Unanimously In Favor Of Saf Lawsuit

[Cavalier Knight]

NEWS RELEASE

CA APPEALS COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF SAF LAWSUIT

In a unanimous decision today, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the City of San Francisco’s handgun ban is illegal under state law, upholding a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and several other groups.

“This is a great day for gun owners and civil rights in California,” said SAF Founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is the second time we successfully fought a gun ban in San Francisco, and what this demonstrates is that the city’s leadership is as horribly out of touch with the law as it seems to be out of touch with reality.”

SAF was joined in the lawsuit by the National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, California Association of Firearms Retailers and several private citizens.

In its ruling, the court held that Proposition H, approved by voters in November 2005, is invalid as preempted by state law. Gottlieb said this was essentially the same case that SAF battled on its own 23 years ago when the city, under then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, adopted a gun ban.

“We urged the city well in advance to drop Proposition H from the 2005 ballot, and warned them that if they pushed the measure and it passed, we would meet them in court,” Gottlieb recalled. “We kept our word, along with our colleagues at the NRA, LEAA and our friends in the CAFR.

“This has been a horrible waste of the court’s time, the city’s legal resources and the taxpayers’ money,” he added. “The only reason this case went forward after the ban was struck down by the trial court is that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors wanted to mandate their extremist anti-gun rights philosophy as public law.

“Every judge in every court that this and the earlier case went before has sided with us,” Gottlieb stated. “This is a battle that had to be fought, and this is a ruling that we expected from Day One of our lawsuit. This wasn’t just a fight over gun rights. It was really about defeating social prejudice against gun owners; a type of bigotry made even more insidious by the fact that it was fostered and defended by a city administration whose attitude toward gun owners is anathema to American values.”

-END-

 

[Dope]

Wow, more good news. What's next? *gasp* Chicago?

Dope

 

[k_dawg]

Does Illinois have a codified pre-emption law like California?

 

[DJAteOhAte]

I got an Email from NRA-ILA about this.

Funny, they never mentioned SAF, LEAA or CAFR...

Who would have thought the NRA would take all the credit?

 

[Titus]

I was under the impression they got things rolling in NO as well.

 

[Megistopoda]

Does Illinois have a codified pre-emption law like California?

No. "Home-rule" powers in Illinois are exactly what's enabled Chicago, Evanston, Oak Park, Morton Grove, Winnetka, Wilmette, and Highland Park to legally ban possession of handguns within those cities' limits.

And our state right to bear arms amendment reads thusly (emphasis mine):

"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

They got the "individual citizen" right, but the "subject only to" clause effectively means "this right depends entirely on what the state legislature allows."

And our federal circuit, the seventh circuit, ruled (2-1 by panel) the following in Quilici v. Morton Grove: the Illinois constitution right to arms does not forbid banning handguns, and the federal Second Amendment does not prevent any type of gun ban.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I got an Email from NRA-ILA about this.

Funny, they never mentioned SAF, LEAA or CAFR...

Who would have thought the NRA would take all the credit?

That's a really good point. These gun rights organizations that don't give credit to other gun rights organizations are a scandal.

For example GeorgiaCarry.org takes the credit for HB 915 and attacks the NRA with it even though HB 915 is essentially the NRA's work product. And GeorgiaCarry.org boasts of a GOA endorsement for HB 915 that also doesn't mention it was lifted from the NRA-sponsored bills in other states.

The NRA is evil. GeorgiaCarry and GOA are good. Let's get on with the important work of splitting gun owners into warring factions. We won't be happy until all gun owners are miserable. No compromise.

Have you hugged Carolyn McCarthy today?

 

[DJAteOhAte]

For example GeorgiaCarry.org takes the credit for HB 915 and attacks the NRA with it even though HB 915 is essentially the NRA's work product. And GeorgiaCarry.org boasts of a GOA endorsement for HB 915 that also doesn't mention it was lifted from the NRA-sponsored bills in other states.

Let me, as a GCO member, set the record straight, right now.

GCO has never and will never set out to attack the NRA.

GCO has been working on HB915 for several years. GCO has been working on HB915 since before the NRA ever came to town with their parking lot bill.

GCO copied NRA-backed legislation from other states with the specific intent of gaining the NRA’s support.

