Second Amendment Update: Ground Zero--San Francisco
I'm sitting here at lunch (my first non-working one all week) and I picked this up from Michelle Malkin's site. Below is the story from the Mercury News.
Measure H was put on Tuesday's ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by the alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in this city of 750,000 residents.
In 1982, a state appeals court nullified an almost identical gun ban here largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law that allows for the sale and possession of handguns and ammunition.
The NRA filed its lawsuit Wednesday with the same court, the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, asking the judges to nullify the law that demands the surrender of handguns by April.
"Cities do not have the authority under the state law to ban the possession of handguns," said NRA president Wayne LaPierre.
The group also claims the law unfairly puts San Francisco residents at a disadvantage, denying them the means to protect themselves. The law does not bar nonresidents from lawfully possessing handguns within city limits.
Mayor Gavin Newsom has acknowledged the measure likely wouldn't withstand legal scrutiny, but said it had symbolic value.
Regardless, City Attorney Dennis Herrera said his office would vigorously defend the ordinance.
"The electorate sent a strong message that local governments have a strong role in curbing violence in our streets," Herrera said Wednesday.
He noted that the 1982 San Francisco measure was overturned because it applied to all people within city limits, regardless of whether they lived here.
"The court at the time determined that it was not a municipal affair and was pre-empted," Herrera said.
The latest measure, approved by 58 percent of voters, "is purely a municipal affair and not pre-empted because it applies to local residents only," he added.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is hearing a challenge to a similar handgun ban in the District of Columbia that alleges the law violates a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The NRA lawsuit avoids those allegations - for now.
"If we lose under California state law, which I don't expect, that is not the end of it," LaPierre said. "The next step would be a federal lawsuit based on infringement of the Second Amendment of the Constitution."
The California Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision in 1982 striking down San Francisco's handgun ban. Three years ago, however, the justices 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 at fairgrounds.
The high court did not address the issue of private property sales and possession, as is contained in the San Francisco law.
In another gun case, in 1998, the justices sanctioned West Hollywood's ban on the sale of cheap handguns known as Saturday Night Specials, saying a city could bar sales of guns that were legal in other parts of the state.
Wednesday's case is Fiscal v. San Francisco, A111928.
As I pointed out yesterday, I don't care if this is enacted by the voters or not. Federal law trumps state law and ordinances regardless of what they are. If the issue is already at the federal level, the states can't tell the US government to stick it. This issue was not exactly addressed in Raich (the medical marijuana case); the states can't trump federal law.
The Constitution is the highest federal law, and therefore this ordinance can't supersede the Second Amendment. I also pointed out that the opening clause of the California State Constitution provides for the people to "defend life and liberty," "protecting property," and "pursuing and obtaining safety." Well, without a firearm, how is a citizen to accomplish these tasks? They are to use their voice, and political might, I suppose, but if the bad guys are the ones with the guns (Memo to the idiots in San Francisco: The criminals won't give up their guns) how are we supposed to defend these rights? We can't. This was another instance of instant Leftist gratification of sending a statement.
Yes, the statement rang loud and clear to the people of the nation that the citizens of San Francisco that voted in favor of this are no brighter than a burned-out lightbulb.
Mistress Pundit
I'm sitting here at lunch (my first non-working one all week) and I picked this up from Michelle Malkin's site. Below is the story from the Mercury News.
Measure H was put on Tuesday's ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by the alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in this city of 750,000 residents.
In 1982, a state appeals court nullified an almost identical gun ban here largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law that allows for the sale and possession of handguns and ammunition.
The NRA filed its lawsuit Wednesday with the same court, the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, asking the judges to nullify the law that demands the surrender of handguns by April.
"Cities do not have the authority under the state law to ban the possession of handguns," said NRA president Wayne LaPierre.
The group also claims the law unfairly puts San Francisco residents at a disadvantage, denying them the means to protect themselves. The law does not bar nonresidents from lawfully possessing handguns within city limits.
Mayor Gavin Newsom has acknowledged the measure likely wouldn't withstand legal scrutiny, but said it had symbolic value.
Regardless, City Attorney Dennis Herrera said his office would vigorously defend the ordinance.
"The electorate sent a strong message that local governments have a strong role in curbing violence in our streets," Herrera said Wednesday.
He noted that the 1982 San Francisco measure was overturned because it applied to all people within city limits, regardless of whether they lived here.
"The court at the time determined that it was not a municipal affair and was pre-empted," Herrera said.
The latest measure, approved by 58 percent of voters, "is purely a municipal affair and not pre-empted because it applies to local residents only," he added.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is hearing a challenge to a similar handgun ban in the District of Columbia that alleges the law violates a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The NRA lawsuit avoids those allegations - for now.
"If we lose under California state law, which I don't expect, that is not the end of it," LaPierre said. "The next step would be a federal lawsuit based on infringement of the Second Amendment of the Constitution."
The California Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision in 1982 striking down San Francisco's handgun ban. Three years ago, however, the justices 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 at fairgrounds.
The high court did not address the issue of private property sales and possession, as is contained in the San Francisco law.
In another gun case, in 1998, the justices sanctioned West Hollywood's ban on the sale of cheap handguns known as Saturday Night Specials, saying a city could bar sales of guns that were legal in other parts of the state.
Wednesday's case is Fiscal v. San Francisco, A111928.
As I pointed out yesterday, I don't care if this is enacted by the voters or not. Federal law trumps state law and ordinances regardless of what they are. If the issue is already at the federal level, the states can't tell the US government to stick it. This issue was not exactly addressed in Raich (the medical marijuana case); the states can't trump federal law.
The Constitution is the highest federal law, and therefore this ordinance can't supersede the Second Amendment. I also pointed out that the opening clause of the California State Constitution provides for the people to "defend life and liberty," "protecting property," and "pursuing and obtaining safety." Well, without a firearm, how is a citizen to accomplish these tasks? They are to use their voice, and political might, I suppose, but if the bad guys are the ones with the guns (Memo to the idiots in San Francisco: The criminals won't give up their guns) how are we supposed to defend these rights? We can't. This was another instance of instant Leftist gratification of sending a statement.
Yes, the statement rang loud and clear to the people of the nation that the citizens of San Francisco that voted in favor of this are no brighter than a burned-out lightbulb.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home