PDA

View Full Version : San Francisco - SFPC 36A still on books - why?


aberrant
02-23-2012, 9:37 AM
Can someone please clear something up for me? (Please forgive me if this has been addressed already; I searched but didn't find anything.)

CA Prop H (2005) was struck down. However, SF Police Code section 36A is apparently still on the books. It specifically references Prop H and forbids possession of handguns and ammunition within city limits.

Given the recent cases in DC and Chicago, this restriction would likely be declared unconstitutional, especially since the proposition it seeks to implement was struck down.

Why is it still on the books, and does it have any teeth? Is this one of the reasons many mail-order ammunition stores won't sell to SF residents?

Gray Peterson
02-23-2012, 9:53 AM
Dead letter.

BlindRacer
02-23-2012, 9:54 AM
I'd bet that ultimately there is no teeth to it, but they left it on the books to confuse people, and make gun laws difficult to understand, so that it keeps people from going through the hassle of ownership. Could be wrong though.

aberrant
02-23-2012, 9:55 AM
Dead letter.

So it won't / can't be enforced, or is it just that it hasn't been challenged for removal yet?

stix213
02-23-2012, 11:19 AM
I believe its up to the city/county to remove the language once the courts have struck it down.

Librarian
02-23-2012, 11:31 AM
Similarly, the old definition of 'loaded' is on the books but has been replaced by the People v Clark meaning, and the ammunition sales junk from AB 962 is still on the books, even though thrown out in court.

That's one of the reasons reading just the laws is such a minefield.

Markinsac
02-23-2012, 2:00 PM
It would be nice to have the court order that the language be removed from illegal codes as part of the ruling. Imagine THAT contempt of court proceeding if not done . . . .:smash:

Wherryj
02-24-2012, 9:11 AM
Similarly, the old definition of 'loaded' is on the books but has been replaced by the People v Clark meaning, and the ammunition sales junk from AB 962 is still on the books, even though thrown out in court.

That's one of the reasons reading just the laws is such a minefield.

Minefield is the perfect analogy as well. A minefield is planted with the intention that the unaware may run into extreme difficulty.

These laws are intentionally left on the books, and vague laws are intentionally left vague, for precisely the same reason. They are all just ways to ensnare the innocent person who just happens to wander too close.

I have NO idea how "ignorance is no excuse" has survived to this day. Not only are there too many laws for ANYONE to be "reaonably aware" of all of them, but these laws are unconstitutionally and irrationally vague. Many are left on the books after being determined to be unconstititional. It clearly demonstrates the corruption involved in the legal process.