More good news...Appeals court rules San Francisco gun ban null and void.

[jmg257]

Quote:
(01-09) 11:53 PST SAN FRANCISCO - A state appeals court refused today to revive a ban on handgun possession in San Francisco, saying the measure that city voters approved in November 2005 conflicts with state law.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco agreed with a June 2006 ruling by Superior Court Judge James Warren, who said local governments in California have no authority to prohibit handguns. Warren said a California law that authorizes police agencies to issue concealed-weapon permits implicitly forbids a city or county to ban handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

The San Francisco measure, Proposition H, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of any type of firearms and ammunition in San Francisco.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BAQIUC21G.DTL

[Double T]

1. Good. Second Amendment is secure.

[angrycarpenter]

2. prime example of the damage one conservative judge can do.

While I am not in favor of any total ban on guns, these people voted for something that was taken away by a judge who no doubt acted on behalf of the gun lobby.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

4. Unconstitutional. Sorry.

I don't think you can "vote" to take away another person's constitutional rights.

[angrycarpenter]

6. The gun lobby spends millions

To fight any attempt by cities to restrict gun ownership. While a total ban is going too far and the judge in this case acted in the best interests of the law, the fact remains that the people voted for this. It had to have been challenged in court by some one. The gun lobby has too much power over the judges who are called to decide these cases.

[jmg257]

7. Because they represent millions. At least they are on the right side. nt

[midlife_mo_Jo]

9. So we can vote to take away women's rights?

What other right can we vote to take away?

I understand that you say the total ban went to far, but the fact that the people voted on this matters naught! A bunch of stupid people put this on the ballot.

[Jackeen]

19. The people also voted otherwise.

"the fact remains that the people voted for this."

The People of California (which outranks the People of San Francisco), via their duly elected representatives, have enacted State-Wide legislation to the contrary. The People of San Francisco could, for example, vote that they don't need to pay State Taxes any more, or that you don't need a driver's license to drive within San Francisco. Let's see either of those get past the State Judiciary.

[krispos42]

21. The fact that the people voted for it is, in and of itself, meaningless.

Some things cannot be voted in or voted away, regardless of how high a percentage of the people vote on it.

The majority of people in the country are women. If the majority of people in this country passed a law denying men the right to vote it would swiftly be declared unconstitutional, despite the fact that the people voted on it.

So on that issue, and on many others, how the people vote and what they vote for is irrelevent.

[slackmaster]

27. California municipalities cannot write their own gun laws

Doing so violates the state constitution.

[ManiacJoe]

8. You seem to misunderstand what happened.

This time, same as last time, SF voted to pass a law that they knew conflicted with state law. They knew that they did not have the authority to pass such a law, just as they knew the previous time they did it.

As happened last time, a judge whose political leaning is irrelevant overturned the law, just as he was supposed to (and as expected to).

There was no political activism by the judge. He just knew how to read and how to do his job. If SF had wanted to do more than grandstanding, they would have first gotten the state to grant them the authority to pass such a law.

[angrycarpenter]

10. sorry I said anything

I did not know the back story on this. But I have a rather unpopular opinion of handguns in general- Less guns = Less death.

Apparently anyone critical of the 2nd amendment is just wrong. Even here. Why is this amendment so sacred when there are exceptions and alterations to all the others? Too bad the gun lobby is not defending the entire constitution.

[appal_jack]

11. many of us disagree with all of the alterations

I am robust-interpretation-of-all-the Bill-of-Rights type of guy. So I'm just as enthusiastic about the 1st Amendment as the 2nd, 3rd. (rarely called-upon these days, but a good idea nonetheless), 4th (presently in tatters, but well worth resuscitating), etc.

Don't you feel that a slipshod defense of the 2nd Amendment opens up the floodgates to more Bill-of-Rights erosions? I do.

-app

[angrycarpenter]

12. Of course I do

But anyone trying to suggest a rational real world gun policy is faced with this amendment and the people who hold it sacred. Right or wrong those other changes to the bill of rights were made in response to changes in the modern world. Why is it so wrong to want a world with fewer guns? When will there be enough guns in the world to make everyone feel like god?

[jmg257]

15. It is Ok to want a world with fewer guns, but like those who wanted a world

with less alcohol or less drugs, their good intentions also had/have serious negative reprecussions.

Most "rational" gun policies are anything but, and typically are the beginning for all-out bans that are the true goal of anti-gun nuts. Like prohibition and war on drugs, this will only lead to an increase in the criminal elements and violence associated with the banned object, all the while further disarming the lawful citizen leaving him more vulnerable to violent crimes, and tyrannical control.

