Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-09-2008, 6:50 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,489
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default CA Supreme Court denies SF Handgun Appeal!

All,

Prop H is now fully and finally dead. NRA-ILA is reporting that the California Supreme Court did not grant an appeal in the case and that the court of appeals decision will serve as a final ruling.

Handgun bans are dead in California absent AB 2566's passage.

I've confirmed it with TMLLP! Congrats to NRA, TMLLP, and others on the excellent work!

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

Last edited by hoffmang; 04-09-2008 at 6:54 PM.. Reason: Updated confirmation
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-09-2008, 7:01 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is great news!!

But there must be some mistake, the NRA never does anything meaningful. Any number of people here will tell you, just ask them.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-09-2008, 7:10 PM
jamesob's Avatar
jamesob jamesob is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: exeter
Posts: 4,769
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

im sure they will take all the credit.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-09-2008, 7:13 PM
Stanze's Avatar
Stanze Stanze is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,073
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Good news.

Repeal the AW ban (Roberti-Roos and SB-23) next!

ETA: While they're at it, repeal AB-50 and the "safe" handgun law!
__________________
Constitutionally, officials cannot license or register a fundamental right.

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." - Benjamin Franklin


Quote:
"Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack." -Stanze
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-09-2008, 7:41 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,317
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I just got my email CAL-ERT re it. Great news!



It really shouldn't have been surprising, but with the PRK Sup Ct, you never know.

Now we've got to make sure Loni Hancock's new bill to allow local gov't to pass gun control laws never sees the light of day.
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2008&summary=ab2566
AB2566
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-09-2008, 7:42 PM
tombinghamthegreat's Avatar
tombinghamthegreat tombinghamthegreat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,786
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

This some good news but while we are at it why not stop the ammo bill, microstamping, AWB, HSC requirement, allow 21 year olds to buy handguns.......
__________________
"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense." Ron Paul
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." - Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by forumguy View Post
The same way they enforce all the rest of the BS laws. Only criminals are exempt, while the honest obey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Sometimes I think the function of Calguns is half to refute bad info from gunshops and half to refute bad info from DOJ.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-09-2008, 7:49 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,489
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Because it is not yet (but almost) time for it.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-09-2008, 8:04 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Niiiice!

In a post-Heller world, we won't even have to rely on preemption anymore.

Woo-hoo!!!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-09-2008, 8:15 PM
69Mach1's Avatar
69Mach1 69Mach1 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 15,079
iTrader: 406 / 100%
Default

One more beat down for San Fran. Yeah!
__________________
HIT Armory
40 no. Central Ave.
Upland CA 91786
07 FFL
Law enforcement sales.

909 985-0600


69Mach1
munkeeboi
TURBOELKY
antix2
WTSGDYBBR
tujungatoes
jmpgnr24K
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-09-2008, 8:19 PM
rkt88edmo's Avatar
rkt88edmo rkt88edmo is offline
Reptile&Samurai Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 9,712
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

huzzah
__________________
If it was a snake, it would have bit me.
Use the goog to search calguns
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-09-2008, 8:28 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well, that's something anyway.

I wonder how many more times the City of San Francisco will decide to waste millions of taxpayer's dollars on hopeless legal activities such as this one?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-09-2008, 8:34 PM
MKE's Avatar
MKE MKE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 573
iTrader: 106 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombinghamthegreat View Post
This some good news but while we are at it why not stop the ammo bill, microstamping, AWB, HSC requirement, allow 21 year olds to buy handguns.......
While we're at it - we need to get rid of the "10 days waiting period" or reduce it to 3 days, eliminate the "one handgun per 30 days" rule, and finally, make California a "shall issue" state.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-09-2008, 8:39 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKE View Post
While we're at it - we need to get rid of the "10 days waiting period" or reduce it to 3 days, eliminate the "one handgun per 30 days" rule, and finally, make California a "shall issue" state.
While we're at it, can we also get a legislature that knows how to balance a budget, as well as politicians that put the interests of the people above their own personal self-interests?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-09-2008, 8:44 PM
MKE's Avatar
MKE MKE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 573
iTrader: 106 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
While we're at it, can we also get a legislature that knows how to balance a budget, as well as politicians that put the interests of the people above their own personal self-interests?
I'm afraid this will never happen anytime soon.

