San Francisco Gun Ban Struck Down!
If anyone gives a rat's ass:
quote:
Fullerton, CA - In a unanimous (3-0) decision today, the California State Court of Appeal in San Francisco stopped an attempt by the City to adopt the most restrictive gun ban in the country. The Court ruled that a San Francisco ordinance that would have banned city residents from possessing handguns and would have outlawed the sale of all guns and all ammunition was preempted by state law. "When it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly," the Court ruled.
The ruling invalidating the ordinance followed a legal challenge to the ordinance brought by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA).
"The Court's ruling is a big win for the law-abiding gun owners in San Francisco and California," said civil rights lawyer Chuck Michel, CRPA's Counsel for litigation and Local Affairs, who represented the NRA in the lawsuit.
In 2005 NRA joined with a consortium of local residents and groups and successfully sought an injunction against the gun ban in the trial court. The CRPA and San Francisco Police Officers Association filed "friend of the court" briefs in support of the NRA's position. The City appealed, and the Mayor and Board of Supervisors, hoping to reinstate the ban through the appellate court, approved a set of harsh penalties under the ordinance, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months for city residents, including those who chose to own a handgun to defend their families in their own homes.
"Law abiding gun owners are not part of the violent crime problem facing San Francisco. In fact, as the Court of Appeal decision and California law acknowledges, they are part of the solution," Michel said.
CRPA thanks its members and supporters for their continued commitment and support of CRPA's efforts to protect our cherished rights and freedoms.
quote:
Fullerton, CA - In a unanimous (3-0) decision today, the California State Court of Appeal in San Francisco stopped an attempt by the City to adopt the most restrictive gun ban in the country. The Court ruled that a San Francisco ordinance that would have banned city residents from possessing handguns and would have outlawed the sale of all guns and all ammunition was preempted by state law. "When it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly," the Court ruled.
The ruling invalidating the ordinance followed a legal challenge to the ordinance brought by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA).
"The Court's ruling is a big win for the law-abiding gun owners in San Francisco and California," said civil rights lawyer Chuck Michel, CRPA's Counsel for litigation and Local Affairs, who represented the NRA in the lawsuit.
In 2005 NRA joined with a consortium of local residents and groups and successfully sought an injunction against the gun ban in the trial court. The CRPA and San Francisco Police Officers Association filed "friend of the court" briefs in support of the NRA's position. The City appealed, and the Mayor and Board of Supervisors, hoping to reinstate the ban through the appellate court, approved a set of harsh penalties under the ordinance, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months for city residents, including those who chose to own a handgun to defend their families in their own homes.
"Law abiding gun owners are not part of the violent crime problem facing San Francisco. In fact, as the Court of Appeal decision and California law acknowledges, they are part of the solution," Michel said.
CRPA thanks its members and supporters for their continued commitment and support of CRPA's efforts to protect our cherished rights and freedoms.
0
-
Sounds like the NRA did a good deed.
But that is never enough for some around here.0 -
here here[:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Sounds like the NRA did a good deed.
But that is never enough for some around here.
Do you know what would have happened if the "ban" stood? CA would have about half a dozen counties with "tough" gun laws and free state otherwise. Who gives a ---- about SF, you can't carry there, you can't ship ammmo to SF, they ran out all gun stores out. 40K people showed up to vote on this one. Again, who give a ---- about SF when they could have made a bigger case on the whole preemption law.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Sounds like the NRA did a good deed.
But that is never enough for some around here.
Do you know what would have happened if the "ban" stood? CA would have about half a dozen counties with "tough" gun laws and free state otherwise. Who gives a ---- about SF, you can't carry there, you can't ship ammmo to SF, they ran out all gun stores out. 40K people showed up to vote on this one. Again, who give a ---- about SF when they could have made a bigger case on the whole preemption law.
You appear to be like many, looking for any and every reason to hate the NRA. Regardless of what the NRA does/doesn't do or even how they go about doing it. In regards your above in red, if you were willing to give the NRA even half a chance, you would have noticed the courts words about this case. Here are some of the words:
"When it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly," the Court ruled.
In my humble opinion I believe that addresses your posted objection.
Of course I know better than to hope for that; from you or from anyone else here.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
You appear to be like many, looking for any and every reason to hate the NRA.
While I understand where you inferiority complex in regards to NRA is coming from, where did I say anything about the NRA? I didn't even use "NRA" anywhere in my post. [:D]
But it is what it is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
You appear to be like many, looking for any and every reason to hate the NRA.
While I understand where you inferiority complex in regards to NRA is coming from, where did I say anything about the NRA? I didn't even use "NRA" anywhere in my post. [:D]
But it is what it is.
You appeared to find little or no good in the court decision. The court decision was largely due to the actions of the NRA.
Thus, my response.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
You appeared to find little or no good in the court decision. The court decision was largely due to the actions of the NRA.
Thus, my response.
I don't care whose actions it's due, as a matter of fact it was CPRA on behalf of NRA, if you want to get technical. I am being objective, you're on the other hand draggin YOUR agenda into the discussion. Look familiar?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
You appeared to find little or no good in the court decision. The court decision was largely due to the actions of the NRA.
Thus, my response.
I don't care whose actions it's due, as a matter of fact it was CPRA on behalf of NRA, if you want to get technical. I am being objective, you're on the other hand draggin YOUR agenda into the discussion. Look familiar?
Whatever.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
8 comments