San Francisco settles Law Suit

[Garys]

S.F. Housing Authority agrees to let tenants own guns

 

[doobie]

The ban will now apply only to illegal gun ownership, like possession of a machine gun or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Are machine guns illegal in CA?

 

[HTRN]

A bit of a typo on the site?

"The MSM doesn't want this to become a victory for gay rights.No word yet from Barack Obama on this one,since he supports Chicago's handgun ban."

 

[mikem317]

The San Francisco Housing Authority has agreed to allow its residents to own guns in a settlement of a National Rifle Association lawsuit that followed last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the right to bear arms.

In papers filed Monday with a federal judge, the Housing Authority agreed not to enforce a provision it added to tenant leases in 2005 prohibiting the possession of guns and ammunition. The ban will now apply only to illegal gun ownership, like possession of a machine gun or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

No kidding!

Aren't illegal guns already prohibited? Where aren't they prohibited?

 

[biff44]

An interesting bent to the follow on article:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/28/nra-sues-san-francisco-on-public-housing-gun-ban/

"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."

Hmmmm. Not to be stereotyping, but I would say that a lot of gay people are left leaning and democrats. And they feel threatened by "hate crimes". And their logical reaction, for some, is to get a gun for protection.

Now lets see, where is there a city with a strong gay population, but also restricts the right to handgun carry.....uh.....Boston? Wouldn't it be wonderful if the NRA could open up LTC restrictions in hub city? And wouldn't it be interesting to see some democrats starting to support gun rights because of their voter base?

 

[mikem317]

An interesting bent to the follow on article:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/28/nra-sues-san-francisco-on-public-housing-gun-ban/

"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."

Hmmmm. Not to be stereotyping, but I would say that a lot of gay people are left leaning and democrats. And they feel threatened by "hate crimes". And their logical reaction, for some, is to get a gun for protection.

Now lets see, where is there a city with a strong gay population, but also restricts the right to handgun carry.....uh.....Boston? Wouldn't it be wonderful if the NRA could open up LTC restrictions in hub city? And wouldn't it be interesting to see some democrats starting to support gun rights because of their voter base?

The categorization of some crimes as "hate crimes" is unconstitutional. I can't think of a crime that doesn't involve some modicum of contempt anyway.

 

[drgrant]

Are machine guns illegal in CA?

IIRC there is basically no NFA in CA for anyone but LE or fully fed/state licensed dealers.

-Mike

 

[Ultimate]

The ban will now apply only to illegal gun ownership, like possession of a machine gun or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Redundancy, redundancy?

They're making illegal guns illegal?

 

[Amicus]

Locally, the Chronicle is called the "Comical." I have yet to find a worse newspaper in a major metropolitan market. About thirty years ago one publication summarized the achievements of major newspapers in the US, and the only good thing the authors had to say about the Chronicle is that it was the only US newspaper to run extras on the Lincoln assassination.

 

[gene]

The ban will now apply only to illegal gun ownership, like possession of a machine gun or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Good luck with that!
Hope they let us know how it works out for them.

 

[z0mbi]

Redundancy, redundancy?

They're making illegal guns illegal?

Does that mean they're now legal?

 

[SteelShooter]

"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."

Hmmmm. Not to be stereotyping, but I would say that a lot of gay people are left leaning and democrats. And they feel threatened by "hate crimes". And their logical reaction, for some, is to get a gun for protection.

I think San Francisco is just F'ed up enough to then try a law like: you can only own a gun in an apartment if you are gay.
The breakdown of the Mayors statement was great..

And then Newsom shows his true colors with his full-throated cry to defend the rights of — whom? The victims? The law-abiding citizens of San Francisco? No, Newsom girds himself for legal battle to defend the “rights” of the government agency that runs public housing. I’m certain that the founding fathers of this nation didn’t include the 2nd Amendment to protect government against the citizens, but the other way around.

 

[Garys]

The categorization of some crimes as "hate crimes" is unconstitutional. I can't think of a crime that doesn't involve some modicum of contempt anyway.

I don't know that it's unconstitutional, Mike. Although I would make the case that it's unequal treatment under the law. Once type of victim is more worthy of the protection than another who is not in a special class. Too bad that the ACLU would never take on that kind of case.

 

[ztp]

Redundancy, redundancy?

They're making illegal guns illegal?

I think the point is an illegal gun violates you lease and they can kick you out.

 

[Ultimate]

I think the point is an illegal gun violates you lease and they can kick you out.

If you get caught with an automatic or posession as a convicted felon, then that is the least of your worries.

 

[mikem317]

I don't know that it's unconstitutional, Mike. Although I would make the case that it's unequal treatment under the law. Once type of victim is more worthy of the protection than another who is not in a special class. Too bad that the ACLU would never take on that kind of case.

Yes, unequal treatment under law is unconstitutional.

Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus, if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants are treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_Crime#Justifications_for_hate_crime_laws