PDA

View Full Version : NRA, SF Housing Authority near settlement on guns


aileron
01-06-2009, 5:55 AM
Good news. :)

For those who think NRA doesnt do anything in this state. Enjoy. :p

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11380699?nclick_check=1


NRA, SF Housing Authority near settlement on guns
The Associated Press
Posted: 01/05/2009

SAN FRANCISCO—The National Rifle Association says the San Francisco Housing Authority is preparing to drop its blanket handgun ban in public housing.

NRA lawyer CD Michel (MEE-shell) says the agreement, which settles a federal lawsuit, hasn't been finalized. But he says if the settlement is approved as expected, the housing authority will allow public housing tenants to keep legally obtained handguns. In exchange, the housing authority won't be required to pay any damages or attorney fees.

The NRA sued the housing authority a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a gun ban in Washington D.C.and ruled that individual citizens have a right to keep handguns.

rrr70
01-06-2009, 6:01 AM
Don't know about other places, but there are plenty of guns in SF housing projects.

F-2_Challenger
01-06-2009, 6:06 AM
another win.

Paladin
01-06-2009, 6:24 AM
Good news. :)

For those who think NRA doesnt do anything in this state. Enjoy. :p

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11380699?nclick_check=1
What? ! ! ! :eek:

This can't be true! :fud:

Everybody KNOWS the NRA just takes Californians' money and does nothing here. I'm shocked. Absolutely shocked! :eek:

(sarcasm off)

:cheers2:

Great news! Although I would have preferred the NRA nail SF's hinny to the wall.

lazyworm
01-06-2009, 6:52 AM
I thought we have people in the back channels to "encourage" the city to fight this? waste their time and money and hopefully get some precedences.
In any case, them folding without a fight is still a good win!

mecam
01-06-2009, 6:54 AM
They are trying to avoid "Incorporation of Heller". I wish they would have fought it.

yellowfin
01-06-2009, 6:57 AM
Precedent building would have been preferable, but we'll take it. Any commentary from Newsome?

rrr70
01-06-2009, 7:11 AM
Any commentary from Newsome?

He's busy. There is a hair gel sale in Walgreens.:D

They are so full of sh$t.

L4wg-NQL_AM

tiki
01-06-2009, 8:16 AM
NRA lawyer CD Michel (MEE-shell)
Ahh, so that's how it's pronounced. How about Trutanich?

Nevermore
01-06-2009, 8:22 AM
They are trying to avoid "Incorporation of Heller". I wish they would have fought it.
Look it this way:
* If they settle: win
* If they push it to court, lose and create incorporation cases: win

A win's a win. If cities start backing down on these sorts of laws without an incorporated Heller, then that's the way to do it. The goal isn't always to get the flashy, ritzy win. The goal is to win.

RRangel
01-06-2009, 8:24 AM
Good news. Hopefully after Nordyke the NRA can more easily sue Los Angeles city for various gun restrictions.

rbgaynor
01-06-2009, 8:35 AM
The goal isn't always to get the flashy, ritzy win. The goal is to win.

From what I understand the goal here was to get the the big win - this case had very little to do with the SF Housing Authority and everything to do with incorporation.

Paladin
01-06-2009, 8:50 AM
Look it this way:
* If they settle: win
* If they push it to court, lose and create incorporation cases: win

A win's a win. If cities start backing down on these sorts of laws without an incorporated Heller, then that's the way to do it. The goal isn't always to get the flashy, ritzy win. The goal is to win.
Not necessarily true.

The antis may be backpedaling (trying to avoid setting "bad precedent" in their opinion) just like Russia vs Napoleon. The antis may be backpedaling to give time for Obama over his next 4 or 8 years to pack SCOTUS w/enough anti justices to overturn Heller. Think that will never happen? Look at what Lawrence (2003) did to Bowers (1986). In less than 20 years SCOTUS went from saying the states could criminally prosecute homosexual acts to saying that not only could you not prosecute them, but that there is an actual right to engage in homosexual acts! :eek:

Stopping Obama from packing SCOTUS and all the other fed cts w/antis is why EVERYONE needs to join the NRA and join the fight.

This is why, IMO, EVERY pro-RKBA person has to support Repubs taking back the U.S. Senate (which confirms SCOTUS and fed ct nominees) in 2010.

CCWFacts
01-06-2009, 8:51 AM
He's busy. There is a hair gel sale in Walgreens.:D

They are so full of sh$t.