The language in Section 4 of HB915 that everyone thinks “guts” or “scuttles” the NRA’s hijacked version of HB89 was taken directly from Colorado’s SB24 which was pushed by the NRA in 2003.

Here’s is a letter from GCO’s president to Kim du Toit which Kim posted on his blog:

I am the President of GeorgiaCarry.org, which was instrumental in assisting with the drafting and promotion of HB 915, the Second Amendment Protection Act of 2008, which will remove Georgia from its position as the state with more places off limits to the carry of a firearm than any state in the nation that permits carry. I wish to clear up some misconceptions floating around your site about the bill. NRAHab posted that the NRA is not supporting HB 915 because “in a fit of pique, the authors of HB 915 decided they wanted to scuttle NRA backed legislation.” He said people reading your site should have all of the facts. I do not know where NRAhab is getting his misinformation, or if he is even employed with the NRA, but frankly NRAhab does not know what the hell he is talking about.

HB 915 contains some language in Section 4 that states that nothing in Section 4, which basically removes all government restrictions on where one may carry a firearm, affects the existing rights of private property owners. This is absolutely necessary language to the bill because Section 4 is an authorization for license holders to carry “anywhere in the state,” unless a prohibition is specifically listed in Section 4. This clears up another problem in Georgia of having firearms restrictions scattered all over the Georgia Code, so that you need to hire a lawyer to figure out where you may and may not legally carry a firearm. Without the language protecting existing private property rights, Section 4 would mean license holders would be authorized to carrry a firearm into your home over your objection. Nobody would countenance such a ridiculous result.

Where did Rep. Bearden (the author of the bill) and GeorgiaCarry.org get this language? Why, from the NRA’s legislative push in Colorado in 2003. Please see Senate Bill 24 from the year 2003 in Colorado. GeorgiaCarry.org and Rep. Bearden thought that by stealing exact language from an NRA bill, word for word with only minor modifications to make the Colorado statute fit the circumstances in Georgia, the NRA would be all too happy to jump in and support it. We were shocked to discover the contrary.

In case NRAhab did not get it the first time around, the provision he believes is “designed to scuttle” the NRA is in fact NRA language! NRAhab is getting very bad information from somebody at the NRA, and I would like to know the exact source of his “information.” By exact, I mean a real person’s name.

I have been working closely with the NRA trying to get them to join the other groups that have already given their written endorsement to HB 915, including GCO, GSSA (the NRA affiliate in Georgia), SCCC, and GOA. I still hold out hope that the NRA will endorse HB 915 in the near future. If somebody at the NRA with whom I have been working is actively at the same time passing out misinformation, I would like to know about it.

Rep. Bearden, the author of the bill, saw the Georgia on My Mind page, and asked if somebody would assist him in getting the following message to you.
“Can someone that writes on the site above (I could not log in) let them know that the we (me and GCO) did not try to go against the NRA, but rather we used the NRA’s exact private property language they supported and endorsed in Colorado. Thanks for the help.”

I hope this serves to clear up any misconceptions about HB 915.

By the way, I am an NRA member, as is Rep. Bearden. We hope you will join us for a rally to support HB 915 at the Georgia Capitol Building tomorrow (Thursday) at 10:00 a.m.

Ed Stone
President
GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc.

Those, my friends, are the FACTS.

 

[Robert Hairless]

DJAteOhAte:

I got an Email from NRA-ILA about this.

Funny, they never mentioned SAF, LEAA or CAFR...

Who would have thought the NRA would take all the credit?

DJAteOhAte:

Let me, as a GCO member, set the record straight, right now.

GCO has never and will never set out to attack the NRA.

Let me, as someone who can read English, set the record even straighter. You may not know it but your computer has been taken over by Bill Clinton:

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair.

"It depends on how you define alone…" ––Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair.

"There were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were." –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair.

I like the stuff about GCO taking the NRA work product for noble reasons. That was not my point and it was not your point either. Your point was about the NRA not giving credit to other organizations. My point was about GCO and GOA not giving credit to other organizations either.

Your only contribution to this thread was to bash the NRA. And you don't know you're doing it? Scarey.

 

[DJAteOhAte]

I'm definitely bashing the NRA.

GCO is not.

 

[Crow1108]

That's really good news. Maybe it will help the Hellar case in our favor.

 

[Boy Racer]

Robert, bless your heart, you are one misguided individual.

GCO has never hidden behind any mis- or half-truths about the genesis of the language in HB 915. Way back in November 2007, at our autumn luncheon where the legislative effort was introduced to the membership, it was made clear that the language came from other state statutes. Since then, it has been disclosed time and time again as a point in our favor that the wording in HB 915 was shamelessly stolen from other states, for two principal reasons: (1) Using language previously approved and supported by the NRA in other states was suppose to ensure we'd get equal approval and support from the NRA for our Georgia efforts, and (2) the laws that are already in effect flat out work. They have a track record of success in the jurisdiction where they are enabled, and we want those same successes here in GA.

The NRA has come to town strong-arming the legislators to support and pass their bill, lest those legislators receive a failing grade on the NRA's 2008 election report cards. Even though it's viewed as an attack on private property rights and is ridiculously unpopular amongst GA residents and legislators.

The NRA has made one thing crystal clear: That HB89 is their primary legislative objective in GA for 2008. In its original form (SB 43) it was so wildly unpopular, it was effectively still born, being relegated to a Senate committee for debate where it would have died without fanfare. But someone decided that the Phoenix that is SB 43 should rise from the ashes and tacked the loser onto the overwhelmingly popular HB 89, sponsored by Rep. Tim Bearden, which was at the time still active in the GA legislature . Thus attaching two tons of dead weight onto HB 89 (the car carry bill), taking a sure thing which was nearly a unanimous triumph (as close as you can get to a slam dunk in GA politics), turning it into a dead issue sure to fail.

The original content and text of HB 89, without amendments, is contained in the text of HB 915 of 2008. Why shouldn't Bearden and his colleagues try to resurrect winning legislation?

The VA-based national lobbying organization "NRA" needs to stick to it's strengths: fund raising and making Washington D.C.-area compromises with Sarah Brady and The Joyce Foundation, and leave local GA politics alone. Its bullying techniques aren't winning any favor in GA and is actually costing memberships.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Robert Hairless,

Please quit posting stuff that is designed to stir up trouble between gun organizations. Wayne LaPierre flatly told the press on Monday at the Georgia Capitol Building that he had "no opinion" on HB 915. GCO is still trying to get the NRA to endorse HB 915, which so far it has refused to do, and if the NRA keeps seeing dissension like you are making up, it might never do so.

GCO has never made any secret of the fact that it is purposely using language the NRA previously urged in other states. In fact, GCO has publicized this fact, as GCO believed this was a plus for the bill! GCO hoped the NRA would support HB 915 (in part) because of this fact. Why would you now claim something different?

Please stop posting things that are not true. You may have been ignorant and honest (and therefore innocent and maybe even well meaning) in your first post, but you can no longer claim even that little justification if you continue in the same vein.

I am an NRA member, by the way. I will be more than happy to credit the NRA with success on the bill - if in fact they end up supporting it. I am optimistic they will. They told us they would if we introduced it last year.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

In fact, this morning (about 5 hours ago) the press (including television press) was told that Section 4 was NRA language and that we are hopeful that the NRA will endorse it.

Still feel the same way after hearing that, Robert Hairless?

 

[DJAteOhAte]

In fact, this morning (about 5 hours ago) the press (including television press) was told that Section 4 was NRA language and that we are hopeful that the NRA will endorse it.

Still feel the same way after hearing that, Robert Hairless?

I’m sure Mr. LaPierre will be posting his response to this any minute now…

Actually, he’ll probably have Mr. Cox post something instead. Yeah, that’s it.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Boy Racer:

Robert, bless your heart, you are one misguided individual.

Thank you for your blessing. It's as sincere and truthful, I think, as DJAteOhAte's virtuous declaration that "GCO has never and will never set out to attack the NRA" immediately after he attacked the NRA.

You and DJAteOhAte continue to dodge, shuck, shuffle and weave about the point that DJAteOhAte himself introduced into this discussion: that the NRA sent an e-mail to its members that talked about its own involvement without crediting other groups.

