S.F. Housing Authority agrees to let tenants own guns

[Steyr_223]

Victory! I can now live in section 8 housing..

:)

What a minute, I am a home owner..

:(

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/13/BAJ7159KQO.DTL&tsp=1


S.F. Housing Authority agrees to let tenants own guns

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

(01-13) 16:07 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The San Francisco Housing Authority has agreed to allow its residents to own guns in a settlement of a National Rifle Association lawsuit that followed last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the right to bear arms.

In papers filed Monday with a federal judge, the Housing Authority agreed not to enforce a provision it added to tenant leases in 2005 prohibiting the possession of guns and ammunition. The ban will now apply only to illegal gun ownership, like possession of a machine gun or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

The National Rifle Association filed the suit on behalf of an unidentified San Francisco tenant a day after the Supreme Court's June 2008 ruling that declared the Constitution's Second Amendment gave Americans the right to possess guns for self-defense. It was one of a number of suits filed by gun advocates against local firearms restrictions around the nation after the court struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban.

Tim Larsen, a lawyer for the Housing Authority, said Tuesday the agency never intended to enforce its 2005 ban against law-abiding gun owners and has never done so, even though the lease provision covered legal as well as illegal weapons.

"Our intention was to go after people who were engaged in criminal activity," Larsen said.

[DedEye]

How nice of them to "let" tenants own guns :rolleyes:. Another victory is still good though.

[recshooter]

Oh, we never intended to enforce it though...WTF?

[cadurand]

What a silly thing to say. It's like admitting you don't really do your job.

Should ask them to go through their list of rules and note which rules they intend to enforce and which they don't.

[Quake0]

The lease provision covered legal as well as illegal weapons. Why would they include this in the lease if they had no intention to enforce it.

[Steyr_223]

Next I am waiting for CA DOJ to say theyr are not really enforcing AW and Hi-Cap Mag bans..

LOL!

[rayra]

Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.

[ke6guj]

remember that the NRA's lawyers have to work for their plantiff, and if SF folds and gives the plantiff what he wants, its hard to fight for more and may not be kosher to keep pushing when the client says to stop. Its hard to create legal precidence if the defendants keep folding, and that is a legal tactic that they have employed lately.

[Liberty1]

Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.

I think money will be needed in other better cases. This is good for headlines but would not have expanded Heller. Nordyke will give us that avenue. Better to save the $$$$$$$ for the next big one which will be either the CA "good cause" CCW issue or Open Carry related IMO.

And this was against SF Housing Authoity and it's civil lease agreement (I don't think it turned out to be what NRA thought when the suit started and named SF county/city too).

[rbgaynor]

Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.

This case was always targeted and timed for the big win (incorporation). But there isn't much the NRA can do if the other side folds like a cheap suit...

[PonchoTA]

Remember, we have to win EVERY battle, they only have to win one.

:( Regardless of how the victory was worded, the fact that they admit they never intended to go after the law abiding citizens should give some more teeth to our argument.

I'm not saying it was a great victory, but it WAS a victory!!
Keep up the good fight!

:cheers2:
Paul

[Kestryll]

Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.

You're right, the NRA should have FORCED the SFHA to continue on with the court case instead of letting them make their own decision to drop the law!!


Oh wait, they CAN'T force them to keep fighting.
Oh well, it's still their fault!!

:rolleyes:

[C.G.]

The ban will now apply only to illegal gun ownership, like possession of a machine gun or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
:D

I guess nobody told the reporter that that was the law already.:rolleyes:

[mymonkeyman]

Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.

It's not like you can keep arguing after the other side agreed to settle the case. Even if you tried, it wouldn't be good for you since it would piss the judge off to no end and prejudice you on the merits.

[bwiese]

Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.

No, wrong. You can't win for more than you ask.

Even as SF lawyers were denouncing the case in public as 'badly formed' they (under Brady guidance) were backing away faster than the NRA could attack. Courts don't allow you to beat someone 'deader than dead'.

This would have been a case leading to incorporation should it have been fought further by SF, but the opposition saw what was happening. Brady/LCAV are trying to stop the inevitable - and throughout the country (like Chicago suburbs) a simple NRA demand letter is usually enough now to change some outright bans. (Chicago's still trying to dance, we'll see :)

[yellowfin]

If the LCAV provide the lawyers, do they have to pay the costs (fines, for example) if they lose, or do they have to be sued for malpractice by the taxpayers?