YOUTUBE

WAHHH!!!! WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

They are so full of it. If their bans are working so well, why do they still have murders in the housing projects?

As for his challenge to NRA members to live in the projects, that came up as a topic here, and many people (including me) stepped up and volunteered to do it, provided we are issued CCWs and can put whatever of our guns we want on them. I'm still ready to do it. So long as I have an SF CCW, with any three things I choose from my arsenal on it, and the apt. has DSL and is not totally uninhabitable for some reason.

Paladin
01-06-2009, 8:57 AM
As for his challenge to NRA members to live in the projects, that came up as a topic here, and many people (including me) stepped up and volunteered to do it, provided we are issued CCWs and can put whatever of our guns we want on them. I'm still ready to do it. So long as I have an SF CCW, with any three things I choose from my arsenal on it, and the apt. has DSL and is not totally uninhabitable for some reason.You should have said, "Sure, if you'll do the same and you are unarmed and do not have security/LE protection."

dfletcher
01-06-2009, 9:28 AM
Can anyone view the news video of Newsom, Fong and Harris and not know they are basically saying "Those poor folks in housing, they can't possibly have the brains to know when they should defend themselves. We'll decide what's best for them". Really, if you ever need to know what they think of us in general, when they want to make all of us wards of the state, that certainly tells it.

yellowfin
01-06-2009, 9:40 AM
This is why, IMO, EVERY pro-RKBA person has to support Repubs taking back the U.S. Senate (which confirms SCOTUS and fed ct nominees) in 2010.

Not 100% true. We need 100% RKBA senators and reps, not just relying on party moniker. A very large part of the problem we see now is the Rinos who have considerably weakened the R party itself as well as pushed bad policies which got the person from Illinois elected. If the R party had policed its own we wouldn't be in this position. Instead, people just got lazy and oversimplified and let just any piece of trash walk into office so long as they had an (R) next to their name, and the party let various not-pro 2A stuff slide rather than tossing them to the curb immediately. Since we lack a meaningful 3rd party both sides can say "Hey, at least we're not the other side" and have used that as a free pass to do as they please without consequences.

It would be also interesting see if on a national level we can in any way assist the pro gun D's to topple their party leadership that is against us.

AaronHorrocks
01-06-2009, 9:45 AM
He's busy. There is a hair gel sale in Walgreens.:D

They are so full of sh$t.

L4wg-NQL_AM

The SF government and police department should lead by example.
(They can turn in thier guns first)

dfletcher
01-06-2009, 9:52 AM
Being raised in the northeast and living in CA, we get used to "Democrat = gun control" and that's not the case with politicians from the south (especially) and the midwest. Although I am wary of the Democrat Party power brokers, because most of them are anti gun, and their ability to coerce or require progun Democrats to follow the party line, it may be that a marginal progun Democrat is better than a RINO. The RINO can hide behind his party's generally progun image, whereas the Democrat who may be inclined to vote for gun control may not find the same cover and be susceptible to the NRA or a progun Republican. The Democrat may vote pro just to cover his flank, the Republican may vote anti knowing all will be forgotten or forgiven.

CCWFacts
01-06-2009, 10:07 AM
As for this case - I wish that SF had fought it "all the way", at any cost. But they didn't. And ultimately, Michel (just like any attorney) is working for his client, not for the RKBA community. He got the outcome his client wanted, which is that his client can possess a gun in his residence. There's no reason to go past that.

But it doesn't matter, there will be plenty of other cases and opportunities to make them fight. SF gave up on this one issue, but on others, like CCW, they would never give up, no matter how much it costs.

bwiese
01-06-2009, 10:44 AM
As for this case - I wish that SF had fought it "all the way", at any cost. But they didn't. And ultimately, Michel (just like any attorney) is working for his client, not for the RKBA community. He got the outcome his client wanted, which is that his client can possess a gun in his residence. There's no reason to go past that.

But it doesn't matter, there will be plenty of other cases and opportunities to make them fight. SF gave up on this one issue, but on others, like CCW, they would never give up, no matter how much it costs.


Correct.

Plus you can't push things along faster than the other side can surrender ;)

AEC1
01-06-2009, 11:00 AM
I am glad that the SF citizens have gotten this win, it sets us back as a whole, but as they lose their desire to fight we will win more and more of these. incorperation will come, but it is so important to get more RKBA legislators in ALL offices from your city counsel to the President. That has to be our focus, the RKBA. Party politics be damned. If we look at it we have two party choices, Replublicrats and Democans anyway... We have to look at the RKBA issue before party...

bulgron
01-06-2009, 11:11 AM
Did we really need SF Housing for incorporation? After all, that ball is in the Nordyke game.

