PDA

View Full Version : Judge to hear arguments on the S.F. gun ban


petey
02-23-2006, 7:54 AM
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=GUNBAN-02-22-06

Few supporters for S.F. gun ban

By HERBERT A. SAMPLE
Sacramento Bee
22-FEB-06

SAN FRANCISCO -- On Thursday morning, a lawyer with the city attorney's office will try to convince a judge that a voter-passed initiative banning handguns and restricting other firearms is allowed by state law.

But save the four members of the Board of Supervisors who placed it on the ballot last November, the ordinance appears to have few prominent friends, even among national gun control advocates.

Mayor Gavin Newsom all but disowned it just before Election Day. State Attorney General Bill Lockyer and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, strong advocates of assault-weapons bans, have taken no position on the San Francisco law. Of four national gun control groups, only one, which is based here, has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief supporting it.

Meanwhile, national and state gun rights organizations, along with groups representing movie industry armorers and San Francisco police officers, have jumped into the fray, offering briefs to overturn the law.

"If you look at the history of the gun control movement, its strategy in the past has been to support such measures as the San Francisco ban," said Robert Spitzer, a professor at the State University of New York, Cortland, who has written on the politics of gun control.

"They may be now more interested in pursuing a more moderate political strategy, especially given the more conservative political environment they face today," he said.

The San Francisco law, approved by 58 percent of voters, prohibits the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition, and generally bans the possession of handguns.

It is similar to a 1982 ordinance enacted after the 1978 City Hall shootings that killed Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. A state appellate court invalidated that ordinance, ruling it was in essence a gun registration and licensing scheme, which only the Legislature can enact.

Proponents of the newest version, whose chief sponsor is Supervisor Chris Daly, say that it differs enough from the 1982 ordinance that the appellate ruling should not apply.

But the reasons underlying the ordinance have not changed much since Moscone and Milk were murdered: Gun violence continues to be a growing problem in San Francisco. According to the city, 80 people died from gunshot wounds last year, compared with 39 four years earlier. Many of those deaths occurred in the city's poorest communities.

"Gun violence is so pervasive that police and school officials regularly must 'lock down' schools in those neighborhoods . . . when a threat is near," according to a brief filed by city attorneys. The ordinance targets handguns, which are more often used in crimes than rifles or shotguns, according to the city.

Opponents, though, said the courts should again overturn the ordinance for the same reasons the 1982 law was nullified. Even some gun control sympathizers agree.

The ordinance "sounds an awful lot like handgun licensing to me," Franklin Zimring, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall Law School, said in an interview.

"Should the cities have the power to do that? The answer is yes," he said. "But the way to do that, given the framework of California law, is get this Legislature to amend home rule powers."

Critics also argue, as they often do when fighting gun control laws, that San Francisco's law will do very little to curb crime. Moreover, movie armorers say the ordinance is so broad it will prevent them from using real guns that fire blanks when filming in the city. And auction houses may have to end their sale of antique firearms.

"We could not continue business in San Francisco," said Paul Carella of Bonhams & Butterfields, which auctions about $3 million worth of antique guns each year.

An employee at the city's only gun store said its owners had no comment on the law.

Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the groups suing the city, said that other California cities would enact onerous firearm restrictions if San Francisco won in court. But if it lost, he said, he doubted that the Democratic-majority Legislature would change state law to allow local gun bans.

"Aside from Republicans that respect that right to choose to own guns for self-defense," he said, "there are plenty of Democrats that respect that right too, especially the ones in less urban environments and the Central Valley."


I believe that attorneys from the NRA will be there as well.

rkt88edmo
02-23-2006, 8:42 AM
Wonder how long it will take? 3 days? a week?

bwiese
02-23-2006, 9:33 AM
No wonder Chuck Michel's office is busy!

