PDA

View Full Version : National Rifle Association recruits San Franciscans to overturn gun-control laws


Ding126
10-14-2009, 2:17 PM
It's an hour before dawn, and Espanola Jackson, a 76-year-old activist known for her leading role in antidevelopment battles, is awoken by a clunk coming from the kitchen of her house, five blocks east of Candlestick Park. She sits up in her bed, takes a pair of keys out of her nightstand drawer, and steps softly toward her gun cabinet. While struggling with the lock, she hears footsteps growing louder.

Miles away from Jackson's Hunters Point home, San Francisco residents Therese Marie Pizzo and her domestic partner are on an out-of-state vacation. Two red-faced men approach them, laughing, taunting, asking menacing questions about the women's hair and clothes. Pizzo imagines reaching into her jacket to pull out a loaded pistol, but she's carrying only a pocketknife. She grabs her partner's forearm and steps back.

These scenes are fantasies. But they're based on fears described in legal complaints filed on behalf of real-life city residents Jackson and Pizzo, who are plaintiffs in separate but similar anti-gun-control lawsuits against San Francisco filed recently in federal court. Jackson is an elderly woman who keeps handguns in her home for self-defense "and other lawful purposes," according to a lawsuit filed on behalf of Jackson and several co-plaintiffs, including the National Rifle Association. Pizzo and her partner enjoy taking trips out of California; she says she applied for a concealed weapon permit to protect her against bigoted hicks, but was brushed off by the San Francisco sheriff's office. Pizzo's suit was filed by independent gun-control opponent Gary Gorski, an attorney in Fair Oaks.

On Sept. 30, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments that a Chicago handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. If it determines the ban is unconstitutional, Jackson and her co-plaintiffs have a good chance of striking down various San Francisco gun control laws, including a 2007 law requiring that guns be kept under lock and key. If that happens, said Calvin Massey, constitutional law professor at UC Hastings College of the Law, "San Francisco will lose this [Jackson's] lawsuit."

Pizzo's suit also seeks to overturn various San Francisco gun control laws, but goes a step further by seeking to strike down portions of the California code that give local law enforcement agencies discretion to reject applications for concealed weapons. However, under state and federal law, honorably retired police officers have the right to carry concealed weapons. In Pizzo's view, this is a violation of the constitutional guarantee to equal protection.

"If you took away the exemption for retired cops, I bet you $20 none of these [gun control] laws would ever get passed, because cops don't want their dicks cut off," Gorski said. "The idea that retired cops are better than anyone else, that's a bunch of bull****."

Whether a possible Supreme Court order to lift the Chicago gun ban would result in a judge ruling that California cities have to issue concealed-weapons permits "is an open question," Massey said.

NRA attorney Chuck Michel, who has been quoted calling Gorski a "well-intentioned loose cannon," said that he will ask for the Pizzo case to be put on hold, pending the Supreme Court resolution of the challenge to the Chicago gun ban. Despite their differing strategies, Michel and Gorski share the idea that they can make their clients safer by eliminating gun control.

If they prevail, we will find ourselves in a country where the Second Amendment law has drifted from something reasonable — a constitutional clause enabling state militias — toward a land of illogic where the Constitution ensures public safety by enshrining citizens' rights to secretly pack guns loaded with hollow-point, or "cop-killer," bullets; where neighbors have a protected right to shoot off pistols in their backyards; and where youngsters visiting a relative's house can expect to find a Winchester resting above the couch, its place protected by the U.S. Constitution. Gorski "wants to return us to the Wild West. He wants to see us wear a holster on the hip," said deputy city attorney Sherri Kaiser, who represents San Francisco in both cases.
In 2006, the California Supreme Court struck down a ban on private ownership of handguns in San Francisco because it was inconsistent with state law. But other local ordinances remain. Thanks to a 2007 law, San Francisco gun owners must keep their firearms in locked cabinets, or with trigger locks engaged — unless they have the weapons on their person. It is also illegal to sell bullets designed to expand on impact to produce a cantaloupe-sized flesh wound.

As a matter of practice, San Francisco issues virtually no concealed-weapons permits, under discretion allowed under state law. (Court papers indicate only one resident currently has such a permit.)

http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-10-14/news/national-rifle-association-recruits-san-franciscans-to-overturn-gun-control-laws

In June, gun control laws such as San Francisco's seemed imperiled when the Supreme Court struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban, which it ruled violated the right to bear arms.

