Nra Civil Rights Coalition Sues San Francisco

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
591
Location
New York NY
NEWS RELEASE

CCRKBA, NRA CIVIL RIGHTS COALITION SUES SAN FRANCISCO OVER PUBLIC HOUSING GUN BAN


Yesterday’s United States Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller confirmed what the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been saying all along: the Second Amendment does indeed protect a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms. But because Washington, D.C. is a federal enclave, the Heller ruling applies to the federal government only.

Today, using the Heller decision as the basis for the challenge, the Citizens Committee, in partnership with the National Rifle Association (NRA), filed a civil rights lawsuit to confirm that the Second Amendment restricts state and local governments from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as well.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court against the City of San Francisco and the San Francisco Public Housing Authority to invalidate the City’s ordinance (Police Code section 617) and lease provision that bans the possession of firearms in public housing

Before the Second Amendment can be used to challenge unconstitutional regulations laws at the state or local level, it must be “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the state and local governments. The lawsuit will serve to establish the incorporation doctrine in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, including California, and invalidate the existing ban on firearms in public housing in San Francisco in the process.

“As with the advancement of any civil right throughout history, subsequent litigation is essential in order to establish both the parameters of the Second Amendment’s protections, and initially to establish that the Second Amendment restricts state and local governments from infringing on your right to self-defense,” said Chuck Michel, civil rights attorney for the plaintiffs in the case.

“Just because someone lives in public housing does not mean that person must surrender his or her civil rights, or their right of self-defense,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “This lawsuit seeks to restore the rights of those living in public housing to choose to own a gun for sport or to defend their families.”
 
Last edited:
To add to this....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_re_us/gun_ban_reaction

By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 9 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its ban on handguns in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital.
ADVERTISEMENT

The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday's high court ruling.

In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project.

The gun owner, who is gay, says he keeps the weapon to defend himself from "sexual orientation hate crimes." He was not identified in the complaint because he said he fears retaliation.

Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city will "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the ban as good for public safety.

"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority."

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said that the Supreme Court ruling didn't address gun bans on government property and that he is "confident that our local gun control measures are on sound legal footing and will survive legal challenges."

San Francisco also requires residents to keep guns in lockboxes or equip them with trigger locks. That law, passed by the county supervisors last year, wasn't challenged in Friday's lawsuit.

A state appeals court has overturned a broader citywide gun ban that voters approved in 2005.

The Chicago lawsuit challenges the city's 1982 ordinance making it illegal to possess or sell handguns there.

NRA lawyer C.D. Michel said both lawsuits were necessary to expand the Supreme Court's ruling beyond Washington, a federal district, to states and cities.

"The Supreme Court decisions was very encouraging," Michel said. "But it is just a start."
 
i am praying for all those folks that far behind enemy lines.

that, and i would LOVE to see these whiney liberal mayors get what they deserve, a taste of the constitution!
 
Didn't we already win this one in state court? I thought the state court ruled that California's preemption clause invalidated the city's ban. If that's the case, where's the standing?
 
BTW if I am not mistaken, we won the issue in state court TWICE.

The citizens of SF, Chicago, NY, and DC should require the elitist scumbag officials pay the legal fees from their own pocket to defend their fascist schemes...
 
In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project.

The gun owner, who is gay, says he keeps the weapon to defend himself from "sexual orientation hate crimes." He was not identified in the complaint because he said he fears retaliation.
(emphasis mine)

Beautiful. They couldn't have gotten a better plaintiff if they ordered one out of a catalog!
 
Yeah, well why doesn't the NRA do something to help California gun owners? Maybe someday I'll join the NRA. I haven't ruled it out yet, so don't irritate me or I might never join. :what:
 
Not intending to "irritate" you, but why do you think the NRA should help you, if you don't intend to help the NRA - a two way street, don't you think? I do not expect them, or anyone else to help me, unless I am willing to help myself first, and the other party as well. The need to work together is the most pressing need of all - please reconsider your reluctance to joint us that do work for all. :)
sailortoo
 
Not intending to "irritate" you, but why do you think the NRA should help you, if you don't intend to help the NRA - a two way street, don't you think? I do not expect them, or anyone else to help me, unless I am willing to help myself first, and the other party as well. The need to work together is the most pressing need of all - please reconsider your reluctance to joint us that do work for all.
sailortoo

sailortoo,Mr.Hairless was being sarcastic.
No one on this forum is more pro-NRA than he.:)
 
Surely do need a "SARCASTIC" indicator - there are more than a few on this board that question the NRA, and other pro-2A organizations. At least I hope I made my point in an acceptable manner.
sailortoo
 
Yeah, well why doesn't the NRA do something to help California gun owners? Maybe someday I'll join the NRA. I haven't ruled it out yet, so don't irritate me or I might never join.

It's rumored that Mr. Hairless donated his hair to Wayne LaPierre so he could appear on live tv looking his best. :neener:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top