PanzerAce
02-23-2006, 10:33 AM
Mayor Gavin Newsom all but disowned it just before Election Day. State Attorney General Bill Lockyer and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, strong advocates of assault-weapons bans, have taken no position on the San Francisco law. Of four national gun control groups, only one, which is based here, has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief supporting it.


"They may be now more interested in pursuing a more moderate political strategy, especially given the more conservative political environment they face today," he said.


These two paragraphs were the most interesting to me. Especially that even the gun grabbers are not supporting this measure. Also, I REALLY hope that Kali starts to realize that the liberals are out of control, and start to reign them in.

odysseus
02-23-2006, 10:38 AM
Also, I REALLY hope that Kali starts to realize that the liberals are out of control, and start to reign them in.

I have given up hope of that. So many in Cali don't understand what liberty rights (except maybe 1st amendment) can be like heavily restricted, they then have no feelings about it other than the hype. I have talked to many who actually feel there should be more "Socialism" in California without knowing really what they are saying.

As an example just ask yourself how much tax payers pay per 1 public school student who is so much below par in their academics, and why the teacher's union is so powerful in getting the word out that we need MORE money sent to public education in California. Try debating that with many in California. Logic and sense are not a part of the equation. Now try to talk them about firearms and personal liberty.

Vote for McClintock!

Clodbuster
02-23-2006, 10:48 AM
What I find ironic is if no one is really interested in supporting the measure...how did it get passed...:rolleyes:

Clod

ldivinag
02-23-2006, 10:54 AM
ignorant voters...

lots of ads on the YES people...


i guess those are the reasons.

Mesa Tactical
02-23-2006, 10:55 AM
These two paragraphs were the most interesting to me. Especially that even the gun grabbers are not supporting this measure.

It's a political hot potato. It exposes the lie in the gun-grabbers' repeated insistence that they don't want gun bans, they just want "reasonable" gun control. The savvy political minds (Feinstein, etc) know Mr & Mrs America aren't ready for sweeping gun bans; the less Machiavalian gun-grabbers in SF simply attempted the complete ban they knew they could achieve, regardless of political fallout beyond the city limits.

rips31
02-23-2006, 12:46 PM
What I find ironic is if no one is really interested in supporting the measure...how did it get passed...:rolleyes:

Clod
mostly from rhetoric, ads, liberal media, and making a big deal about firearm violence/murders.

McMadCow
02-23-2006, 1:58 PM
mostly from rhetoric, ads, liberal media, and making a big deal about firearm violence/murders.


Nah, unless you saw something that I didn't. I live in San Fran and I've been following this issue pretty closely. Besides some newspaper writeups on the propositions shortly before the election, I didn't see a single Pro-H ad anywhere. I think that was probably a smart move on behalf of those who supported it, too. If the issue would have received the proper all-out media blitz and scrutiny, more people couple have been educated as to what was involved. As it happened, however, most people just went in to the booths, said "What's this? Ban handguns? Why that would make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside and will win me lots of points with my socialist friends."
Anyway, when the ban gets shot down in court I'll have a smile of smug satisfaction when the voters get it stuck back in their faces that their will does not, in fact, extend above the law.

rips31
02-23-2006, 3:32 PM
Nah, unless you saw something that I didn't. I live in San Fran and I've been following this issue pretty closely. Besides some newspaper writeups on the propositions shortly before the election, I didn't see a single Pro-H ad anywhere. I think that was probably a smart move on behalf of those who supported it, too. If the issue would have received the proper all-out media blitz and scrutiny, more people couple have been educated as to what was involved. As it happened, however, most people just went in to the booths, said "What's this? Ban handguns? Why that would make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside and will win me lots of points with my socialist friends."
Anyway, when the ban gets shot down in court I'll have a smile of smug satisfaction when the voters get it stuck back in their faces that their will does not, in fact, extend above the law.
yea, chris daly spent alot of air-time on this. there were a bunch of articles out on this. but, most ppl just see 'ban handguns' and vote for it, rather than read what it says.