CA APPEALS COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF SAF LAWSUIT

GOAL

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
498
Likes
1,003
________________________________________
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-
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,458
Likes
72
Location
Fitchburg, Ma
CA APPEALS COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF SAF LAWSUIT
That's the part that shocks me the most. and bodes well for people that want to strike down anti 2A bans in other parts of the country. If it can be done in CA it can be done anywhere.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,204
<GOA Bot> "Screw the NRA... they don't do a damn thing to preserve our 2nd amendment rights" </GOA Bot>
 

GOAL

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
498
Likes
1,003
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.
 

doobie

Banned
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
8,423
Likes
263
Go CA!!! Of course they'll draw this out to the SCOTUS.... does this mean it's now legal to own handguns in SF or does the city have the give up appeals?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,204
Go CA!!! Of course they'll draw this out to the SCOTUS

Based on what?

There's nothing unconstitutional about preemption laws (a community can't pass anything stricter than allowed by state law).

In fact... under the 10th amendment, it is allowable.
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,852
Likes
704
Location
Boston
That's the part that shocks me the most. and bodes well for people that want to strike down anti 2A bans in other parts of the country. If it can be done in CA it can be done anywhere.

If your phrase "anti 2A" is simply a shorthand for "local firearms bans," then your point may be valid, depending on the differences between California law and the law of other states on the preemption issue.

If, however, your phrase signifies that you believe that the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution played any role in this decision, you are mistaken. The issue had nothing to do with "gun rights," but rather involved only the allocation of power between the state and a municipality, under state law.
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,852
Likes
704
Location
Boston
Go CA!!! Of course they'll draw this out to the SCOTUS.... does this mean it's now legal to own handguns in SF or does the city have the give up appeals?

The City of San Francisco cannot pursue this to the Supreme Court, as there is no federal issue.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
534
Likes
7
Location
Douglas, AZ
sorry to hijack....

anyone know what other companies, AREN'T shipping or doing business to CA? I was on STI's site and that was in their FAQ's that they are redlining CA. And i know Barrett is too. Who else? or a link would be great... I realized I am lazy and shoulda googled.... oops [rolleyes][thinking]
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
1,458
Likes
72
Location
Fitchburg, Ma
If your phrase "anti 2A" is simply a shorthand for "local firearms bans," then your point may be valid, depending on the differences between California law and the law of other states on the preemption issue.

If, however, your phrase signifies that you believe that the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution played any role in this decision, you are mistaken. The issue had nothing to do with "gun rights," but rather involved only the allocation of power between the state and a municipality, under state law.

Actually what I was trying to say was that if a CA court can rule unanimously in favor of gun owners than it should give gun owners everywhere hope that they might be able to have some success in the courts. I wouldn't have been surprised if any CA judges or even a majority had ruled against it based on their political leanings.
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,852
Likes
704
Location
Boston
Actually what I was trying to say was that if a CA court can rule unanimously in favor of gun owners than it should give gun owners everywhere hope that they might be able to have some success in the courts. I wouldn't have been surprised if any CA judges or even a majority had ruled against it based on their political leanings.

Courts don't decide cases because the "like" guns or "dislike" guns; they decide based on the application of the law to the parties' claims. The fact that local firearms regulation is preempted by statewide regulation in California has zip implication for some different claim in some different jurisdiction.
 

KMaurer

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,653
Likes
344
Location
Litchfield, NH
Courts don't decide cases because the "like" guns or "dislike" guns; they decide based on the application of the law to the parties' claims.

Well, at least that's the way it's supposed to happen, but the number of obvious exceptions to that rule would depress even Dr Pangloss. A number of legal commentators have described some courts' approach as (1) decide what the desired outcome is, then (2) develop a legal theory purporting to justify it. There's also a law review article demonstrating that a good number of citations included in these decisions are grossly distorted or worse. [sad]

Ken
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,852
Likes
704
Location
Boston
Well, at least that's the way it's supposed to happen, but the number of obvious exceptions to that rule would depress even Dr Pangloss. A number of legal commentators have described some courts' approach as (1) decide what the desired outcome is, then (2) develop a legal theory purporting to justify it. There's also a law review article demonstrating that a good number of citations included in these decisions are grossly distorted or worse. [sad]

Ken

Actually, I know for a fact this often occurs. However, I intended "decide" in that to which you replied to refer to the articulated ratio decidendi. A court's ability to decide a case one way is limited by its ability to conjure a legal rationale that at least passes the smell test.
 

Pilgrim

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
16,008
Likes
1,255
Location
RETIRED, at home or wherever I want to be
I agree with RKG on this. If SF had decided to ban peanut butter and it went to court, the court would have ruled the same way. It wasn't about guns but it WAS about a city trying to subvert state law.

Although gun owners prevailed in this, the judgment was not about guns.
 
Top Bottom