I did neglect to mention one more idiotic law -- how about eliminating the stupid handgun roster?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-09-2008, 8:55 PM
tophatjones's Avatar
tophatjones tophatjones is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: East Bay Area
Posts: 1,542
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Hoorah!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-09-2008, 8:59 PM
Socal858's Avatar
Socal858 Socal858 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,069
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

woo

shall issue better be next
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-09-2008, 9:09 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,611
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I'd like to congratulate the citizens and taxpayers of San Francisco. At a time when SF's schools are rotting, SF's public housing projects are unsafe disasters, SF has a projected budget deficit of about $300mil, some might question the wisdom of probably spending about $1mil on legal fees in a hopeless quest to defend a law that everyone their admitted was nothing more than a feel-good measure. SF taxpayers, who cares how many cop-years, teacher-years, pothole repairs, etc, that money could have paid for; you did the right thing because it's about feeling, and it's about providing big legal fees for some law firm that's connected to Mayor Newsom. Carry on, SF!
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-09-2008, 9:26 PM
Knight's Avatar
Knight Knight is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: McKinleyville, CA
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

What effect does this have on Berkeley's attempt to pass their own handgun ban?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-09-2008, 9:29 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,061
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
I'd like to congratulate the citizens and taxpayers of San Francisco. At a time when SF's schools are rotting, SF's public housing projects are unsafe disasters, SF has a projected budget deficit of about $300mil, some might question the wisdom of probably spending about $1mil on legal fees in a hopeless quest to defend a law that everyone their admitted was nothing more than a feel-good measure. SF taxpayers, who cares how many cop-years, teacher-years, pothole repairs, etc, that money could have paid for; you did the right thing because it's about feeling, and it's about providing big legal fees for some law firm that's connected to Mayor Newsom. Carry on, SF!
I agree with you 100%. But this is SF and consider what they most likely would have done with that money. The city would not have spent money on those common sense programs that everyone would benefit from, they'd hand out more benefits to the undeserving or otherwise promote the nanny state. Personally, I prefer they spend the money on a losing effort instead whatever other lloney program they could dream up.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-09-2008, 9:29 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,489
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
Well, that's something anyway.

I wonder how many more times the City of San Francisco will decide to waste millions of taxpayer's dollars on hopeless legal activities such as this one?
Just wait until they get the fees motion from TMLLP and NRA.

No city or county in California can ban guns unless the law is changed so Berkeley is hosed.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-09-2008, 9:30 PM
tombinghamthegreat's Avatar
tombinghamthegreat tombinghamthegreat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,786
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So SF tried to ban guns and is now officially a sanctuary city. Sad to see a city be that screw up and yet the city alone wields a lot of political power in the state.
__________________
"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense." Ron Paul
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." - Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by forumguy View Post
The same way they enforce all the rest of the BS laws. Only criminals are exempt, while the honest obey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Sometimes I think the function of Calguns is half to refute bad info from gunshops and half to refute bad info from DOJ.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-09-2008, 10:24 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,611
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Just wait until they get the fees motion from TMLLP and NRA.
That will be great. It means that the NRA will have more money for more fun lawsuits. SF taxpayers, meanwhile, will have less money for things like police, roads and schools. But SF tax payers don't care about such things, because SF is heading towards bankruptcy anyway.

By the way, read the comments on the SFGate article on this. They are almost all strongly in favor of gun rights, and strongly pissed off about their city leadership, for wasting money, doing something that is hopeless, and trying to take away their rights.
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-09-2008, 11:00 PM
gosparx's Avatar
gosparx gosparx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 602
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

But if all the stupid anti-gun laws are ever actually eliminated or even reduced (one gun per month, handgun roster, hi-cap magazines etc)... I'll go broke!!! Right now, the only real 'will power' I have is that the State prohibits me from buying all the fun stuff I want!!!
__________________
If you know how many guns you have... you don't have enough guns.