[angrycarpenter]

16. Am I the only one here in favor of gun control

Or did I go to the other place by mistake.

[Recursion]

18. We disagree on what "gun control" means, I imagine

There has been active and incredibly effective gun control in place in this country for over 70 years in the form of the National Firearms Act which, were BenEzra here, he would have politely and informatively told you about. In his absence, I will point out that since 1934 there have been stringent nationwide restrictions on the purchase of automatic weapons, weapons over .50 caliber, short-barrel shotguns, and other classes of arms.

This is gun control that has worked well. I think only one regular poster to this topic wants it repealed, though a few more want the registry that was closed in the Reagan administration re-opened.

However, you are the only person in this thread so far to my knowledge who thinks that a citywide ban on handguns is not a gross infringement of civil rights. One other regular poster has defended Washington DC's handgun ban, though he has done so primarily on home rule and enfranchisement grounds (a position I'm largely sympathetic to, as a former long-time DC resident).

[jmg257]

24. Probably not. But as you can tell many here believe in ALL our inalienable rights, esp. this 1. nt

[ManiacJoe]

13. All positions are welcome.

We are just going to hold you to supporting your position with accurate facts. :evilgrin:

In this one case, you were working off way too many, wrong assumptions.

[jmg257]

14. Critical of the 2nd is one thing. Mis-construing what it says and why it is important is something

else. (not that you said such things).

Thinking judges must be "bought" by ANY lobby just to support the true meaning and intent of the Constitution is sad really. Almost as sad as elected officials, who are sworn to support the Constitution, attempting to subvert it.

This absolute right is sacred because it allows one the best convenient means to defend his other liberties, himself, and his loved ones whenever necessary.

Anyway, there are plenty of "lobbys" supporting other rights; after battling for this specific right for so long against all forms of dishonest, misguided, and/or unreasonable attempts at infringment, it is joy to celebrate another victory.

[Recursion]

17. Are you aware of the exceptions and restrictions on the 2nd Amendment?

Automatic weapons and weapons over .50 caliber have been subject to pretty tight restriction for over 70 years now. Next to nobody except some Ron Paul types are pushing to undo that law (certainly the NRA is not).

There's already a legislative framework in place that has very effectively regulated firearm ownership for over 70 years. If you think greater restrictions are necessary, write a new National Firearms Act and get it passed by Congress.

[krispos42]

22. Well, you're here to learn, right?

:-)

Glad we cleared this up for you.


On the other hand, "less guns=less death" is an excellent way to start a lengthy discussion!!!

I won't go into it now. No reason to overwhelm you just yet... we have an entire election year for that!

I will note that there are already numerous laws, limits, etc., on guns. These have occured as the world evolved. For example, the National Instant Check System, which performs an "instant" background check on a firearms purchaser, could not have existed with modern technology. When the computers and internet service were advanced enough, we got it, and now a federally-licensed dealer has to run a check on every single sale to the general public.

We're not saying that the Second can't be regulated, we're discussing whether a proposed law is s) Constitutional, and b) useful. There are many proposed laws that sound all warm and fuzzy but are, in fact, crap. And that is the source of endless discussion, raving, ranting, name-calling, etc.

It's fun. Check out any thread with more than 50 responses to learn who the regulars are.


Welcome to DU! :hi:

[krispos42]

20. In California the state government alone can regulate firearms

County and city officials cannot regulate firearms. This is the way it is in most, but not all, states. Illinois and New York, for example, allow counties and cities to enact stricter gun laws than the state has on the books.

Until and unless the California legislature chooses to removes it's monopoly on that area of law, any attempt by any county or city to enact stricter gun laws are by definition null and void.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

23. Even then, the constitution trumps California law

If the state of California allowed SF to ban every handgun, a challenger would win in the Supreme Court, and I bet it would be a 9-0 win.

[krispos42]

25. In this particular case, yes

But if San Francisco wanted to, say register all handguns in city limits or limit handgun capacities to six rounds, it could not do that until the California legislature removed its monopoly on gun laws. And it's doubtful the Supreme Court would do anything about it.

[slackmaster]

26. Wrong

The San Francisco city council openly admitted they knew Proposition H would be thrown out in court, before the election.

[SteveM]

3. Predictable ruling. No doubt, however, SF will crap on the carpet again.

[TomInTib]

5. I always thought the ban was ridiculous, anyway.

Dickhead from Richmond irons up, drives across the bridge, finds a well-dressed couple walking to their car and politely inquires, "Excuse me, sir, do you live around here?".