That was DJAte0hAte's point. That was DJAteOhAte's only point.
And that is the point I've addressed but that he--and now you--try to doubletalk around. I appreciate the time you've taken to use your second message after joining this forum to tell me that I am "one misguided individual."


DJAteOhAte:

I got an Email from NRA-ILA about this.

Funny, they never mentioned SAF, LEAA or CAFR...

Who would have thought the NRA would take all the credit?

DJAteOhAte:

Let me, as a GCO member, set the record straight, right now.

GCO has never and will never set out to attack the NRA.

Even though we're getting along real well together, GeorgiaCarry.org still makes no mention that the bill used the NRA's work. In other words, DJAteOhAte criticizes the NRA for what GCO itself does.

I think it's cute that after DJAteOhAte made a point of saying in his second message that he spoke as a GCO member representing the GCO position he made an abrupt aboutface in his third message and said he didn't:

DJAteOhAte:

I'm definitely bashing the NRA.

GCO is not.

Do you guys lie to each other as much as you do here--and as badly too?

Does Gun Owners of America run training camps for these "No Compromise" organizations in which you're taught to lie, distort, and bash the NRA, or is it simply that people like you and DJAteOhAte naturally gravitate to them?

 

[Thorsen]

I found this website due to a link on another and thought I would add my two cents to this thread.

I have been an NRA supporter for about 15 years now with the last 10 being as a lifetime member and informal recruiter for the NRA. Although I have not been completely thrilled with the NRA, I felt that they best represented me out of all the national level organizations.

Since I live in Georgia, I was quite excited about HB 89 when it first came up on my radar. Unfortunately, the NRA decided that the parking lot bill would be their priority and when that bill was effectively killed in committee the NRA had a friendly senator attach the parking lot bill (SB 43) to HB 89 (expanded car carry), a bill that had overwhelming support and was pretty much guaranteed passage. Attaching SB 43 to HB 89 relegated HB 89 to the dust bin last legislative session.

Although I was unhappy with what the NRA had done, I thought a letter mailing campaign to their offices with like minded people would change their minds. I also joined GeorgiaCarry.org at that time because I saw that this new state organization could have great positive impact on the firearms laws that most affect me.

This year, I was even more excited with the possibility of getting HB 915 passed. HB 915 not only includes the expansions of car carry under the original HB 89, but also reverses many of the laws that are based on Jim Crow Era politics that were meant to disarm black Americans and are now applied to everyone. Not only would HB 915 help out all law abiding firearms owners, but it would also remove one of the last vestiges of this hateful period in our state's history.

Like many NRA members I lobbied the NRA-ILA to support HB 915, a piece of legislation that is based on similar legislation that they have supported in other states. I thought their support would be immediately forthcoming.

I was wrong.

Ignoring the members of their organization who want the expanded carry rights that HB 915 would restore, the NRA has once again decided to put its support behind the parking lot bill that will most assuredly once again be blocked by the State Chamber of Commerce. The NRA decided to do this even though most of the Georgia state NRA members I personally know are against this piece of legislation due to its infringement on private property rights and because even its passage would only narrowly affect carry rights whereas HB 915 would greatly affect those rights.

Essentially, the NRA has decided to once again fight a confrontational battle over its very members' objections.

Because of this I have since cancelled my lifetime membership with the NRA and will no longer support this organization. I hope other NRA members will follow suit. From now on, instead of lobbying for the NRA in an attempt to help this organization gain members, I will lobby for GOA, an organization that seems to be more in sync with what members within a state actually want for themselves.

I used to say that "I am the NRA", but the NRA has proven that I never was. I was simply an income stream.

My comments and opinions reflect only my own thoughts and are not representative of any other organization, either state or national.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Malum Probitum:

In fact, this morning (about 5 hours ago) the press (including television press) was told that Section 4 was NRA language and that we are hopeful that the NRA will endorse it.

Still feel the same way after hearing that, Robert Hairless?

No, I now think that your organization is scummier than I had thought it was. I didn't think that was possible.

You're actually proud to say that now, today, this morning, five whole hours ago, your organization finally got around to acknowledging that it had taken the NRA's work product some time ago.

Of course you're doing it as a super sophisticated political ploy and a really clever manipulative device.

