8 murders within a block of my house one summer. I was unable to obtain a concealed carry permit, now I live in utah which is about 1000% safer and concealed carry permits can be had in four hours. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page