The thing I like about Nordyke is that it isn't just about incorporation. It also goes to whether we can keep arms on public property. Keeping arms in public while on public property is just a half step away from bearing arms.

Nordyke represents a huge piece of the puzzle.

SF Housing always looked like a fall-back plan to me.

yellowfin
01-06-2009, 11:14 AM
^ Precisely, and in this type of matter it's never a bad thing to have backups.

hoffmang
01-06-2009, 11:21 AM
Did we really need SF Housing for incorporation? After all, that ball is in the Nordyke game.


At the time the SFHA suit was filed, it wasn't clear whether Nordyke would be moving forward on the 2A/14A issues. It has obviously since become clear and it is much further along.

Federal courts don't let you fight non governments that cave.

-Gene

dfletcher
01-06-2009, 11:59 AM
Now that the case is settled, what can the city do to get in the way of this particular person and others from legally owning a gun in public housing? I would infer from the settlement that owning a gun in public housing carries no more restrictions than owning a gun in SF general?

Similar to DC had, SF has a "gun must be locked and unloaded" requirement which is certainly not supported by state law, Prop H decision of course affirmed pre-emption. Are public housing officials permitted by the conditions of the lease to enter individual units for purposes of ensuring compliance with federal, state & local laws? If this single, adult male has the gun loaded in his nightstand and is otherwise complying with state law will he be charged with violating the SF ordinance?

bwiese
01-06-2009, 12:27 PM
Now that the case is settled, what can the city do to get in the way of this particular person and others from legally owning a gun in public housing? I would infer from the settlement that owning a gun in public housing carries no more restrictions than owning a gun in SF general?

Correct. Guy Montag Doe can sleep with his gun under his pillow every night.



Similar to DC had, SF has a "gun must be locked and unloaded" requirement which is certainly not supported by state law, Prop H decision of course affirmed pre-emption. Are public housing officials permitted by the conditions of the lease to enter individual units for purposes of ensuring compliance with federal, state & local laws? If this single, adult male has the gun loaded in his nightstand and is otherwise complying with state law will he be charged with violating the SF ordinance?

As I understand it most SFPD officers don't even know of the existence of that (illegal) rule ;)

I do believe housing officials don't have more or less rights than ordinary rental managers and residents don't have more or less 4th amend. rights than ordinary renters. If someone needs to come in for repairs/emergency, they can. I don't think they can do "cleanliness inspections" or routine inspections.

rrr70
01-06-2009, 2:11 PM
Correct. Guy Montag Doe can sleep with his gun under his pillow every night.




As I understand it most SFPD officers don't even know of the existence of that (illegal) rule ;)

I do believe housing officials don't have more or less rights than ordinary rental managers and residents don't have more or less 4th amend. rights than ordinary renters. If someone needs to come in for repairs/emergency, they can. I don't think they can do "cleanliness inspections" or routine inspections.

"Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs." Kamala Harris 2006

bwiese
01-06-2009, 3:13 PM
"Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs." -Kamala Harris 2006

We would hope that she actually would take such action.

<bseg>

Paladin
01-06-2009, 6:31 PM
Not 100% true. How can an opinion not be true? It is my opinion ("IMO" stands for "in my opinion"). Statements I assert as facts may not be true, but that does not apply to opinions. What I wrote is 100% truly my opinion. You may disagree w/my opinion, but then that is just your opinion.

We need 100% RKBA senators and reps, not just relying on party moniker. A very large part of the problem we see now is the Rinos who have considerably weakened the R party itself as well as pushed bad policies which got the person from Illinois elected. If the R party had policed its own we wouldn't be in this position. Instead, people just got lazy and oversimplified and let just any piece of trash walk into office so long as they had an (R) next to their name, and the party let various not-pro 2A stuff slide rather than tossing them to the curb immediately. Since we lack a meaningful 3rd party both sides can say "Hey, at least we're not the other side" and have used that as a free pass to do as they please without consequences.To all: I regularly post in this forum and the "people that matter" know that I normally would agree -- and in the past have agreed -- that we need to look beyond mere party labels and not paint w/too broad a brush by lumping pro Dems in with the majority of their party and their platform which are anti. Similarly, I've written that we not throw RINO anti Repubs in w/the majority of their party and their platform which are pro. But, IMO, things have changed significantly w/this last election and we need to change our federal political strategy.