"Scummy" is a pretty good word to describe what you're doing and what you stand for.

Be proud of DJAteOhAte. He is an able representative of GCO's principles. So is Bill Clinton, but he's pretty well stretched out right now, what with running his wife and handling DJAteOhAte's computer.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Hotcha! I am increasing this forum's membership even as we speak.

Pretty soon we'll have every member of GCO here bashing the NRA.

Not that they're here to bash the NRA, of course. They don't bash the NRA. They just bash the NRA.

And it's not as if they join to bash the NRA. They just happen to be joining and bashing the NRA at the same time.

Let me, as a GCO member, set the record straight, right now.

GCO has never and will never set out to attack the NRA.

I think it's pretty clear what GCO is, what it does, and how it behaves. Larry Pratt must be so proud.

DJAteOhAte and Gorgia Carry have hijacked this thread about a California victory for SAF--a reputable and distinguished gun rights organization--for the purpose of pitting gun owners against one another.

That's the difference between reputable organizations such as SAF and the NRA: they cooperate with other gun rights organizations. The lunatic fringe, however, remains what it is and always will be: lunatic and mean.

 

[Titus]

That's the difference between reputable organizations such as SAF and the NRA: they cooperate with other gun rights organizations. The lunatic fringe, however, remains what it is and always will be: lunatic and mean.

Well, not everyone can drive folks to set fire to their NRA membership cards.

As for cooperating

I have been working closely with the NRA trying to get them to join the other groups that have already given their written endorsement to HB 915, including GCO, GSSA (the NRA affiliate in Georgia), SCCC, and GOA. I still hold out hope that the NRA will endorse HB 915 in the near future. If somebody at the NRA with whom I have been working is actively at the same time passing out misinformation, I would like to know about it.

 

[DJAteOhAte]

Do you guys lie to each other as much as you do here--and as badly too?

I thought I was making it clear that my personal opinion is different from the official position of GCO. Is that hard for you to understand?

I made a comment about the NRA. That was from me.

You made a comment about GCO. I responded with information about GCO’s official position.

Then I made sure to clarify that I was saying one thing while GCO is saying another.

No, I now think that your organization is scummier than I had thought it was. I didn't think that was possible.

You're actually proud to say that now, today, this morning, five whole hours ago, your organization finally got around to acknowledging that it had taken the NRA's work product some time ago.

You are clearly taking MP’s comment out of context.

You and I both know that he was saying that GCO is still trying to play nice with NRA. It’s been an ongoing process over the last couple of years and GCO was even on the phone with them as late as this morning trying to come together on the issues.

How does that make GCO the scummy one?

 

[mafuta54]

Robert Hairless.
Did you not read that from the beginning this organization made it known that it "borrowed" language from previously successful NRA backed bills that passed in other states, specifically Colorado?

 

[DJAteOhAte]

DJAteOhAte and Gorgia Carry have hijacked this thread about a California victory for SAF--a reputable and distinguished gun rights organization--for the purpose of pitting gun owners against one another.

Go back and look at who mentioned GCO first in this thread…

Also, what difference does it make if some of GCO's members are dissatisfied or former NRA members? What's wrong with that?

 

[DJAteOhAte]

I think it's pretty clear what GCO is, what it does, and how it behaves. Larry Pratt must be so proud.

What's your problem with SAF? Why are you trying to divide gun owners?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

In fact, this morning (about 5 hours ago) the press (including television press) was told that Section 4 was NRA language and that we are hopeful that the NRA will endorse it.

Still feel the same way after hearing that, Robert Hairless?

No, I now think that your organization is scummier than I had thought it was. I didn't think that was possible.

You're actually proud to say that now, today, this morning, five whole hours ago, your organization finally got around to acknowledging that it had taken the NRA's work product some time ago.

Of course you're doing it as a super sophisticated political ploy and a really clever manipulative device.

"Scummy" is a pretty good word to describe what you're doing and what you stand for.

Hairless, did you even read the post above that?

This morning is NOT the first time. How about the post even above that one where Boy Racer describes the unveiling of HB 915 to the membership of GCO for the first time - complete with promotion of the NRA language? And his description of how that point has been hammered home since then, including why?

Really, what is the matter with you?