Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,593 Posts
:screwy: Welcome to SF the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,743 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,593 Posts
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,743 Posts
ber950 said:
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.
GCO already lost a court battle, too. :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
ber950 said:
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.
GCO already lost a court battle, too. :D
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,743 Posts
Gunstar1 said:
Malum Prohibitum said:
ber950 said:
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.
GCO already lost a court battle, too. :D
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.
No, on preemption. The same thing San Francisco is violating.

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
Macktee said:
Another measure passed requires handguns owned by residents to be stored in a locked container or with a trigger lock.
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,743 Posts
kkennett said:
Macktee said:
Another measure passed requires handguns owned by residents to be stored in a locked container or with a trigger lock.
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.
I would hate to have the 9th Circuit be the guiding force on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,809 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
kkennett said:
Macktee said:
Another measure passed requires handguns owned by residents to be stored in a locked container or with a trigger lock.
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.
I would hate to have the 9th Circuit be the guiding force on this.
:exactly:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,743 Posts
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.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,256 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
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.
The NRA will cash it...they will display a copy of the check and the bank deposit receipt. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,256 Posts
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

The ballot question technically would not legalize prostitution, since state law still prohibits it, but the measure would eliminate the power of local law enforcement officials to go after prostitutes.

Proponents say the measure will free up $11 million the police spend each year arresting prostitutes and allow them to form collectives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Rayzr said:
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

The ballot question technically would not legalize prostitution, since state law still prohibits it, but the measure would eliminate the power of local law enforcement officials to go after prostitutes.

Proponents say the measure will free up $11 million the police spend each year arresting prostitutes and allow them to form collectives.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,256 Posts
gtg947h said:
... 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.
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.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top