PDA

View Full Version : NRA coalition suit: Jackson v SF ("Safe" Storage)


hoffmang
05-19-2009, 1:28 AM
Today, NRA filed a federal suit against the City of San Francisco entitled Jackson v. San Francisco (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/jackson/Jackson-v-SF-Complaint-2009-05-14.pdf).

The complaint alleges that the requirement to keep handguns unloaded or trigger locked or otherwise in a locked case is exactly the kind of unconstitutional interference with the right to self defense struck down in Heller. The suit also challenges the fact that the "no discharge" ordinance has no exception for self defense. Further the suit challenges the ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition or any ammunition that is not suitable for "sporting purposes" in San Francisco.

Note that the changes in Nordyke's status may impact the timing of this case.

-Gene

oaklander
05-19-2009, 1:30 AM
Folks - this is how it is done.

Kudo's to the coalition.

Today, NRA filed a federal suit against the City of San Francisco entitled Jackson v. San Francisco (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/jackson/Jackson-v-SF-Complaint-2009-05-14.pdf).

The complaint alleges that the requirement to keep handguns unloaded or trigger locked or otherwise in a locked case is exactly the kind of unconstitutional interference with the right to self defense struck down in Heller. The suit also challenges the fact that the "no discharge" ordinance has no exception for self defense. Further the suit challenges the ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition or any ammunition that is not suitable for "sporting purposes" in San Francisco.

Note that the changes in Nordyke's status may impact the timing of this case.

-Gene

Dr. Peter Venkman
05-19-2009, 1:32 AM
Snap!

nick
05-19-2009, 1:34 AM
Meaning another unscheduled donation... You people... :D

bigcalidave
05-19-2009, 2:04 AM
Gene you're up way too late. I hope my last donation buys you a few cases of rockstar ;)

Stay busy!

gcvt
05-19-2009, 2:07 AM
:clap: HALLE-FREAKIN'-LUJAH!!!!!!!!! :clap:

Joe
05-19-2009, 2:12 AM
This is awesome, but what if incorporation gets screwed through the en banc hearing of Nordyke?

DDT
05-19-2009, 2:13 AM
This is awesome, but what if incorporation gets screwed through the en banc hearing of Nordyke?

Then we go 5-4 SCOTUS.

ETA: as long as we keep them healthy.

gcvt
05-19-2009, 2:26 AM
I always wondered how Gavin, Kamala, Heather, Alison and even :iggy2: slept at night. Now I just wonder the same thing but for different reasons :D

Blackhawk556
05-19-2009, 2:34 AM
Excellent

bruss01
05-19-2009, 7:27 AM
If the NRA wins this I have a nice hefty contribution for them ready to go.

This is the type of thing I rejoice in seeing from the NRA and I hope to see more and more of this going forward.

7x57
05-19-2009, 11:10 AM
Once again, we see "the coalition" going after low-hanging fruit, building up caselaw, and not going for the KO first, last, and always. Naturally, something Heller explicitly forbade is good to go.

How's "death by a thousand cuts" feel when you're on the other end, Sarah Brady? :43:

7x57

Liberty1
05-19-2009, 11:20 AM
If the NRA wins this I have a nice hefty contribution for them ready to go.

Why not help them now? They're doing the right thing win or loose right?

Erik S. Klein
05-19-2009, 11:22 AM
Why not help them now? They're doing the right thing win or loose right?

Agreed.

Two checks just went into the mail today (NRA and NRA-ILA). . . :thumbsup:

bruss01
05-19-2009, 11:31 AM
I am helping them "now" through a 2 year membership for myself and a 1 year for my wife. I have made a promise to give them bonus contributions for each 2a court case they win that affects CA (state or federal level). I am looking for a "win" that sets a precedent. This would qualify in that regard.