IMO, we pro people have to drag the fight down from the policy realm ("What candidate has the better position on the RKBA issue?") down to the muddy partisan realm ("Repubs vs Dems").

Like it or not, w/the Dems smelling blood in the water b/c of winning the White House plus their gains in the House and Senate -- to the point where they've almost got a monopoly on power -- the best thing for our side is some good ol' partisan bickering. That way, even senior RINOs on the Senate Judiciary Cmte, like Arlen Spector, may be less willing to "go along to get along" with the Dems. RINOs may not resist their fellow Repubs (true Repubs), attempts to throw monkey wrenches in the Dems, esp anti Dems, plans b/c the Dems reamed the Repubs earlier on some other legislative activity. Yes, shocking as it may sound, if the Dems ream the Repubs on one thing, the Repubs will try to get back at the Dems by, let's say, filibustering some fed ct or SCOTUS nominees, even if it was a totally different group of Dems who did the reaming on a totally unrelated issue. Welcome to the Big Leagues. :D

"Party loyalty" -- translation for political newbies: getting cmte assignments, nice offices, invited to the right parties, etc. in addition to access to party funds, manpower, and endorsements/support for your next election -- does matter. If you don't believe me, just ask Joe Lieberman. ;)

Back in the day, the NRA held to their "RKBA issues only" and "support pro-RKBA incumbents even over pro-RKBA challengers" stances and, IIRC, supported a CA state assembly Dem who was pro vs a Repub challenger who was pro (I think he had a pro-record of some sort). The Dem won w/the NRA's blessings and later, when push came to shove in Sacto, the Dem fell in line w/Willie Brown and the rest of the anti Dems and gave them the votes to pass a major anti law over Repub opposition. (IIRC, it was either the one that required you to get your CCW from your PD or SO only, or it was in the AWB fight. I don't get paid for this so I'm not going to research it.)

So, yeah, party loyalty and a party's platforms do matter. Anyone who doesn't think so needs to read about the fight the Repubs are currently in:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/

While the NRA may hold to their policy of being non-partisan and supporting pro incumbent Dems over challenger Repubs, either pro or anti, I am not so constrained. Naturally, I hope the RNC (per the Wash Times link above), succeeds in getting more real Repub candidates (vs RINOs) for 2010 and 2012. But either way, I think a partisan political logjam over fed ct/SCOTUS nominees would be in all our best interests until BHO is out of office
http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=530ecfa4-ae4e-4819-97e6-892463d99f08

Thank you, yellowfin2, for giving me the opportunity to explain why I think we pro-RKBA people should change our federal political strategy.

It would be also interesting see if on a national level we can in any way assist the pro gun D's to topple their party leadership that is against us.It would be interesting. But I won't start holding my breath for at least 10 years until Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, Biden, Kennedy, and Obama are all, hopefully, relegated to the dustbin of history. Even then, I'd want to know who the new leaders are before holding my breath.

DDT
01-06-2009, 6:39 PM
IMO, we pro people have to drag the fight down from the policy realm ("What candidate has the better position on the RKBA issue?") down to the muddy partisan realm ("Repubs vs Dems").


This is a guarantee of legislative loss. Period. The Republicans have zero influence in the legislature and if you actually think that BO is going to veto anything restricting 2A rights you're nuts. If 2A falls STRICTLY along party lines with Republicans supporting we have a rocky road ahead. Taking this approach is essentially "giving up" on the legislative process and just fighting every law judicially. That is a very expensive choice.

falawful
01-06-2009, 6:49 PM
Ok, so what's next then?

Nail the 12031 bit about denying a loaded check?

..or considering Heller basically said you can't ban a whole class of commonly used guns go after the AWB on the pretense that the law created a class of guns and banned it?

hoffmang
01-06-2009, 6:57 PM
..or considering Heller basically said you can't ban a whole class of commonly used guns go after the AWB on the pretense that the law created a class of guns and banned it?

Nordyke needs to conclude first. Then on to new things.

-Gene

Paladin
01-06-2009, 7:12 PM
This is a guarantee of legislative loss. Period.Your opinion.

The Republicans have zero influence in the legislature Last time I checked, the U.S. Senate is part of our federal legislature and last time I heard, the Dems don't have the 2/3rds majority for cloture.

and if you actually think that BO is going to veto anything restricting 2A rights you're nuts. Where did I write anything like that?

