New gun laws in San Francisco

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Macktee, Aug 4, 2007.

  1. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    http://www.ktvu.com/news/13750022/detail.html


    KTVU.com
    SF Supes Approve Scaled-Back Gun Laws

    POSTED: 12:11 am PDT July 25, 2007

    SAN FRANCISCO -- The Board of Supervisors passed an array of gun laws Tuesday that followed a judge's decision last year to invalidate a voter-approved measure banning possession of handguns in the city except by law enforcement and other authorized officers.

    In June 2006 a San Francisco Superior Court judge struck down Proposition H, approved by a 58-to-42-percent majority of voters in 2005.

    Judge James Warren said the measure conflicted with state laws regulating handguns. 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.

    He wrote, "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."

    Warren issued the ruling in a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association, four other groups and seven individuals.

    The laws passed unanimously Tuesday were more limited in scope. One bans possession or sale of firearms or ammunition on county property. That puts San Francisco on par with Los Angeles County, which has spent years litigating challenges to its own law prohibiting gun shows at the county-owned Fairplex facility.

    Another measure passed requires handguns owned by residents to be stored in a locked container or with a trigger lock. A current state law mandates those requirements for the transport of a handgun.

    A third law passed requires gun dealers to conduct inventory counts every six months. There is only one gun shop in the entire city.
     
  2. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,563
    3
    38
    :screwy: Welcome to SF the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes.
     

  3. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    You left out granola.
     
  4. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    You people can make all of these :screwy: symbols you want, but you realize GCO is engaged in several preemption battles right now right here in Georgia, right?

    No need to go to San Francisco to see this behavior.
     
  5. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,563
    3
    38
    The difference is SF has already lost court battles. They know they can't win and still insist on this nonsense. Mainly to draw money out of the opposition.
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    GCO already lost a court battle, too. :D
     
  7. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Except in our case it is because we insist on the probate courts following the law as it was written and intended, and not by how they feel like doing it.
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    No, on preemption. The same thing San Francisco is violating.

    On appeal right now. http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/categor ... reemption/
     
  9. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    Maybe my brain isn't working at the moment, but...

    What does that mean? I read it thru and I'm more confused now than before I started reading. What did we lose and why and how and who and when and...?

    Tankyew!
     
  10. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    If the Parker case stands at the Sup Ct, this may be just the sort of test case to get the 2A incorporated to the states. The 9th Circuit is just the sort of punching bag the Sup Ct likes to overturn again and again. Probably this law wouldn't stand up to CA pre-emption, though.
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    I would hate to have the 9th Circuit be the guiding force on this.
     
  12. ptsmith24

    ptsmith24 New Member

    8,809
    0
    0
    :exactly:
     
  13. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    I would hate to have the 9th Circuit be the guiding force on anything! :)
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cit ... y_id=31645

    Trophy kill
    The Chronicle

    So was that worth it?

    Earlier this year, San Francisco got slapped down by the courts over 1995's Proposition H, the controversial voter-approved ban on the sale and possession of firearms. The proposition was ruled unlawful and the plaintiffs in the case, including several gun-owning residents, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups, cheered.

    Now, they -- well, technically their attorneys -- are getting paid by city taxpayers.
    [​IMG]
    The city has tentatively agreed to a $380,000 settlement for lawyers fees and other costs the plaintiffs incurred in fighting the ban. The Board of Supervisors still must approve the agreement, but it's likely they will.

    And who knows? Perhaps the NRA won't cash the check but instead frame it and put it on display at headquarters like a mounted animal.
     
  15. Rayzr

    Rayzr New Member

    1,256
    0
    0
    The NRA will cash it...they will display a copy of the check and the bank deposit receipt. :)
     
  16. Rayzr

    Rayzr New Member

    1,256
    0
    0
    So...let me get this sraight...San Francisco says no to gun ownership and 2A Rights but proposes a technical yes to prostitution :shock:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/21/san.fr ... index.html



     
  17. gtg947h

    gtg947h Member

    601
    0
    16
    Well, to drift off the subject... if it (prostitution) is entirely and completely voluntary on the part of all participants, and conducted by consenting and mentally-sane adults, who are we to step in?

    Of course, forcing unwilling participants (poor or desperate women, children, etc) is certainly wrong, and we should do something about that. But too much is focused on prosecuting the prostitutes themselves, which doesn't accomplish anything. They need help, not a criminal record that sends them back into the same situation; those who deserve criminal charges in these cases are the pimps and the johns.

    This doesn't make SF's stand on firearms any better, obviously... but even broken analog timepieces are correct every now and then.
     
  18. Rayzr

    Rayzr New Member

    1,256
    0
    0
    I understand the point but they are not legalizing it, they are simply opting to not prosecute it...we won't get into disease, drug use and tax payer money...but if legislators can see this issue in the way they do, why would they not substitute gun ownership for prostitution in the above sentence in light of the fact it is a Constitutional Right??? Seems ridiculous to me.