tboyer
05-19-2009, 11:33 AM
You may want to leave a comment on sfgate

http://tinyurl.com/q839o2
NRA sues S.F. over firearms laws

Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The National Rifle Association has filed suit against the city of San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom and Police Chief Heather Fong, taking aim at city laws it contends violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The NRA filed the lawsuit in federal court Friday on behalf of six residents and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association. It challenges three provisions of the city's police code that it says interfere with their right "to defend themselves and others ... within their own homes."
The provisions are:
-- A requirement that handguns in San Francisco homes be kept in a locked cabinet or disabled with a trigger lock.
-- A ban on the sale of fragmenting bullets - a particularly deadly type of ammunition.
-- A city ordinance that prohibits the discharge of firearms within city limits. The law has been on the books since 1938, and is seldom, if ever, enforced, according to city officials.
Neither the association nor the attorney who filed the suit for the NRA could be reached for comment Monday afternoon.
The suit alleges that because of the city's failure to repeal the code sections, the plaintiffs in the case "are subjected to irreparable harm, in that they are unable to keep their handguns within their home in a manner ready for immediate use to protect themselves and their families from attack by violent intruders."
It seeks to have the laws invalidated.
Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for the city attorney's office, said the NRA's real goal is not to strike down the specific city laws but to win court rulings that expand the reach of the Second Amendment.
"It's more about pushing the envelope of the Second Amendment and setting new precedents and policies," he said.
The trigger-lock requirement, signed into law in 2006, prevents residents from having "operable" handguns at their disposal, according to the suit. It argues that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 2008 Heller decision, struck down a similar trigger-lock requirement in Washington as unconstitutional because it made it impractical for residents to protect themselves.
San Francisco's trigger-lock restriction combined with a fragmenting bullet ban that precludes them from loading their weapons with "suitable ammunition," the suit says, "makes it impossible for city residents to use their handguns for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, particularly in urgent, life-threatening situations."
Dorsey, who accused the NRA of engaging in a nationwide suit-filing spree since the Supreme Court ruling, said San Francisco expects to prevail.
"I don't believe anything in federal law invalidates the provisions of the San Francisco ordinances," he said.
E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/19/BAK417MPKC.DTL
This article appeared on page B - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle

7x57
05-19-2009, 12:25 PM
Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for the city attorney's office, said the NRA's real goal is not to strike down the specific city laws


Who, us? Nobody here but us chickens. No one wants to strike down your century of oppressive violations of your citizen's Constitutional rights. These are not the droids you're looking for.

:whistling:


but to win court rulings that expand the reach of the Second Amendment.


:31:


Dorsey, who accused the NRA of engaging in a nationwide suit-filing spree since the Supreme Court ruling,

The part I don't understand is he says it like it's a bad thing. :44:

Heller+incorporation=nationwide suit-filing spree in pursuit of justice. :rockon:

:party: :clap:

Of course, by "NRA" he really means "the gun-rights coalition." But since the media doesn't want to admit that there is anything beyond the fantasy NRA that they portray as being a tool of the gunmakers (which is closer to the opposite of the truth), I guess this is the correct language for him.

7x57

madmike
05-19-2009, 12:35 PM
Ow! My wallet!!!! You guys make it hurt so good!!!!!


-madmike.


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

DarkHorse
05-19-2009, 12:35 PM
"fragmenting bullets - a particularly deadly type of ammunition"

MOST types of ammunition are deadly if used properly. ALL types of ammunition are deadly if used improperly. What a maroon.

Is the ban on actual "fragmenting" ammo, or hollow-points? The article says frags, but The Hoff says HPs.

Either way, we have yet another reporter, with no knowledge of terminal ballistics, writing an article discussing a law, written by other people that know nothing about terminal ballistics, commenting on the alledged terminal ballistics of certain ammunition. I blame Al Gore.

rivviepop
05-19-2009, 1:30 PM
If I'm not mistaken, 613.10(g)(3) covers Frangible ammunition -- which can be argued is more safe (sic) than a typical jacketed ball round. It's entire sintered design is based upon the concept of disintegrating upon contact (i.e. metal targets) to prevent splash.

KCM222
05-19-2009, 1:54 PM
Here's my comment:

"-- A city ordinance that prohibits the discharge of firearms within city limits. The law has been on the books since 1938, and is seldom, if ever, enforced, according to city officials."

What would it matter if the law is "seldom, if ever, enforced"? If the law criminalizes someone's just actions (self defense) then why would you want it on the books?

Would the city of San Francisco be OK with a law stating that sodomy was illegal as long as it was "seldom, if ever, enforced"?

CCWFacts
05-19-2009, 1:58 PM
That's hilarious, SF is having massive layoffs (with many more to come) and yet they STILL have the money to fight to defend symbolic never-enforced unconstitutional laws that do nothing for public safety.

Way to go SF!

I'm so happy that the budget crisis is going to clean out our state (and to some extent local) governments and help them focus their spending. At the same time, it's going to force Californians to become more self-reliant in terms of their own safety.

MrClamperSir
05-19-2009, 2:14 PM
That's hilarious, SF is having massive layoffs (with many more to come) and yet they STILL have the money to fight to defend symbolic never-enforced unconstitutional laws that do nothing for public safety.

Way to go SF!

I'm so happy that the budget crisis is going to clean out our state (and to some extent local) governments and help them focus their spending. At the same time, it's going to force Californians to become more self-reliant in terms of their own safety.

Couldn't agree more. Can't wait to see how these things are play out.

artherd
05-19-2009, 4:05 PM
THIS is how we do it! CGF & NRA - Defending your civil rights!

7x57
05-19-2009, 4:11 PM
THIS is how we do it! CGF & NRA - Defending your civil rights!

For the two or three Calgunners who know the song <grin>:

"I got a fist of iron and a fist of steel/If the right one don't get you then the left one will." :43:

Gosh, but how does this fit into the "NRA does nothing, they should get out of the way of CGF/SAF/GOA" meme we keep hearing about? :rolleyes:

7x57

yellowfin
05-19-2009, 4:45 PM
This is awesome, but what if incorporation gets screwed through the en banc hearing of Nordyke? This seems like the perfect way to replace the loss of Nordyke's precedent for incorporation if it comes down to that, either temporarily because of en banc and/or SCOTUS appeal, or permanently if it somehow gets reversed then denied cert.

tombinghamthegreat
05-19-2009, 4:49 PM
I like where this is going and i am glad that there is a wave of national lawsuits going on. Also i did not know SF had a ban on the sale of hollow points, well that ban won't hold up for long.

7x57
05-19-2009, 4:55 PM
I like where this is going and i am glad that there is a wave of national lawsuits going on. Also i did not know SF had a ban on the sale of hollow points, well that ban won't hold up for long.

Another state, New Jersey perhaps, has that ban statewide. People have to do things like purchase expanding FMJ ammo, I think. Anyone know for sure?

What I particularly like about this case is that it attacks a "sporting purpose" clause directly. Man oh man, how far I would like to see that line of litigation go. Let's hope this is the "cloud the size of a man's hand" on the horizon of "sporting purpose" gun bans.

7x57

7x57
05-19-2009, 5:16 PM
I'm reading the complaint now, and it occurs to me that there is a *very* good reason the law says "no non-sporting ammo *or* expanding ammo." Non-expanding ammo is useless (or more accurately unethical) for most hunting (I exclude pure pelt hunting), which is certainly a sporting purpose.

Which only illustrates the iron rule that "sporting only" laws *inevitably* infringe on sporting use as well. "Sporting use" is nothing more than gun-banning rhetoric.

7x57

bigtoe416
05-19-2009, 6:12 PM
Not sure how well the prohibition on firing of guns will do in court since this sfgate article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/19/BAK417MPKC.DTL) says it's rarely if ever enforced. One thing I recently learned about lawsuits is that a lawsuit can only bring forth complaints that are "ripe (http://www.legalview.info/Legal-Dictionary/Ripe/Default.aspx)," meaning the law that is being challenged here must be a threat to the suing party. If the law is rarely if ever enforced, it might not be ripe and therefore be unable to be challenged in court. I'm not sure how often the handgun law is enforced either. I certainly don't have mine under lock and key at all times.

The frangible case should be much easier to bring forth though.

DDT
05-19-2009, 6:31 PM
Not sure how well the prohibition on firing of guns will do in court since this sfgate article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/19/BAK417MPKC.DTL) says it's rarely if ever enforced. One thing I recently learned about lawsuits is that a lawsuit can only bring forth complaints that are "ripe (http://www.legalview.info/Legal-Dictionary/Ripe/Default.aspx)," meaning the law that is being challenged here must be a threat to the suing party. If the law is rarely if ever enforced, it might not be ripe and therefore be unable to be challenged in court. I'm not sure how often the handgun law is enforced either. I certainly don't have mine under lock and key at all times.

The frangible case should be much easier to bring forth though.

I don't have the data in front of me but I suspect there have been more "discharge in the city limits" prosecutions than "frangible" prosecutions. If for no other reason than the fact that the bullet is so often not found after a discharge.

7x57
05-19-2009, 6:56 PM
Here's another very interesting part of the complaint: it alleges violation of Article I, section 1 of the California state Constitution.



SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.



Now, I assumed the bolded text is what they principally mean. But the California Supreme Court has held that there is no right to arms in the CA Constitution--holding, I guess, that you may have a right to self defense but not to any particular weapon that would make it effective. It seems as though Jackson is alleging to the contrary that the California right to defense includes the right to effective means. Now I have said before that I expect that those who ratified this Constitution in 1879 believed this to be the case, so I agree with the plaintiffs as a matter of fact, but nobody's opinion but the state Supreme Court justices actually matters a bit and apparently they are determined not to obey the original meaning of the constitution (quelle surprise) or they know I'm wrong (doubtful they would even care enough to check).

So do I read this wrong, or is the NRA putting this in there so, if it is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, there is an opportunity to overturn the ruling that there is no right to effective means? Isn't that what paragraph 67 and the second alternative method of relief ask for explicitly?

7x57

mecam
05-19-2009, 7:10 PM
SF is broke, they'll fold.

SimpleCountryActuary
05-19-2009, 8:14 PM
SF is broke, they'll fold.

Again, now is the best time to strike them with lawsuits. We have as many Bush judges as we are ever going to have and the State, Counties, and Cities might just decide they'd rather fund their Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plans.

elenius
05-19-2009, 8:33 PM
Awesome that they are appealing to the CA constitution as well! Might as well try to get that precedent overturned while they're at it and give us double RKBA protection :)

Vtec44
05-19-2009, 8:40 PM
Great news!!!

DDT
05-19-2009, 8:48 PM
So do I read this wrong, or is the NRA putting this in there so, if it is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, there is an opportunity to overturn the ruling that there is no right to effective means? Isn't that what paragraph 67 and the second alternative method of relief ask for explicitly?


I would assume the idea is that with Heller/Nordyke they feel California is no longer afforded the liberty to exclude firearms from the range of tools one may use to defend their rights and property. (I guess there are no originalists on the CA Supreme Court)

tonelar
05-19-2009, 10:02 PM
God bless, this is great timing.

7x57
05-19-2009, 10:16 PM
I would assume the idea is that with Heller/Nordyke they feel California is no longer afforded the liberty to exclude firearms from the range of tools one may use to defend their rights and property.


That's the idea of the *federal* 2A claim. I don't see how it can be the idea behind the CA Constitutional claim, since if what the SCOCa says is true we only have federal protection for *effective* armed defense. The complaint seems to specifically argue for CA protection paralel to the federal 2A, which in fact most states have (in theory, but in many the state case law has nullified that portion).

Perhaps they think the originalist line of argument in Heller will cause some to re-examine the state constitutions and caselaw? Bully for us if it does.


(I guess there are no originalists on the CA Supreme Court)

I guess there were less than four at the time the court ruled "no RKBA" in the CA Constitution, anyway. Without proof or actual knowledge my bet is that the original understanding of Article I section 1 is just as the NRA case claims, but I am doubtful that a *California* court can be persuaded to give a flying fig about the original social compact. But hey, maybe Chuck Michel or Don Kates knows differently and thinks the current court will reverse if they can just get the issue before them.

That said, if they think it's worth a gamble, it probably is. My read is that the NRA cases are more conservative than the SAF/CGF cases--CCW at least doesn't seem as much of a slam-dunk to me as the NRA's case against SF, which seems rock-solid and air-tight as SCOTUS pretty much already put a dagger through it's black heart. I suspect that's why the NRA decided to pick this case.

Or maybe it isn't conservatism--maybe the NRA just gets particular pleasure out of squeezing money out of SF, over and over, and decided to make SF their special cat-toy while other coalition members take on other defendants. It's gotta hurt SF the most to lose to the *NRA*. :43:

Anyway, if I'm right, then that means that some very conservative chess players decided that was a play worth making. But I might not be and it might just be how the labor got divided (and the roster suit had to belong to SAF/CGF anyway since they were already in court over DC's clone roster).

Either way, good times. :thumbsup:

7x57

dwtt
05-19-2009, 10:55 PM
Many of the names in that lawsuit are familiar. I hope the outcome is similar to the suit against Prop H.

jdberger
05-19-2009, 10:59 PM
Yipee.

So many blows coming so quickly. I wonder if Sarah Brady now understands how it felt for us in the early '90s.

Thanks for the internet, Al Gore!

yellowfin
05-20-2009, 12:03 AM
So many blows coming so quickly. I wonder if Sarah Brady now understands how it felt for us in the early '90s. I'm sure it's more like how Jenna Jameson felt in the late 90's. :43:

bigtoe416
05-20-2009, 12:19 AM
I don't have the data in front of me but I suspect there have been more "discharge in the city limits" prosecutions than "frangible" prosecutions. If for no other reason than the fact that the bullet is so often not found after a discharge.

According the to sfgate article, the frangible law prevents the sale of the ammo, not the possession or firing of it. I can't go down to High Bridge Arms (the only gun store in the city I believe) and buy frangible ammo because of this law. Therefore the claim against that law is ripe and can be brought forth.

Didn't the whole prop H. thing overturn this locked gun thing anyway? I know the locked handgun law is still on the books but I figured it had been invalidated by the courts.

vrand
05-20-2009, 12:26 AM
Folks - this is how it is done.

Kudo's to the coalition.

:thumbsup:

383green
05-20-2009, 12:51 AM
For the two or three Calgunners who know the song <grin>:

"I got a fist of iron and a fist of steel/If the right one don't get you then the left one will." :43:

There will be another Calgunner who knows the song, as soon as it finishes downloading from iTunes... ;)

Incidentally, my favorite band at the moment is Dream Theater, and they were originally called Majesty, too.

While I'm on a musical threadjack, I've long considered that "Don't Tread on Me" by Metallica (from back before they lost the ability to not suck) would make a fine national anthem.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled thread about the NRA/CGF/etc. showing up to kick *** and chew bubblegum, and being out of bubblegum. :thumbsup:

7x57
05-20-2009, 1:07 AM
There will be another Calgunner who knows the song, as soon as it finishes downloading from iTunes... ;)


Heh. I suppose those lines would let you do a lyrics search and positively ID the title. Make sure it's Merle Travis doing it though, if there is a cover that's not what you want.


While I'm on a musical threadjack, I've long considered that "Don't Tread on Me" by Metallica (from back before they lost the ability to not suck) would make a fine national anthem.


Maybe we need one of these icons :threadjacked: with the threadjackers holding musical instruments instead of guns. :rolleyes:

Anyway, when I went up to the Nordyke orals I believe I made sure that Judas Priest's "You Got Another Thing Coming" was playing as I crossed the bridge. And in the car at various times after hearing about the Nordyke decision and some of our new lawsuits. Which I suspect betrays a certain age difference.

I've been playing it a lot lately. :43:

7x57

N6ATF
05-20-2009, 1:13 AM
SF is broke, they'll have to raise taxes if they want to continue screwing their residents in every way imaginable.

Fixed.

383green
05-20-2009, 1:18 AM
Heh. I suppose those lines would let you do a lyrics search and positively ID the title. Make sure it's Merle Travis doing it though, if there is a cover that's not what you want.

Funny thing is, I didn't read carefully enough when I googled those lyrics, and I ended up buying some rather bland German glam metal song from a band formerly called "Majesty". Not the best dollar I've ever spent. :oops:

Now that I've found the right song to go with the lyrics, it makes a bit more sense... :o


Maybe we need one of these icons :threadjacked: with the threadjackers holding musical instruments instead of guns. :rolleyes:

Don't forget one where they're holding steaks and/or BBQ tools. Oh, and one with a picture of Kristen Bell. :D

Anyway, when I went up to the Nordyke orals I believe I made sure that Judas Priest's "You Got Another Thing Coming" was playing as I crossed the bridge. And in the car at various times after hearing about the Nordyke decision and some of our new lawsuits. Which I suspect betrays a certain age difference.

Maybe an age difference with some CGNers, but that seems like a perfectly cromulent song choice to me.

:rockon:

Scarecrow Repair
05-20-2009, 7:19 AM
Make sure it's Merle Travis doing it though, if there is a cover that's not what you want.

I think Tennessee Ernie Ford owns that song.

xxdabroxx
05-20-2009, 12:31 PM
I think they will fold as well. They don't have any ground to stand on.

Librarian
05-20-2009, 2:53 PM
I think Tennessee Ernie Ford owns that song.

Agreed.

off-topic ---- used to listen to the 49ers on the radio, pre-Joe Montana. 9ers were pretty bad. Their lead radio guy was Lon Simmons (also SF Giants radio guy), and rumor has it that, during football games, Lon would take a sip or three.

One game, Tennessee Ernie Ford performed at halftime, and was riding around the stadium in a convertible, waving to the crowd.

Lon says something like "Ernie is waving to the crowd. It'd be friendlier if he'd use his whole hand..."

CaptainGlock
05-20-2009, 4:16 PM
Heh. I suppose those lines would let you do a lyrics search and positively ID the title. Make sure it's Merle Travis doing it though, if there is a cover that's not what you want.



Maybe we need one of these icons :threadjacked: with the threadjackers holding musical instruments instead of guns. :rolleyes:

Anyway, when I went up to the Nordyke orals I believe I made sure that Judas Priest's "You Got Another Thing Coming" was playing as I crossed the bridge. And in the car at various times after hearing about the Nordyke decision and some of our new lawsuits. Which I suspect betrays a certain age difference.

I've been playing it a lot lately. :43:


7x57

Merle Travis? I remember Tennessee Ernie Ford singing it!

7x57
05-20-2009, 4:22 PM
Well, there appears to be some controversy I wasn't aware of about whether Merle wrote the song, but Ernie Ford definitely didn't. If Merle didn't write it, he was the first to record Davis' song. Ford just got it to the top of the charts.

I'd say that settles it, but someone might bring up "All Along the Watchtower," which I insist is Hendrix's in spite of the fact that Dylan wrote it. But then, most of Dylan's songs are best when performed by someone else, so perhaps Dylan songs have different rules.

It would be less confusing if y'all would just agree to associate songs with whoever I say. See how simple that would be? :43:

7x57

383green
05-20-2009, 4:29 PM
I like Mojo Nixon and Skid Roper's cover of Inna Gadda da Vida (sp?) better than the original by Iron Butterfly. :whistling:

7x57
05-20-2009, 5:43 PM
I like Mojo Nixon and Skid Roper's cover of Inna Gadda da Vida (sp?) better than the original by Iron Butterfly. :whistling:

I haven't heard that cover, but it couldn't possibly be worse than Iron Butterfly's, so I'll vote for it without hearing it.

The first time I heard Inna-Gadda-Davida was when I fell asleep listening to the radio and woke up to hear bits of it while drifting in and out of consciousness. It seemed to go on forever, but my time consciousness was gone anyway. It seemed really great, and I remembered that the first time I heard Mahler's first symphony was the same situation and afterwards it was as good as I remembered. So I told a friend about how we should find this great song called Inna-Gadda-Davida.....

Naturally when he bought and listened to it, my reputation for musical taste evaporated. :kest: Turns out when I'm semiconscious I'm not channeling the musical taste of the Gods, I just have no taste at all. :eek:

I guess I might as well say it: :threadjacked: again. (Or still.)

7x57

383green
05-20-2009, 5:47 PM
I haven't heard that cover, but it couldn't possibly be worse than Iron Butterfly's, so I'll vote for it without hearing it.

You don't sound like you're familiar with Mojo...

Kid Stanislaus
05-20-2009, 5:58 PM
Evidently the city of San Francisco gets some kind of perverted pleasure out of getting spanked by the CA Supreme Court over the issue of pre-emption.

Kid Stanislaus
05-20-2009, 6:05 PM
You may want to leave a comment on sfgate

http://tinyurl.com/q839o2

"I don't believe anything in federal law invalidates the provisions of the San Francisco ordinances," he said.
E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/19/BAK417MPKC.DTL
This article appeared on page B - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle


Matt Dorsey appears to keep his cranium stored in a very dark and stinky place.

Kicker0429
08-28-2009, 5:46 PM
This appears to be the latest status of the case:

Thursday 08/27/2009
02:30 PM Espanola Jackson, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.
C 09-2143 PJH
Initial Case Management Conference

yellowfin
08-28-2009, 6:33 PM
So that means it's starting? What took so long?

Theseus
08-28-2009, 6:39 PM
I thought the last report was that San Fran caved in an agreement with the NRA?

Librarian
08-28-2009, 6:53 PM
This appears to be the latest status of the case:

Thursday 08/27/2009
02:30 PM Espanola Jackson, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.
C 09-2143 PJH
Initial Case Management Conference

Source? Can't see that at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ so must be looking in the wrong place.

Vectrexer
08-28-2009, 6:56 PM
Too bad San Francisco's passing of those law will result in the stripping away of money from the impoverished citizens of the city due to the fact they will have to use funds to fight, and lose, the lawsuit.

Hopefully the mothers and fathers utilizing public assistance will slap some sense in the city leaders one day.

Kicker0429
08-28-2009, 9:53 PM
This is the link:
http://www.law.com/jsp/PubArticle.jsp?id=900005370886

Librarian
08-28-2009, 10:18 PM
This is the link:
http://www.law.com/jsp/PubArticle.jsp?id=900005370886

Thanks!

So, what is that page, exactly? The announced calendars of each of the judges is what it looks like.

I use law.com pretty regularly, but not that part of it.

Librarian
08-28-2009, 10:45 PM
This is the link:
http://www.law.com/jsp/PubArticle.jsp?id=900005370886

Thanks!

So, what is that page, exactly? The announced calendars of each of the judges is what it looks like.

I use law.com pretty regularly, but not that part of it.

BillCA
08-28-2009, 11:12 PM
I'm reading the complaint now, and it occurs to me that there is a *very* good reason the law says "no non-sporting ammo *or* expanding ammo." Non-expanding ammo is useless (or more accurately unethical) for most hunting (I exclude pure pelt hunting), which is certainly a sporting purpose.

By definition, a Catch-22.

When I originally read this, I missed the "OR expanding ammo" portion. Thus, I was thinking that in S.F. I would be okay with my "sporting ammo"...
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff111/BillCA/Hobby/misc/Winchester_41JHPsf.jpg
Because it says "Hunting" right on the box. :p

However, by saying no "non sporting" ammo or no "expanding ammo", this ammo is verboten. But stop and think for a moment... That would require the use of non-expanding sporting ammo.

Huh?

If you use a soft swaged or cast LSWC/LRN it'll expand in the target. Even some hardcast ammo will expand.

That leaves FMJ. But wait, can't the city argue that FMJ is "intended for purposes of war, to wound solidiers" and thus is "non-sporting"?

Defacto ammo ban across the board without it sounding like one. Or am I missing something?

dfletcher
08-28-2009, 11:17 PM
By definition, a Catch-22.

When I originally read this, I missed the "OR expanding ammo" portion. Thus, I was thinking that in S.F. I would be okay with my "sporting ammo"...

However, by saying no "non sporting" ammo or no "expanding ammo", this ammo is verboten. But stop and think for a moment... That would require the use of non-expanding sporting ammo.

If you use a soft swaged or cast LSWC/LRN it'll expand in the target. Even some hardcast ammo will expand.

That leaves FMJ. But wait, can't the city argue that FMJ is "intended for purposes of war, to wound solidiers" and thus is "non-sporting"?

Defacto ammo ban across the board without it sounding like one. Or am I missing something?

BBs. The city of San Francisco wants us to use BBs. I feel so happy to have figured that out. :D

BillCA
08-28-2009, 11:17 PM
Evidently the city of San Francisco gets some kind of perverted pleasure out of getting spanked by the CA Supreme Court over the issue of pre-emption.

The city will probably argue that the state has said it will regulate firearm sales & registration but hasn't claimed the realm of ammuntion and gun-parts/accessories.

On the other hand, writing to the SF newspapers/websites and pointing out that SF resident's taxes are being wasted trying to uphold laws the city rarely enforces and/or are unconstitutional for purposes of political statements is mis-mangement of the city's dwindling tax money. Hammer on the amount of money they'll spend to defend city instead of agreeing to simple, modest changes in the law. How many school books would that money buy? How many free HIV tests or school repairs could be performed? How many "at risk" youths could be counciled?

cousinkix1953
08-29-2009, 3:39 AM
"fragmenting bullets - a particularly deadly type of ammunition"

MOST types of ammunition are deadly if used properly. ALL types of ammunition are deadly if used improperly. What a maroon.

Is the ban on actual "fragmenting" ammo, or hollow-points? The article says frags, but The Hoff says HPs.

Either way, we have yet another reporter, with no knowledge of terminal ballistics, writing an article discussing a law, written by other people that know nothing about terminal ballistics, commenting on the alledged terminal ballistics of certain ammunition. I blame Al Gore.
Somebody should take this idiot city attorney to the range. Fragmenting bullets go to pieces inside of walls. A full metal jacket might keep on going and become a threat to innocent bystanders. This just another example of anti-gun politicians (who don't know their a---- from a hole in the ground) trying to look like experts...

timdps
08-29-2009, 9:52 AM
Discharge party anyone?:43:


Not sure how well the prohibition on firing of guns will do in court since this sfgate article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/19/BAK417MPKC.DTL) says it's rarely if ever enforced. One thing I recently learned about lawsuits is that a lawsuit can only bring forth complaints that are "ripe (http://www.legalview.info/Legal-Dictionary/Ripe/Default.aspx)," meaning the law that is being challenged here must be a threat to the suing party. If the law is rarely if ever enforced, it might not be ripe and therefore be unable to be challenged in court. I'm not sure how often the handgun law is enforced either. I certainly don't have mine under lock and key at all times.

The frangible case should be much easier to bring forth though.

dfletcher
08-29-2009, 10:02 AM
Is there an exception to this for the police - on duty and off? Security guards too?

7x57
08-29-2009, 12:46 PM
By definition, a Catch-22.


I'd forgotten all about that post, but indeed I think that's what I was getting at.


Defacto ammo ban across the board without it sounding like one. Or am I missing something?

Well, FMJ is "sporting" ammo in that target shooting is a sport, so I think it's still allowed.

Besides, it's clear that the thing they always go after is *effective* self-defense. Thus, they want to take your Ranger, Silvertip, HST, Hydrashok, and whatever ammo a lot more than your FMJ ammo. Of course handicapping a victim is morally murder, but they don't care.

Without going back to see if there is an exception, that means the only really effective defensive ammo would be double-ought buck. They want to ban differently, by banning your trusty 870 as an "assault weapon," of course.

Parenthetically, I have believed for a long time that the legendary effectiveness of a shotgun for self-defense was based on an even greater disparity than there is now. Who thinks a typical 19th century cast bullet at .44-40 velocities created anything like the wound cavity of a modern hollow-point? I don't. The great thing about buckshot is not the spread (it is not spread at SD ranges) but the fact that it's pre-fragmented. Compared to a modern hollowpoint it's bad enough, but compared to non-expanding or poorly expanding ammo it must have been awesome.

And darn it, citizens shouldn't have that kind of effectiveness unless they have a badge or an office. :p

7x57

Fjold
08-29-2009, 2:26 PM
By definition, a Catch-22.

When I originally read this, I missed the "OR expanding ammo" portion. Thus, I was thinking that in S.F. I would be okay with my "sporting ammo"...
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff111/BillCA/Hobby/misc/Winchester_41JHPsf.jpg
Because it says "Hunting" right on the box. :p

However, by saying no "non sporting" ammo or no "expanding ammo", this ammo is verboten. But stop and think for a moment... That would require the use of non-expanding sporting ammo.

Huh?

If you use a soft swaged or cast LSWC/LRN it'll expand in the target. Even some hardcast ammo will expand.

That leaves FMJ. But wait, can't the city argue that FMJ is "intended for purposes of war, to wound solidiers" and thus is "non-sporting"?

Defacto ammo ban across the board without it sounding like one. Or am I missing something?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/Fjold/BarnesSolids.jpg

MindBuilder
08-29-2009, 4:16 PM
A 375 H&H Magnum firing Barnes Solids - talk about over penetration of walls in an urban environment! San Francisco ought to be careful what they wish for.

hoffmang
08-29-2009, 10:12 PM
Don't confuse this with the housing case which has already settled.

San Francisco moved to dismiss (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.215014/gov.uscourts.cand.215014.9.0.pdf) the case on 7/9/09.

NRA amended the complaint (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.215014/gov.uscourts.cand.215014.18.0.pdf) 8/24.

NRA then moved to stay (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.215014/gov.uscourts.cand.215014.19.0.pdf) the case pending Nordyke's outcome on 8/27.

The court opined (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.215014/gov.uscourts.cand.215014.22.0.pdf) that both sides agreed to the stay and thus no motion was needed. The case is stayed until 30 days after the outcome of Nordyke.

PS. RECAP (https://www.recapthelaw.org/) does not suck.

-Gene

locosway
08-29-2009, 11:47 PM
So... Did anyone ask the cops if they want criminals shooting soft bullets, or ones so hard that they go through their cars and vests and into their partners next to them?

Window_Seat
06-26-2010, 11:23 PM
Because of it being just over 1 day to McDonald opinion day, hope all of you don't mind me resurrecting this and wondering if or when this case might get started back up again. I searched around for status on this case, and came up with this:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2009cv02143/case_id-215014/

Apparently there was a request for a telephone conference which was denied, and that is what looks like the last activity on this case. Gene?

Erik.

Pixs
06-27-2010, 11:12 AM
Another state, New Jersey perhaps, has that ban statewide. People have to do things like purchase expanding FMJ ammo, I think. Anyone know for sure?

...

7x57
Hi 7x57,
I checked by reading the associated pc of the S of NJ; then I called the NJSP office of information. Bottom line Hp ammo can be had in NJ provided that it travels "in the most expeditious manner and shortest route" from the point of purchase to "your" home or from "your" to the hunting site in the same manor. Also it can only be transported in a locked metal container that dose not contain a gun. In effect, since you can't hunt in NJ with a pistol, once in your home it is there forever unless you leave NJ. The Lt. of NJSP that I spoke to didn't know as much as I did about the law, at first he told me that owning HP ammo was a Felony then when I read the law to him, he conceded that it could be owned under the conditions mentioned. Good luck explaining that to a cop in NJ.
BTW you can only hunt in NJ with a shotgun and the largest shot you can use is 00 buck for deer only.