[Liberty1]

The only place where the NRA is not continuing is on the issue of an award of attorny's fees. Maybe it looks bad to take money from an agency providing housing to the poor? I don't know. But in this case they've choosen to move on.

I say, "NEXT"!!!! Lets get to the meat of the 2nd A.! Who is up for starting the Richmond, Ca. Howitzers or the San Francisco Light (in the loffers) Dragoons? :D

[bulgron]

The only place where the NRA is not continuing is on the issue of an award of attorny's fees. Maybe it looks bad to take money from an agency providing housing to the poor? I don't know. But in this case they've choosen to move on.

I get the impression (but cannot prove) that if the other side folds before you can get to court, then there's no recovering attorney's fees.

I believe the same thing is happening with all the Chicago suburbs that are folding under threats of federal lawsuits from the NRA, ISRA, the SAF and others.

[bwiese]

The only place where the NRA is not continuing is on the issue of an award of attorny's fees. Maybe it looks bad to take money from an agency providing housing to the poor? I don't know. But in this case they've choosen to move on.

Not sure, but I think the main work may have been the demand letter.
When the opposition rolls back at a faster rate than you can chase them, not much work needs to be done. And the rapid settlement was useful as a flag-waving exercise to other entities, once we knew the case wouldn't trundle on towards incorporation issues.

[the_quark]

Another place where the NRA went for the short-term win and let us all down on the bigger battle.
They completely had SanFran bent over a barrel on this case, and let them weasel out of it.

Really, this is just ridiculous. The NRA wins this case, and there's still something to complain about with them?

I can quite assure you there was a lot of colorful language being used in the NRA when they figured out SFHA didn't have the spine to get beat up on this. Yeah, it's unfortunate that they couldn't run this case all the way up, since it was so obviously terrible not even San Francisco would defend it. That's not NRA's fault.

-TQ

[mblat]

You're right, the NRA should have FORCED the SFHA to continue on with the court case instead of letting them make their own decision to drop the law!!


Oh wait, they CAN'T force them to keep fighting.
Oh well, it's still their fault!!

:rolleyes:

What do you mean they CAN'T force them to keep fighting? NRA has guns, right? They should have armed housing authority so it could start armed resistance..... :rolleyes:

[MP301]

Do some people just attack the NRA because they have too much free time on thier hands? How can you keep fighting after the other side surrenders?

:beatdeadhorse5::beatdeadhorse5::beatdeadhorse5:

[JDay]

Next I am waiting for CA DOJ to say theyr are not really enforcing AW and Hi-Cap Mag bans..

LOL!

There's no ban on "high-cap" magazines, you just cant sell, trade, give, lend, keep for sale or manufacture.

[JDay]

remember that the NRA's lawyers have to work for their plantiff, and if SF folds and gives the plantiff what he wants, its hard to fight for more and may not be kosher to keep pushing when the client says to stop. Its hard to create legal precidence if the defendants keep folding, and that is a legal tactic that they have employed lately.

All the NRA had to do was tell their lawyers that they will not make any deals and will accept nothing short of a court ruling.

[JDay]

No, wrong. You can't win for more than you ask.

Even as SF lawyers were denouncing the case in public as 'badly formed' they (under Brady guidance) were backing away faster than the NRA could attack. Courts don't allow you to beat someone 'deader than dead'.

This would have been a case leading to incorporation should it have been fought further by SF, but the opposition saw what was happening. Brady/LCAV are trying to stop the inevitable - and throughout the country (like Chicago suburbs) a simple NRA demand letter is usually enough now to change some outright bans. (Chicago's still trying to dance, we'll see :)

How is the other side agreeing to not enforce this what they asked for? I would want nothing less than a court ruling that it was an illegal practice.

[hoffmang]

All the NRA had to do was tell their lawyers that they will not make any deals and will accept nothing short of a court ruling.

That is not how federal litigation works. If you try to do that your Judge will penalize you. If the other side comes to terms to settle the controversy, you're done. You can get the best settlement you can get or have the court throw the case out on standing. Then you face the risk of drawing the pissed off judge the next time you're in that Federal District - especially on the related case doctrine.