People need to remember that the same guys who wrote the 1st Amendment, also wrote the 2nd Amendment... and for the same exact reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-09-2008, 11:03 PM
C.G.'s Avatar
C.G. C.G. is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 6,945
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Great day! First Noveske .308 lowers come out and now this!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-09-2008, 11:59 PM
Steyr_223's Avatar
Steyr_223 Steyr_223 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Raggedy Edge of the Verse, Fremont, California Republic
Posts: 9,509
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Talking S.F. ban on handguns dealt a final defeat

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BARB102OFQ.DTL

(04-09) 17:19 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

The court's unanimous order was a victory for the National Rifle Association, which sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers a day after the measure passed with 58 percent of the vote in November 2005. The initiative has never taken effect.

The ordinance, Proposition H, would have forbidden San Francisco residents to possess handguns, exempting only law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes. It would have also prohibited the manufacture, sale or distribution of any type of firearms or ammunition in San Francisco.

Lower courts ruled that the measure interfered with a statewide system of gun regulation, which bars certain types of weapons and allows others. The rulings did not address the scope of the constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, the focus of a pending U.S. Supreme Court case involving a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.

The state courts recognized that "law-abiding citizens are part of the solution, not part of the problem of violent crime," said Chuck Michel, lawyer for the plaintiffs in the NRA suit. "The authority of local cities to over-regulate firearms is very limited."

Alexis Thompson, spokeswoman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the court's action was disappointing.

"As violence continues to be a pervasive problem in our city, we hope that we can explore other ways to abate the prevalence of handguns on our streets," she said.

In seeking state Supreme Court review, Herrera's office urged the justices to declare that "local governments retain significant, meaningful ... power to protect their residents against gun violence."

The city's lawyers said the use of guns in San Francisco homicides is rising, accounting for 61 percent of all killings in 2001 and 83 percent in 2005, and is particularly high in poor and minority neighborhoods. Gun violence costs San Francisco at least $31.2 million a year for hospital care, police and fire response and jail expenses, the city said.

But the courts said the ordinance was beyond the powers of local government.

Upholding a judge's June 2006 ruling, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said state law left room for some municipal gun control - such as bans on the sale or possession of firearms on public fairgrounds - but "when it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly."

The court relied on its own 1982 ruling striking down a San Francisco ordinance that would have prohibited handgun possession by anyone in the city limits. Drafters of Prop. H sought to comply with the ruling by limiting the ban to city residents.

In a 3-0 ruling Jan. 9, the appeals court said state law allows law-abiding Californians to possess handguns in their homes and businesses and lets them request a concealed-weapons permit or a judge's permission to carry guns in public - authority that leaves no room for a local handgun ban.

The court also said a 1999 state law banning the sale of the cheap pistols known as Saturday-night specials, and setting safety standards for legal firearms, implicitly prohibited local governments from outlawing all handguns.

The appeals judges also refused San Francisco's request to allow enforcement of Prop. H's ban on the manufacturer or sale of rifles and shotguns, saying the city must first rewrite the measure to narrow its scope.

The case is San Francisco vs. Fiscal, S160968.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-10-2008, 12:05 AM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,796
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default



http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=95698
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-10-2008, 1:25 AM
jjperl's Avatar
jjperl jjperl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 934
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKE View Post
While we're at it - we need to get rid of the "10 days waiting period" or reduce it to 3 days, eliminate the "one handgun per 30 days" rule, and finally, make California a "shall issue" state.

Yes! with the exception that that there should be no waiting period, period.
__________________
JJperlArms.com - Your supplier for California compliant FN FAL, AK-47, and AR-15 Maglocks.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-10-2008, 4:10 AM
AfricanHunter's Avatar
AfricanHunter AfricanHunter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SD
Posts: 1,008
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Just wait until they get the fees motion from TMLLP and NRA.

No city or county in California can ban guns unless the law is changed so Berkeley is hosed.

-Gene
Ha! When will we know if they are successful?

Good Job to the NRA and TMLLP
__________________
NRA Life Member

Join The NRA

"America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to change the system from within, yet too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolf

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-10-2008, 6:17 AM
UBFRAGD UBFRAGD is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Shotspotter on every roof
Posts: 2,704
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Can't believe it!! A judiciary smackdown on SF!! This really caught me by surprise!! This is cause for celebration, I'm going to the range after work!! Maybe SF is part of the USA after all!!