If 2A falls STRICTLY along party lines with Republicans supporting we have a rocky road ahead.Obviously. Since I said we should support a Repub majority in the Senate, regardless of the individual Repub's 2nd A position, you . . . (sighs) Never mind. I'm wasting my time.

Taking this approach is essentially "giving up" on the legislative process Wrong, as pointed out both in my post above and in my statement above in this post.

and just fighting every law judicially.Your conclusion is wrong as well.

Thank you for your post, DDT. I have learned much about you. Thanks also for reminding me why I should not waste much time on this forum.

Outta here until the weekend!

FreedomIsNotFree
01-06-2009, 8:08 PM
I believe there is a certain UCLA "Law Professor" that needs to reevaluate his scoring.... :)

DDT
01-07-2009, 12:28 PM
WOW. didn't really expect that sort of response for simply disagreeing with you.

First of all as a non-republican it is quite offensive to think that you feel the need to marginalize me. My response though was trying to not be personal and merely pointing out why it is foolhearty to make a civil rights issue partisan.

I do understand your to attempt and marginalize me in your partisan zeal but you surely can't expect one to sit idly by when such a suggestion is made. There are however a number of places where you either missed what I was trying to say or simply chose to ignore my point, I will take the time to clarify my points where there may be confusion and correct a couple of factual errors in your statement.



Your opinion.


Of course it is, just as your suggestion that we will somehow get more accomplished by making gun rights partisan is your opinion. This is a discussion of opinions. You voiced yours, I responded with why I thought it was a bad idea and you responded with personal attacks. If you simply wanted to state your opinion and not have commentary from opposing thinkers you probably picked a bad spot to post your piece.


Last time I checked, the U.S. Senate is part of our federal legislature and last time I heard, the Dems don't have the 2/3rds majority for cloture.


You are correct that the U.S. Senate is part of our Federal legislature, is there anything that I said that made you assume I didn't know this? Second you are mistaken that it takes a 2/3 majority vote for cloture. The vote for cloture requires 60 votes. The Democrats currently have 59 members in their Senate caucus. This means they only need to turn one RINO to get cloture. Furthermore; there is no assurance that the Republicans are any more likely to use the filibuster for any or all anti-gun legislation. The filibuster is a very powerful tool and they will not use it lightly.



Where did I write anything like that?


I never asserted that you did. My point was that if you don't attempt to work with Democrats in the Senate the antis will have the votes to pass any anti-gun legislation and the only way to prevent it from becoming law would be veto. My statement was that BO wouldn't veto anti-gun laws, not that you said he would.


Obviously. Since I said we should support a Repub majority in the Senate, regardless of the individual Repub's 2nd A position, you . . . (sighs) Never mind. I'm wasting my time.


There is no Republican majority in the Senate and even a relatively good showing in the midterms will do nothing to change that. The Republicans a so far behind right now that it will take nearly a decade to recover under the best of circumstances. (yes, that too is an opinion)

yellowfin
01-07-2009, 1:37 PM
Aha, someone brings up the law that cut us off from venue shopping for a pro CCW LE agency. I remember that being mentioned before, could someone refresh me/us on exactly what law/case that was? And can we get that repealed or overturned somehow?

DDT
01-07-2009, 1:48 PM
Aha, someone brings up the law that cut us off from venue shopping for a pro CCW LE agency. I remember that being mentioned before, could someone refresh me/us on exactly what law/case that was? And can we get that repealed or overturned somehow?

I'd be very interested in this discussion. I know that is the policy of LEAs throughout the state but I have no insight as to the laws.

You should post a new thread about this.

N6ATF
01-07-2009, 8:58 PM
And link it here when you do so we don't have to go looking for it.

CCWFacts
01-07-2009, 9:34 PM
Aha, someone brings up the law that cut us off from venue shopping for a pro CCW LE agency. I remember that being mentioned before, could someone refresh me/us on exactly what law/case that was? And can we get that repealed or overturned somehow?

Yes, it was SB 146 (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_146_cfa_19970707_145643_asm_comm.html). That link has a lot of legislative information about it.

It would be great to overturn it, but that somehow doesn't feel like the right approach to push.

yellowfin
01-08-2009, 11:09 AM
Why not? Obviously if the enemy wanted to pass that law, shouldn't that be our first priority to attack them at a weak point they themselves pointed out? It'd be a lot simpler route to shall issue by eliminating that law, giving us "Someone Will Issue."