PDA

View Full Version : NRA/CRPAF Lawsuit Forces San Francisco to Amend City Law; City Still Gets It Wrong


oaklander
04-08-2011, 2:44 PM
From the press release - not sure if this has been posted before - BUT - it shows how local governments can pass laws that ignore Constitutional rights, the state Constitution, and even common sense.

The issue here is that San Francisco is now forcing its taxpayers to pay to defend this. SF WILL LOSE, and the taxpayers will foot the bill - merely because some political sprites in city hall are not connected to the idea of "constitutional laws."

NRA/CRPAF Lawsuit Forces San Francisco to Amend City Law; City Still Gets It Wrong

4/7/2011

San Francisco just can't seem to get self-defense civil rights right. San Francisco politicians reacted hostilely to the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings affirming that the Second Amendment does protect an individual civil right to keep and bear arms from infringement by any level of government. And despite the express guidance from the Supreme Court that individuals have a right to use firearms to defend themselves from violent criminals, the City has nonetheless maintained a blanket prohibition on the discharge of firearms since 1938 - even in self-defense emergencies.For 73 years, San Francisco law was no firearm discharges allowed - no exceptions.

Then the National Rifle Association (NRA) and California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation (CRPAF) filed a lawsuit challenging the City's discharge prohibition, along with the City's requirements that all firearms be stored inoperable in the home so they are useless for immediate self-defense, and its ban on the sale of self-defense ammunition. Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, No. C09-2143 (N.D. Cal)

While the Jackson case was being litigated the City amended its firearm discharge prohibition ordinance on March 15, 2011, acknowledging in the process that it cannot completely prohibit the rights of citizens to discharge a firearm in self-defense. The City claims the amendment had nothing to do with the lawsuit. Considering the timing, and the fact that the City has never cleaned up its municipal code on other gun control ordinances, including those struck down by courts, call us skeptical.

Regardless, in typical San Francisco style, the City's amendment got more wrong than it got right. The ordinance provides only one self-defense exception to the ban on the discharge of firearms.

"(a)The provisions of Section 4502 [discharge prohibition] shall not apply to or affect: 'Persons in lawful possession of a handgun who discharge said handgun in necessary and lawful defense of self or others while in a personal residence.' San Francisco Police Code section 4506 (a)(2)."

So the City's recalcitrant effort to comply with the Constitution only authorizes residents to discharge lawfully possessed handguns, in the home, for self-defense or the defense of others.

Rather than acknowledge its residents' broad constitutional right to self-defense, San Francisco opted to send a message to its residents that if they discharge a rifle or shotgun (as opposed to a handgun) in self-defense, or if they discharge any type of firearm to thwart a violent attacker at their place of business or anywhere else outside the home, that the only right they have is "the right to remain silent" in the face of criminal prosecution for violating the city ordinance.

San Francisco has been aggressively pushing the legal limits of gun control for years. The City's latest effort reflects its consistent inclination to resist and limit the fundamental civil right to self-defense, and the right to choose to own a gun for that purpose. Considering that San Franciscans have historically embraced and zealously defended the concepts of freedom and individual rights, it's particularly ironic that San Francisco refuses to embrace the fundamental individual civil right to keep and bear arms. This approach reflects same bigotry and hostility to the rights of others that San Francisco is quick to condemn in other civil rights contexts. And it makes city politicians hypocrites.

San Francisco's officials now find themselves conflicted, because they have been handed a constitutional civil right that does not fit in with their personal notions of what constitutes one. But the Constitution does not allow them, or us, to pick and choose. The only honest, unbigoted choice is to swallow hard, embrace that newly confirmed right, and defend it adamantly- like every other. Those who chose to own a gun to defend themselves or their families seem to understand the civics of individual rights better than the city's self-anointed civil rights champions.

The ludicrous new ordinance is far from constitutionally compliant. NRA and CRPAF will continue to aggressively litigate the issue until the right of law abiding individuals to defend themselves from violent criminals is completely restored. To follow the progress of this case and other efforts to defend the rights of firearm owners in California, please register at www.calgunlaws.com.

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA "Local Ordinance Project" (LOP) - a statewide campaign to fight ill conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonald legal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to pro-actively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California. Sometimes, success is more likely when LAP's litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released.

To see a partial list of the LOP and LAP accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA or to the NRA/CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit www.nraila.com and www.crpafoundation.org.

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 2:52 PM
:dupe: better than the original HAHAHA http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=417930

dfletcher
04-08-2011, 3:01 PM
So far as San Francisco is concerned, to be "in lawful possession" of a handgun means it must be stored locked - if it's not stored locked one is not in lawful possession, correct? So, a fellow shoots a bad guy, the cops arrive and he informs them (yes I know - shut up with PD) he took the gun out of a drawer or from under the bed and "bang". He has violated storage, is not in legal possession and can be charged with a discharge violation - yes?

Maybe that's why they didn't include long guns - it allowed them to weasel in that "violation".

Bhobbs
04-08-2011, 3:07 PM
So far as San Francisco is concerned, to be "in lawful possession" of a handgun means it must be stored locked - if it's not stored locked one is not in lawful possession, correct? So, a fellow shoots a bad guy, the cops arrive and he informs them (yes I know - shut up with PD) he took the gun out of a drawer or from under the bed and "bang". He has violated storage, is not in legal possession and can be charged with a discharge violation - yes?

Maybe that's why they didn't include long guns - it allowed them to weasel in that "violation".

That's what I'm thinking. There is no way to defend yourself and still follow the law.

Heatseeker
04-08-2011, 4:07 PM
The inmates continue to run the asylum.

Once again, the shame of being born and raised in SF rears it's ugly head.

oaklander
04-08-2011, 4:08 PM
LOL - I'll have to tell him how to paste!!!!

:D

Maybe the mods can merge? Easier to read here than click, etc. . .


:dupe: better than the original HAHAHA http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=417930

gunsmith
04-08-2011, 4:14 PM
you're allowed to ccw or open carry in your home, I think the unloaded/locked up rule is only for storage, not that anyone in SF gives a flip

mofugly13
04-08-2011, 4:22 PM
The inmates continue to run the asylum.

Once again, the shame of being born and raised in SF rears it's ugly head.

No shame. Born and rasised, and still here! I ain't leaving, I am proud to be a non-(stereo)typical San Franciscan.

dfletcher
04-08-2011, 4:57 PM
you're allowed to ccw or open carry in your home, I think the unloaded/locked up rule is only for storage, not that anyone in SF gives a flip

Got that, but was thinking of a circumstance where a person has a loaded handgun stashed under the bed or in a closet and uses it. Then SFPD shows up and asks "what happened?" and the homeowner says "I heard a noise, I got my gun and shot to save my life". Granted, if the person knew the law and started with "I always carry my gun at home" or "I unlocked my handgun from its case" the result may change - but I think that doesn't reflect the fashion in which most handguns are kept in the home, even in SF.

CHS
04-08-2011, 5:11 PM
Wow..

So if a visiting CA resident who carries a valid CCW and is packing a concealed firearm must engage a mugger and discharges on the street, he is still in violation of the law by defending his life.

oaklander
04-08-2011, 6:25 PM
SF would be dumb if they pressed the issue in that case. . .

;)

Wow..

So if a visiting CA resident who carries a valid CCW and is packing a concealed firearm must engage a mugger and discharges on the street, he is still in violation of the law by defending his life.

CMonfort
04-08-2011, 7:21 PM
Thanks for the repost Oaklander. I posted the link the first time in case anyone was interested in reviewing the related documents that were provided in clickable links on calgunlaws.

Update: The Court requested supplemental briefing on the discharge issue since the City amended just before filing their reply brief on the MTD.

oaklander
04-08-2011, 10:00 PM
No prob!

You guys are kicking behind on this stuff - and kicking behinds that need kicking, etc. . .

:D

Thanks for the repost Oaklander. I posted the link the first time in case anyone was interested in reviewing the related documents that were provided in clickable links on calgunlaws.

Update: The Court requested supplemental briefing on the discharge issue since the City amended just before filing their reply brief on the MTD.

sfbadger
04-08-2011, 10:39 PM
There is no way to defend yourself and still follow the law.

As a lifelong SF resident, I do not care. No one is coming into my home to commit a crime and leaving in good health!

gunsmith
04-10-2011, 10:04 PM
When I lived in SF there was an instance of a guy finding a burglar in his garage, he grabbed the perps gun and chased him shooting at him- no charges were even considered afaik.

I've found that SF cops are really cool & not looking to jam you up, always know the as much as you possibly can about the law when you own a gun though.

Window_Seat
04-10-2011, 10:13 PM
No shame. Born and rasised, and still here! I ain't leaving, I am proud to be a non-(stereo)typical San Franciscan.As a lifelong SF resident, I do not care. No one is coming into my home to commit a crime and leaving in good health!

I was born in raised there as well, and SF has become ridiculous, but anyone who lives there and is willing to fight the fight from within the belly of the beast deserves a standing attaboy/gal from everyone here! It's you who will make SF a better place someday soon. :thumbsup:

Erik.

sfbadger
04-10-2011, 10:25 PM
A few years ago there was a case in SF of a woman who had a restraining order against her ex-husband. One day as she was starting to drive, her ex stepped out in front of her vehicle, which caused her to stop. He then began shooting at her. She shot back with her handgun she had pulled from her purse, through her windshield, killing him. Even though she did not poses a CCW, no charges were brought against her. An SF cop was quoted as saying it was a classic case of self defense. It almost sounded like they were proud of her, I know I was!

N6ATF
04-10-2011, 10:41 PM
12031(j)(2):
(2) A violation of this section is justifiable when a person who
possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave
danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current
restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons
who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or
safety.

safewaysecurity
04-10-2011, 10:47 PM
Is the California Constitution's Self-Defense clause being mentioned in this case? Is this in the state courts or federal? I'm too lazy to read.

tonelar
04-10-2011, 11:20 PM
There's also the elderly couple from Hunter's Point. He wakes to the sound of an intruder, retrieves his revolver from their night stand and shoots the perp at their bedroom door.
No safe storage or discharge within city limits charges there either. IIRC, the SFPD sargeant practically commended the man for standing up for himself.

Never the less; city hall does need to amend its anti-gun statutes.

sfbadger
04-10-2011, 11:42 PM
Never the less; city hall does need to amend its anti-gun statutes.

No doubt about it. There is a huge disconnect between the average citizens of San Francisco and the elitist power brokers in the City government!

CALawyer
04-11-2011, 12:39 AM
Wow...

I call myself a moderate. On many issues, others would call me a liberal progressive.

As such, despite being the the owner of a simple Remington 870, I hesitated to join this forum. But this article inspired me to click register. (I was also impressed by the seven pages on Jerry Brown. Pretty reasonable views there by and large).

It really upsets me to see elected officials writing such stupid legislation, not to mention legislation that insults the most basic concepts of individual rights.

So, how can I help?

safewaysecurity
04-11-2011, 12:44 AM
Wow...

I call myself a moderate. On many issues, others would call me a liberal progressive.

As such, despite being the the owner of a simple Remington 870, I hesitated to join this forum. But this article inspired me to click register. (I was also impressed by the seven pages on Jerry Brown. Pretty reasonable views there by and large).

It really upsets me to see elected officials writing such stupid legislation, not to mention legislation that insults the most basic concepts of individual rights.

So, how can I help?

We will convert you. Just log on often and be open minded.

Alaric
04-11-2011, 12:46 AM
Wow...

I call myself a moderate. On many issues, others would call me a liberal progressive.

As such, despite being the the owner of a simple Remington 870, I hesitated to join this forum. But this article inspired me to click register. (I was also impressed by the seven pages on Jerry Brown. Pretty reasonable views there by and large).

It really upsets me to see elected officials writing such stupid legislation, not to mention legislation that insults the most basic concepts of individual rights.

So, how can I help?

Welcome to the forum.

Stick around, pitch in, volunteer to help if you can. Donate time or money to the various groups and foundations (NRA, CRPA, CGF, etc.). There's many ways to help in whatever way best suits your proclivities and skills.

sfbadger
04-11-2011, 12:56 AM
Wow...

I call myself a moderate. On many issues, others would call me a liberal progressive.

As such, despite being the the owner of a simple Remington 870, I hesitated to join this forum. But this article inspired me to click register. (I was also impressed by the seven pages on Jerry Brown. Pretty reasonable views there by and large).

It really upsets me to see elected officials writing such stupid legislation, not to mention legislation that insults the most basic concepts of individual rights.

So, how can I help?

Welcome to Calguns! Don't let the Conservative rants scare you. We're a great big, (if not always happy), family! :D

DRM6000
04-11-2011, 1:17 PM
When I lived in SF there was an instance of a guy finding a burglar in his garage, he grabbed the perps gun and chased him shooting at him- no charges were even considered afaik.

I've found that SF cops are really cool & not looking to jam you up, always know the as much as you possibly can about the law when you own a gun though.

i remember a similar situation in sf. a guy returns home and find a burglar on the steps leaving his home. a fight ensues and the burglar produces a gun, but loses it in the struggle. the resident recovers it and the bad guy runs away. the guy shoots at the fleeing dirtbag and hits him in the ***. i'm not sure if the victim was arrested, but he did go with the police. the news article reported that he was released a few hours later.

rips31
04-11-2011, 1:56 PM
is there any possibility of suing the city/county of sf to stop violating my civil rights and stop wasting money on these asinine actions of theirs?

i'd much prefer them spending the cash on a sfpd academy class than a boat/vacation/carribean island for alan gura/chuck michel/nra/crpa/etc. :rolleyes:

N6ATF
04-11-2011, 2:08 PM
is there any possibility of suing the city/county of sf to stop violating my civil rights and stop wasting money on these asinine actions of theirs?

i'd much prefer them spending the cash on a sfpd academy class than a boat/vacation/carribean island for alan gura/chuck michel/nra/crpa/etc. :rolleyes:

The only way to stop SF.gov from violating civil rights is to eliminate it. Unfortunately, no lawsuit can bankrupt the treasury, seize all assets of the officials, and have all the personal and .gov property liquidated at auction.

oaklander
04-11-2011, 2:40 PM
You would need what is called "standing."

There's ways to get it. . .

<evil grin>

is there any possibility of suing the city/county of sf to stop violating my civil rights and stop wasting money on these asinine actions of theirs?

i'd much prefer them spending the cash on a sfpd academy class than a boat/vacation/carribean island for alan gura/chuck michel/nra/crpa/etc. :rolleyes:

rips31
04-11-2011, 4:13 PM
i LOVE it when you say stuff like that...

let us know if you need help with our 'fair' city. would be an honour to assist.

You would need what is called "standing."

There's ways to get it. . .

<evil grin>

awall919
04-11-2011, 4:39 PM
As always, your input is appreciated. I'm always educated in something new and interesting when I follow your threads, so thanks. that being said I must disagree with the idea of local law ect. being able to override constitutional rights to an extent (like most laws the constitution isn't completely perfect), And my opinion is that some things do need to change with the change of the times and when you take into account different legal issues in different areas, but where does the line get crossed? If scenarios like this keep playing out and tiny bits of the constitution are chipped away at eventually it will be literally nothing more than a piece of history nothing more. Personally, and I assume the majority will agree, i'd like to see that important document in operation forever.