Judge overturns San Francisco weapons ban

[crazed_ss]

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 People often complain about the NRA not getting the Assault Weapons Ban repealed here, but the NRA actually does help us a lot here and they pick their battles carefully.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]

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]

NRA Dues

My NRA dues are worth this outcome, alone.

 

[sfhogman]

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]

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]

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]

cbsbyte

This ruling has little to do with the competance of the NRA

Well that must be true I read it on the innernet

The fact is the competence

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

 

[Henry Bowman]

I give at least as much credit to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

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]

Who pays

Did the order include court costs to be paid by city and county?

 

[odysseus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.