The Federal courts are designed to end cases and controversies as quickly and cheaply for everyone as possible. SFHA cried uncle and there isn't more you can do. I personally witnessed senior NRA decisions makers making derogatory comments that the other side was too wimpy to put up a fight. It was not for a lack of desire or will on the NRA's part.

-Gene

[FreedomIsNotFree]

All the NRA had to do was tell their lawyers that they will not make any deals and will accept nothing short of a court ruling.

Wrong. An attorney has a fiduciary duty to his/her client. NOT THE NRA.

[Monoz]

There's no ban on "high-cap" magazines, you just cant sell, trade, give, lend, keep for sale or manufacture.

The law does not ban selling.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

The law does not ban selling.

It does out here in CA...

[Monoz]

It does out here in CA...

Read the statute (PC 12020(a)(2)). It does not ban selling. It bans other things, but not selling.

[JDay]

Read the statute (PC 12020(a)(2)). It does not ban selling. It bans other things, but not selling.

You are wrong, however there are exceptions for armored car companies and law enforcement.

PC 12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the
state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives,
lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable
firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a
firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which
contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or
carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst
trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any
short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any
leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol,
any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge
knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice
handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon
of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy,
sandclub, sap, or sandbag.
(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity
magazine.

[Monoz]

You are wrong, however there are exceptions for armored car companies and law enforcement.

I am not wrong.

As you highlighted, the statute bans keeping for sale, offering for sale, and exposing for sale. It does not actually ban selling. Keeping for sale, offering for sale, and exposing for sale are acts that are distinctly different from selling.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Read the statute (PC 12020(a)(2)). It does not ban selling. It bans other things, but not selling.

HAHA...ok, when are you going to start selling high capacity mags to CA residents?

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

I am not wrong.

As you highlighted, she statute bans keeping for sale, offering for sale, and exposing for sale. It does not actually ban selling. Keeping for sale, offering for sale, and exposing for sale are acts that are distinctly different from selling.

Who told you that? I suggest you consult with an attorney before you get yourself in serious legal trouble.

[Monoz]

Who told you that? I suggest you consult with an attorney before you get yourself in serious legal trouble.

Kindly quote the part of the statute that bans selling. Not the part that bans keeping for sale, exposing for sale, or offering for sale, but the part that bans selling. I don't believe you can, because I don't believe there is any such statute in the state of California.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Then kindly quote part of the statute that bans selling. Not the part that bans keeping for sale, exposing for sale, or offering for sale, but the part that bans selling.

Alright, you win. You are smarter than the preeminent Gun Rights attorney's in the State. Perhaps you've been exposed to too much "pow pow" lately out there in Colorado. I hear the snowboarding is great...

[Monoz]

Alright, you win. You are smarter than the preeminent Gun Rights attorney's in the State.

All I'm pointing out is that the statute does not actually ban selling. I'm not giving advice, I'm just making an observation that there is no statutory ban on selling.

As to whether one could construct a realistic scenario that involved selling without involving any keeping, offering, or exposing is another question altogether.

[hoffmang]

All I'm pointing out is that the statute does not actually ban selling.

It does. There is no way to complete a sale without offering or
exposing for sale and/or giving the magazine to someone. When you say "yes" to an offer, you have exposed for sale and then you give the magazine to someone for money.

You would lose that court case every time.

-Gene

[N6ATF]

Maybe he thinks sales can be made where someone walks up to you, hands you money, and says "I've just bought your standard capacity magazine(s)". If you don't own any, you give their money back. If you do, that you weren't considering ever selling (keeping for sale), showing in public (exposing for sale), or talking about (offering for sale), then at that spontaneous and completely random moment you decide whether they are now the property of the stranger or if you have no desire to let the precious item go.

As if that would ever happen.

[F-2_Challenger]

And chalk up another small win, with much bigger ones on the way.

[RobG]

Tim Larsen, a lawyer for the Housing Authority, said Tuesday the agency never intended to enforce its 2005 ban against law-abiding gun owners and has never done so, even though the lease provision covered legal as well as illegal weapons.

Thats the way to weasel out of admitting defeat to the NRA/RKBA movement:o

Every win is a good win:cheers2: