PDA

View Full Version : Berkeley lawmaker trying for handgun ban


CowboyShooter
04-08-2008, 9:00 AM
Saw this in the local fish wrapper today. Funny, the online version includes both sides of the story, (such as it is) but the printed version was edited to where the only comments were from "anti gun" spokespeople... had me scratching my head because the title of the article made it seem like there would be some foaming at the mouth gun-rights "activist" ranting... :D

I still don't get why the "anti's" condemn handguns and every example they use involves CRIMINALS using handguns to commit crimes. HOW exactly do they think a "ban" on handguns is going to take the guns away from the criminals? Johnny Banger is gonna just say "uh oh, it's illegal for me to have a handgun in this city, so I's betta turn in my piece"...??? What loons.


Gun-rights activists up in arms
Berkeley lawmaker pushes local ban on handguns
By Josh Richman, STAFF WRITER
Article Created: 04/08/2008 02:35:13 AM PDT

An East Bay lawmaker's bill to clear the way for local handgun bans has a committee hearing today, delving into issues now pending before the state and nation's highest courts.

Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, authored Assembly Bill 2566 in reaction to a state Court of Appeal ruling in January which upheld the voiding of San Francisco's Measure H of 2005, approved by voters to bar city residents from owning handguns or from making or selling firearms or ammunition in the city.

The California Supreme Court is mulling whether to review this ruling, which found state law leaves no room for cities and counties to ban handgun ownership; Hancock's bill, to be heard today by the Assembly Public Safety Committee, seeks to create that room by removing the state pre-emption entirely.

Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban is now the subject of the biggest gun-rights case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in almost 70 years. The high court will rule by late June on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to gun ownership, rather than just a collective right to guns for the common defense as part of a state militia.

Richmond activist Andres Soto said the Legal Community Against Violence a San Francisco nonprofit that helped draft the bill believes that case won't directly affect this bill because of Washington's status as a federal district, distinct from the states. Soto said he sees this as "a domestic disarmament" crucial to the East Bay's gun-plagued communities.

(This is where the printed version stopped...)

Hancock said the bill is inspired by victims such as an Oakland boy hit by a stray bullet and paralyzed while at his piano lesson and a Richmond woman shot and killed in her doorway by a gang member.

Handguns are "weapons of mass destruction in some of our inner cities," she said, and local governments need this tool at their disposal to quell the violence.

"Many times when enough individual local governments take an action, state action follows and federal action follows," Hancock said. "It's the people on the ground experiencing the problem every day that tend to be innovative and want to push the envelope, and I've seen the communities I represent staggering under the burden of gun violence for too long."

Gun-rights activists disagree.

"Aside from the fact that, obviously, disarming civilians and depriving them of the most effective tool there is for self-defense or defending their families, its not a good policy decision," said California Rifle and Pistol Association attorney Chuck Michel of Long Beach.

"The law is confusing enough as it is right now," he said, with the California Law Revision Commission already studying the need to simplify and reorganize Penal Code sections dealing with deadly weapons; that panel's report is due by July 2009.

"The reason they passed pre-emption in the first place was so people wouldn't have to worry about violating a different set of laws every time they drove across a city line," Michel said. "Uniformity is very important."

Soto said that's "a red herring," as this bill wouldn't affect existing state laws on handgun transportation but rather would let cities bar residents from owning handguns.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office said Monday he has not yet taken a position on this bill.

Josh Richman can be reached at 510-208-6428 or jrichman@bayareanewsgroup.com. Read his Political Blotter blog at http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics.

razorx
04-08-2008, 9:28 AM
This is just the intellectual elite trying to one up each other for bragging rights at the next soiree.

It has nothing to do with reducing crime or caring about those individuals that are shot, but more about a reaction to Heller (have to do something) so that they can still maintain their illusion of being the sole guiding light of ethical behavior as they lead America out of the land of Neanderthalism.

Patriot
04-08-2008, 9:35 AM
Technically speaking, if they were to remove state preemption, would local governments be able to pass less restrictive handgun laws as well as more restrictive laws? :confused:

CowboyShooter
04-08-2008, 9:42 AM
Technically speaking, if they were to remove state preemption, would local governments be able to pass less restrictive handgun laws as well as more restrictive laws? :confused:

Patriot gets the "glass half full" award of the day. :D

CCWFacts
04-08-2008, 9:45 AM
Technically speaking, if they were to remove state preemption, would local governments be able to pass less restrictive handgun laws as well as more restrictive laws? :confused:

That's something I was wondering. Could Alpine County then mandate ownership of AWs? "No adult citizen who is not barred from possessing arms may be present in Alpine County without a semi-automatic rifle and five loaded 30-round magazines for said rifle."

I'm sure it won't work that way, but it's a funny idea. They'll make it so it applies to residents only, which is hilarious, because that's basically saying, "we're ok with people from all over the state coming here and possessing and carrying guns, but our own voters and taxpaying residents, we don't trust them."

I don't think anything like this will pass but we need to watch it and send in the letters.

mymonkeyman
04-08-2008, 10:21 AM
Technically speaking, if they were to remove state preemption, would local governments be able to pass less restrictive handgun laws as well as more restrictive laws? :confused:

No.

Well, yes but it would not have the effect you want. You would still be bound to the state's more restrictive laws.

Piper
04-08-2008, 10:38 AM
I think the state is going to maintain a very selfish grip on pre-emtion and in this case, that's a good thing. At this point I would bet that the PRK is also keeping a very close eye on Heller. I'm still very confident that the we will prevail in Heller. Kennedy and even to a certain extent Ginsberg seemed pretty receptive to the pro-2A arguement. As for this bill, I think that the anti's are starting to panic and introduce this kind of trash as a frantic effort to just get something passed before SCOTUS rules against them.

Patriot
04-08-2008, 11:58 AM
No.

Well, yes but it would not have the effect you want. You would still be bound to the state's more restrictive laws.

So they can enact stricter laws for residents but not more lenient ones. How typical.

yellowfin
04-08-2008, 12:15 PM
I find it curious that I haven't heard explaination for why the previous dozens or hundreds of laws enacted on the same premise haven't done anything to reduce crime at all, particularly when the rest of the country is going the other direction and having fewer problems. Oh THIS one will work...but that's what they said the last time. Same speeches, same save little Johnny crap. What reason does anyone have to believe that it'll work this time? They're like a bum buying lottery tickets.

mymonkeyman
04-08-2008, 12:23 PM
So they can enact stricter laws for residents but not more lenient ones. How typical.

That's not a feature of the particular law at issue but just the nature of conflict of laws analysis absent non-conflict preemption (i.e. explicit preemption, field preemption, etc.). If the fed and state and municipal all regulate the same thing and the fed & state disavow explicit & field preemption, then you must obey all the laws, which effectively means obeying the strictest. However, often there is no purely strictest, i.e. a law which obeying would necessarily cause you to obey the law of the other sovereigns. For example, when the fed AW ban was around, the Fed and CA AW laws were different and had different elements about what was a prohibited feature and how many prohibited features you had. There was no preemption, so you simply had to run down the list of features under federal law, then run down the list of features of state law and made sure you didn't violate either. Without preemption, it's really simple, you have to obey all the laws, even if they are similar or overlap in complex ways.

Now, if a government passes a law that directly conflicts with another government's law, i.e. that it is impossible to obey one without violating the other, then you have conflict preemption, and you simply obey federal before state/municipal and state before municipal. So even with this proposed de-preemption law, if Alpine County passed a law requiring everyone to own AWs, it would be conflict preempted by the state AW law. That is because the proposed law only removes explicit preemption and other forms of preemption could still apply in certain cases.

chris
04-08-2008, 1:08 PM
i would not put it pass this state to pass such a bill. look at all the wacky crap that has passed. even though this one is way out there it's not surprising.

Ceemack
04-08-2008, 1:47 PM
I think you're all being far too negative. I mean, if Oakland could pass a law preventing its residents from owning handguns, gang members like the one who shot the boy at his piano lesson would clearly be unable to obtain one.

/sarcasm off

Seriously, it's terrible that people suffer so much from gun violence. It's equally terrible that elected officials won't take effective action (like, you know, law enforcement) and focus their energies instead on feel-goodism like general gun laws that won't help anybody.

yellowfin
04-08-2008, 1:56 PM
What's worse is that they work so hard to keep guns out of the hands of regular citizens which enables the violent crime to happen in the first place! Good grief, what kind of warped alternative reality are these people living in?!?!

CCWFacts
04-08-2008, 2:29 PM
What's worse is that they work so hard to keep guns out of the hands of regular citizens which enables the violent crime to happen in the first place! Good grief, what kind of warped alternative reality are these people living in?!?!

They're living in real reality. There are a lot of criminals. Crime is a business. All businesses are politically active and lobby politicians to protect their interests. In Oakland, Your Black Muslim Bakery had a lot of political power, and also functioned as a criminal organization. They could get access to legislators. Also Uhuru House in Oakland is a political-active criminally-linked group. These groups lobby for their interests, and they naturally want gun control.

Same thing in DC. Marion Barry was a rep who was openly linked to criminal interests in that city.

Satex
04-08-2008, 2:56 PM
I whole heartedly support a full gun ban in Berkeley. Hand in hand, I also support a law enforcement ban in that city. It's the city of love, justice, and equality. There is absolutely no need for guns and law enforcement in such a place.

Patriot
04-08-2008, 3:05 PM
That's not a feature of the particular law at issue but just the nature of conflict of laws analysis absent non-conflict preemption (i.e. explicit preemption, field preemption, etc.).

First, thank you for your post (it was informative).

Second, let me clarify: my "typical" comment was not directed at the particular law so much as it was a more generalized political/philosophical jab.

SKG19
04-08-2008, 4:55 PM
Why would anyone even think about Handgun bans until the Heller ruling comes down...seems like a waste of time. oh yeah that's right, they're MORONS.