The decision had gun-control advocates apoplectic because it represented a polar shift from conventional wisdom among legal experts that the Second Amendment didn't guarantee individuals the right to carry guns, but merely established militias such as the California National Guard.

Such a disparate range of perceived meanings has been possible because the Second Amendment is not clear. It reads, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

1 2 Next Page

Until recently, this jumble of clauses and commas was widely interpreted as an expression by the Founding Fathers that, since it's inconvenient to keep a standing army, we'd have to occasionally muster citizen militias. And they'd need arms. The ascendant, NRA-backed view says the Founding Fathers meant for citizens to keep pistols on their nightstands to repel intruders.

Subject(s):
Matt Smith on National Rifle Association recruits San Franciscans to overturn gun-control lawsBut the ruling on the Washington law didn't overturn other local handgun bans, because the District of Columbia is not a state. In the Chicago case, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether handgun bans passed by local or state governments are also unconstitutional. In the meantime, Jackson's lawsuit has been stayed, pending resolution of that case.

"Obviously if the Supreme Court finds that the Second Amendment does not apply to state or local governments, the San Francisco claims will be dismissed," said Juliet Leftwich, legal director of the gun control advocacy group Legal Community Against Violence. "But we're not optimistic that will be the outcome."

If the Supreme Court does overturn Chicago's law, Jackson may very well be able to keep her guns at home, and she could reach for one someday and gun down an intruder. But if her neighbors, friends, fellow congregants, and San Francisco residents indulge their newfound right to leave unfettered firearms around their houses, it's at least as likely that someone will use one of them to shoot someone, either by accident or on purpose, who is innocent.

If Pizzo ultimately wins her case, she might get to pull a licensed Glock .45-caliber pistol from a concealed holster to frighten away gay-bashing bubbas. But she won't be the only one with a right to pack hidden heat.

"On that reasoning, lots of people should get to carry concealed weapons if they have reason to believe somebody in the big wide world should want to hurt them," Kaiser said. "The decision Pizzo and her attorneys would have is taking trigger locks off guns, loading them with flesh-shredding ammunition, and putting them on your hip as you stroll down the street."

While that may be a compelling fantasy, I don't think it was what attendees at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 had in mind.

bwiese
10-14-2009, 2:19 PM
Oh... no.... Gorski...

truthseeker
10-14-2009, 2:22 PM
GORSKI! AGAIN!!!!!???????

As to this statement:

"On that reasoning, lots of people should get to carry concealed weapons if they have reason to believe somebody in the big wide world should want to hurt them," Kaiser said.

They ABSOLUTELY SHOULD CARRY because by "progressive/liberal" reasoning of "if just one life can be saved by doing this" then it is worth it!

Mitch
10-14-2009, 2:24 PM
If they prevail, we will find ourselves in a country where the Second Amendment law has drifted from something reasonable a constitutional clause enabling state militias toward a land of illogic where the Constitution ensures public safety by enshrining citizens' rights to secretly pack guns loaded with hollow-point, or "cop-killer," bullets;

I can't say for sure, but I suggest the objectivity of the writer can be questioned here.

Mitch
10-14-2009, 2:27 PM
Holy ****, that's Matt Smith? I used to read his stuff when I lived in SF. It was pretty good. When did he become such an uninformed douche?

berto
10-14-2009, 2:28 PM
Gorski needs to shut his pie hole.

The writer is misinformed as is to be expected from the SF Weekly.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
10-14-2009, 2:38 PM
I can't say for sure, but I suggest the objectivity of the writer can be questioned here.

Hahaha, yeah, I think the framers specifically had it in mind:

"On that reasoning, lots of people should get to carry concealed weapons if they have reason to believe somebody in the big wide world should want to hurt them," Kaiser said. "The decision Pizzo and her attorneys would have is taking trigger locks off guns, loading them with flesh-shredding ammunition, and putting them on your hip as you stroll down the street."

While that may be a compelling fantasy, I don't think it was what attendees at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 had in mind.

BigDogatPlay
10-14-2009, 2:51 PM
Did NRA actively seek out Gorski to be added on this action? Or did he just throw NRA on the complaint for good measure?

I wonder if there is a check big enough that could be written that would get him to sew his own mouth shut.

copenhagen269
10-14-2009, 2:58 PM
Gorski needs to shut his pie hole.

This^^^

Flopper
10-14-2009, 3:06 PM
Gorski is an amazing incompetent.

If he could just eat some humble pie, he could bow out gracefully and let capable people win back the RKBA.

Too bad he's such an egomaniac.

Glock22Fan
10-14-2009, 3:13 PM
I want some of this flesh-shredding cop-killer ammo that makes wounds the size of cantelope melons!

tube_ee
10-14-2009, 3:25 PM
Gary Frickin' Gorski???

Again???

Is there any way to get this clown to realize that he is actively harming the very issue he claims to be the One True Warrior for? Can the CGF take all of our donations and pay him to move to another State? Buy him a house, and pay his registration fees for the Alaska State Bar? Maybe Hawaii would be best... lots of 2A dragons to be valiantly slain, and the real work being done here will cover him there, so he can claim victory when it comes. Everybody wins. We'll get the money for the real lawsuits back on the flip side... it'd be worth that money to get rid of this dude.

We need another Gorski lawsuit like we need Gavin Newsom as our governor.

--Shannon

wash
10-14-2009, 3:26 PM
Did NRA actively seek out Gorski to be added on this action? Or did he just throw NRA on the complaint for good measure?

I wonder if there is a check big enough that could be written that would get him to sew his own mouth shut.
It reads like there are two cases, one filed by Chuck Michel, the other by Gorski.

I'm sure Gorski would be on the wrong end of a huge lawsuit if he falsely listed NRA as a plaintiff.

jdberger
10-14-2009, 3:33 PM
"If you took away the exemption for retired cops, I bet you $20 none of these [gun control] laws would ever get passed, because cops don't want their dicks cut off," Gorski said. "The idea that retired cops are better than anyone else, that's a bunch of bull****."

The guy's a wordsmith...you gotta admit....:rolleyes:

QuarterBoreGunner
10-14-2009, 3:41 PM
*sigh*

GSequoia
10-14-2009, 4:06 PM
Oh... no.... Gorski...

I got to that name in the article and then stopped reading.

G17GUY
10-14-2009, 4:37 PM
Should have known as soon as that crazy email he sent out went main stream.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2009cv04493/case_id-219757/
Can anyone post the not so humorous reading material?

B Strong
10-14-2009, 5:08 PM
When one wants to read biased material, SFWeekly should be the go-to source.

Bizcuits
10-14-2009, 5:09 PM
OMFG it'll be the wild west if people can exercise their rights! :willy_nilly:

jdberger
10-14-2009, 7:07 PM
I'll see if I can pull this abomination when I'm at work tomorrow. Who can I send the pdf to for posting? PM me.

What's the over/under on spelling mistakes?

Gryff
10-14-2009, 7:24 PM
It's an hour before dawn, and Espanola Jackson, a 76-year-old activist known for her leading role in antidevelopment battles, is awoken by a clunk coming from the kitchen of her house, five blocks east of Candlestick Park. She sits up in her bed, takes a pair of keys out of her nightstand drawer, and steps softly toward her gun cabinet. While struggling with the lock, she hears footsteps growing louder.

Five blocks east of Candlestick Park is about 200 yards into San Francisco Bay.

QuarterBoreGunner
10-14-2009, 7:26 PM
When one wants to read biased material, SFWeekly should be the go-to source. Or if not available, the SF Bay Guardian... I read the Guardian every week.. just to get my heart rate up and make up for the cardio (Rule #1) that I may have missed that week.


EDIT: Five blocks east of Candlestick Park is about 200 yards into San Francisco Bay. Good catch! That's funny...

advocatusdiaboli
10-14-2009, 7:29 PM
Juliet Leftwich, legal director of the gun control advocacy group Legal Community Against Violence

Leftwich? as in Left Witch? What a perfect name for the job LOL. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.

hoffmang
10-14-2009, 7:46 PM
Well, there goes that attempt to keep it quiet...

Gary Gorski filed a CCW case against SF and Mr. Brown/CA the day before oral arguments in Nordyke. We had finally figured out what Justice Pregerson was talking about when he angrily asked Don Kilmer what his "agenda was."

I'll post the briefs shortly. This is the wrong place to be challenging carry and it is a really bad idea to attack the law itself. Do we really want De Leon re-writing our carry laws?

-Gene

hoffmang
10-14-2009, 8:02 PM
Started a new thread for Gorski's case here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=231624

-Gene

Sheepdog1968
10-14-2009, 8:58 PM
Is the NRA looking for folks so they can file lawsuits on their behalf?

bodger
10-14-2009, 10:05 PM
Hollow points are cop killers. I did not know that.
Are they incendiary heat seeking rounds too?

wash
10-14-2009, 10:09 PM
Does anyone want to chip in for a Rugby ringer? Like a 300 lb Maori?