NRA sues to overturn S.F. gun ban
NRA sues to overturn S.F. gun ban in city housing By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer
The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its ban on handguns in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital.
The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday's high court ruling.
In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project.
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.
Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city will "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the ban as good for public safety.
"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority."
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said that the Supreme Court ruling didn't address gun bans on government property and that he is "confident that our local gun control measures are on sound legal footing and will survive legal challenges."
San Francisco also requires residents to keep guns in lockboxes or equip them with trigger locks. That law, passed by the county supervisors last year, wasn't challenged in Friday's lawsuit.
A state appeals court has overturned a broader citywide gun ban that voters approved in 2005.
The Chicago lawsuit challenges the city's 1982 ordinance making it illegal to possess or sell handguns there.
NRA lawyer C.D. Michel said both lawsuits were necessary to expand the Supreme Court's ruling beyond Washington, a federal district, to states and cities.
"The Supreme Court decisions was very encouraging," Michel said. "But it is just a start."
From Yahoo News:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_re_us/gun_ban_reaction
The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its ban on handguns in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital.
The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday's high court ruling.
In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project.
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.
Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city will "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the ban as good for public safety.
"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority."
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said that the Supreme Court ruling didn't address gun bans on government property and that he is "confident that our local gun control measures are on sound legal footing and will survive legal challenges."
San Francisco also requires residents to keep guns in lockboxes or equip them with trigger locks. That law, passed by the county supervisors last year, wasn't challenged in Friday's lawsuit.
A state appeals court has overturned a broader citywide gun ban that voters approved in 2005.
The Chicago lawsuit challenges the city's 1982 ordinance making it illegal to possess or sell handguns there.
NRA lawyer C.D. Michel said both lawsuits were necessary to expand the Supreme Court's ruling beyond Washington, a federal district, to states and cities.
"The Supreme Court decisions was very encouraging," Michel said. "But it is just a start."
From Yahoo News:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_re_us/gun_ban_reaction
0
-
I'm not holding my breath, but the SCOTUS ruling "may" just force the NRA to be on "our side" for a change. This is more along the lines of what they "SHOULD" have been doing all along.
We shall see.0 -
And this is what the DC Police chief-woman told the citizens of DC:
"The following is a memo sent to Washington, DC residents by Cathy Lanier, Washington, DC Chief of Police:From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Subject: Supreme Court UpdateResidents, Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision. The Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. It is important that everyone know that: a.. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.
a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
a.. Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home. Lastly, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion firearms in the home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked. I will comply with the Court's reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District's other gun-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District's residents against the scourge of gun violence.Residents who want additional information can visit the Metropolitan Police Website at www.mpdc.dc.gov/gunregistration. Residents with questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at 202-727-9490. Sncerely, Cathy Lanier
Chief of Police"0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
I'm not holding my breath, but the SCOTUS ruling "may" just force the NRA to be on "our side" for a change. This is more along the lines of what they "SHOULD" have been doing all along.
We shall see.
The NRA will certainly make hay while the sun is out. They will certainly fight some fights that need fighting at times, regardless of their underlaying motivations.
The SCROTUS ruling was tailor made for the NRA.
It provided for continuing opportunities to rake in the money and go public in support of "gun-privileges", all the while continuing to claim to be the "staunch defenders of your Second Amendment Rights".
I do think that, now that SCROTUS has established "gun-privileges", that the NRA will take up that banner and run with it.
It is after all, the position they have held all along.0 -
lobo, that was very disturbing to hear what you report. So to sum up the chief of police in DC. she thinks the ruling has little or no bearing on the law and she knows better so she is encouraging her police officers by her direction to read between the lines and find gray areas, because she disagrees with the 2nd amendment. Here's a thought for Kathy- Do your damn job and follow the law! Maybe then you can focus on real criminals, as your city is filled with real crime! Just my .02 0 -
quote:she is encouraging her police officers by her direction to read between the lines and find gray areas
Isn't that the modern definition of law enforcement?0 -
Go NRA! And anyone else willing fight elite politicians like Gavin Newsom wanting to restrict our constitutional freedoms. 0 -
Gavin Newsom spelled backwards; sniarb rof tihs[;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by rgerge
Gavin Newsom spelled backwards; sniarb rof tihs[;)]
Whatever he has for brains, does not seem to compute correctly.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Loboman
And this is what the DC Police chief-woman told the citizens of DC:
Lastly, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion firearms in the home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked. I will comply with the Court's reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit.
So she's openly saying that she'll ignore that part of the Supreme Court ruling in one sentence, then in the very next one she claims she'll comply with the ruling?0 -
The NRA has also recently sued several cities in Illinois. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments