Judge Overturns San Francisco Gun Ban

[JonJ]

One for the good guys.

http://www.topix.net/content/cbs/3334476365405406386026850938491962975978

Judge Overturns San Francisco Gun Ban
cbs5.com
June 12, 2006

A state trial judge sided Monday with the National Rifle Association in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco.

Proposition H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by an alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. The NRA sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.

In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.

Warren wrote in a 30-page ruling that the Legislature has passed a "myriad of laws" on handgun possession and use, thus pre-empting local laws.

"These laws support the argument that California has an overarching concern in controlling gun use by defining the circumstances under which firearms can be possessed uniformly across the state, without having this statewide scheme contradicted or subverted by local policy," he wrote.

Proposition H banned possession of handguns except by law enforcement officers and other such as security guards who need guns for professional purposes. It also prohibited the sale, manufacture, transfer and distribution of firearms within the city by residents.

But since the ordinance targeted only city residents, it meant nonresidents in the city or even tourists were not banned from possessing or selling guns here.

"My clients are thrilled that the court recognized that law-abiding firearms owners who choose to own a gun to defend themselves or their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem," NRA attorney Chuck Michel said. "Hopefully, the city will recognize that gun owners can contribute to the effort to fight the criminal misuse of firearms, a goal that we all share."

Warren's decision was not unexpected. In 1982, a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law.

But years later, in 1998, a state appeals court upheld West Hollywood's ban on the sale of so-called Saturday night specials, small and cheap handguns that city leaders said contributed to violent crime. And three years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Los Angeles and Alameda counties, saying local governments could ban the possession and sale of weapons on government property, such as fairgrounds.

That decision, however, did not address the issue of private property sales and possession, as outlined in the San Francisco law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also is considering a challenge to a similar handgun ban in the District of Columbia that alleges the law violates a Second Amendment right of individuals to bear arms.

The NRA lawsuit here avoided those allegations.

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," Dorsey said. "San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence."

In November, San Francisco recorded its 90th homicide, up two from the previous year.

The case is Fiscal v. San Francisco 05-505960.

 

[Lugnut]

Wow... maybe there is hope.

 

[dreppucci007]

"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession," Dorsey said. "San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence."

In fact, the law wasn't about gun violence! It was about banning possession and sales...It's all the same to them. Screw 'em, we won this battle, but the war is far from over.

 

[Mike508]

Yaaaaaaa Whoooooooo!

 

[MarkM]

Good news everyone!

 

[C-pher]

This is at least showing that some of the people in the Gov't positons aren't blind.

 

[Weerd Beard]

Always good when a draconian law meant ONLY to start the repeal of the 2nd ammendmet goes down in FLAMES!

Yarrrrrrr

-Weer'd Beard

 

[SiameseRat]

wow good stuff

 

[Adam_MA]

Ok my good NRA attorneys...

NOW MAKE YOUR WAY EAST!

 

[jacobtowne]

A state trial judge sided Monday with the National Rifle Association

More like he sided with the law and these people's civil rights.
Good show.

JT

 

[JRyan]

Ok my good NRA attorneys...

NOW MAKE YOUR WAY EAST!

No kidding.

Still, that is good news. It's scary that so many people voted that way.

 

[Garys]

It's a start, but it will no doubt go up the ladder to the CA Supreme Court, and then into the federal system probably.

Still, it's a good decision.

I'd really like to see how the DC case comes out. No doubt that one WILL go to the Supreme Court, and that decision could be good (or bad) for all of us.

gary

 

[RKG]

This decision, which is actually a garden-variety preemption case, will not go to the federal courts, as no federal issues are raised or decided.

The same reasoning, by the way, is why the City of Boston "assault weapons" ban is not enforced. The licensing and regulation of firearms ownership, possession and carrying in Massachusetts is preempted by pervasive state statutes.

The fact of the matter is that there is less hear than meets the eye. The issue has nothing to do with guns, but rather with local cities or towns trying to supercede state law. The same thing happened a few years ago when Block Island tried to outlaw scooters.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The same reasoning, by the way, is why the City of Boston "assault weapons" ban is not enforced. The licensing and regulation of firearms ownership, possession and carrying in Massachusetts is preempted by pervasive state statutes.

Except, of course in the case where the legislature grants a "home rule petition" - basically giving up the state's pre-emptive soverienty for a specific local law. I believe the state granted the home rule petition requested by Boston for the AW ban.

 

[Coyote33]

City Appeals Ruling That Nixed Gun Control Law another link

 

[Lynne]

The shocking part was that it happened in CA. I was REALLY glad to hear that reported on the radio. My joy of thinking that it cause a major case of heart burn to the Brady Camp completely overflowed the cup.

 

[RKG]

Except, of course in the case where the legislature grants a "home rule petition" - basically giving up the state's pre-emptive soverienty for a specific local law. I believe the state granted the home rule petition requested by Boston for the AW ban.

I'd be very interested if you have a citation for a special act that granted the City of Boston authority to regulate the possession of a class of firearms. I'm not aware of one and doubt that I'd have missed it (though anything is possible).

 

[Len-2A Training]

RKG,

If you do a search in Gun Laws on the Boston law, I cited a location for it (it's off the City's website). The law on that site shows dates when votes were taken and process info.

TTBOMK, every time Boston files a "home rule petition" to the legislature, it gets approved. Thus, giving the city the right to make whatever rules it wants and disregard anyone else's rights.

Also from my ~3 years on a Gov't Study Committee discussing setting up a Town Charter . . .

- If you have a Charter, you then can pass your own "legislation" without undergoing review from the AG's office.

- This sounds like another way to bypass state laws and restricting whatever they like, with no review process for validity or legal conflict.