Woo hoo!!!

NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA

My cold dead hands too............
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-10-2008, 6:27 AM
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Boise, ID (Previously Hayward, CA)
Posts: 305
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In the SF Gate article, it stated this:

In a 3-0 ruling Jan. 9, the appeals court said state law allows law-abiding Californians to possess handguns in their homes and businesses and lets them request a concealed-weapons permit or a judge's permission to carry guns in public - authority that leaves no room for a local handgun ban.

What exactly are they referring to about the judge's permission?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-10-2008, 7:53 AM
GenLee's Avatar
GenLee GenLee is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,705
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Sweet....... thanks for the update Gene
__________________


"Lest we forget" .... General Robert E. Lee

"Do I have the right to do it?" "Yes, you do" "Can I do it then?" "No, you can't" - Nick

"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will
and moral courage of free men and women. - Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-10-2008, 8:04 AM
ohsmily ohsmily is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: El Dorado Hills (Sac area)
Posts: 7,939
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
Nice. Steyr is too post happy. Shut him down.
__________________
Check out http://www.blitzkriegtactical.com. Support a good calgunner local to San Diego.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-10-2008, 8:05 AM
WokMaster1's Avatar
WokMaster1 WokMaster1 is offline
Part time Emperor
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,443
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steyr_223 View Post
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BARB102OFQ.DTL

(04-09) 17:19 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

The court's unanimous order was a victory for the National Rifle Association, which sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers a day after the measure passed with 58 percent of the vote in November 2005. The initiative has never taken effect.

The ordinance, Proposition H, would have forbidden San Francisco residents to possess handguns, exempting only law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes. It would have also prohibited the manufacture, sale or distribution of any type of firearms or ammunition in San Francisco.

Lower courts ruled that the measure interfered with a statewide system of gun regulation, which bars certain types of weapons and allows others. The rulings did not address the scope of the constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, the focus of a pending U.S. Supreme Court case involving a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.

The state courts recognized that "law-abiding citizens are part of the solution, not part of the problem of violent crime," said Chuck Michel, lawyer for the plaintiffs in the NRA suit. "The authority of local cities to over-regulate firearms is very limited."

Alexis Thompson, spokeswoman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the court's action was disappointing.

"As violence continues to be a pervasive problem in our city, we hope that we can explore other ways to abate the prevalence of handguns on our streets," she said.

In seeking state Supreme Court review, Herrera's office urged the justices to declare that "local governments retain significant, meaningful ... power to protect their residents against gun violence."

The city's lawyers said the use of guns in San Francisco homicides is rising, accounting for 61 percent of all killings in 2001 and 83 percent in 2005, and is particularly high in poor and minority neighborhoods. Gun violence costs San Francisco at least $31.2 million a year for hospital care, police and fire response and jail expenses, the city said.

But the courts said the ordinance was beyond the powers of local government.

Upholding a judge's June 2006 ruling, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said state law left room for some municipal gun control - such as bans on the sale or possession of firearms on public fairgrounds - but "when it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly."

The court relied on its own 1982 ruling striking down a San Francisco ordinance that would have prohibited handgun possession by anyone in the city limits. Drafters of Prop. H sought to comply with the ruling by limiting the ban to city residents.

In a 3-0 ruling Jan. 9, the appeals court said state law allows law-abiding Californians to possess handguns in their homes and businesses and lets them request a concealed-weapons permit or a judge's permission to carry guns in public - authority that leaves no room for a local handgun ban.
The court also said a 1999 state law banning the sale of the cheap pistols known as Saturday-night specials, and setting safety standards for legal firearms, implicitly prohibited local governments from outlawing all handguns.

The appeals judges also refused San Francisco's request to allow enforcement of Prop. H's ban on the manufacturer or sale of rifles and shotguns, saying the city must first rewrite the measure to narrow its scope.

The case is San Francisco vs. Fiscal, S160968.

The story might be dupe but the details are not. See hi-lighted line. If the Fong & Hennesy will not issue a CCW to it's residents, does it mean that one can appeal through a judge? Interesting.... Can the "right people" chime in?
__________________
"Good friends, good food & good wine. Anything else is just a waste of soy sauce.":)
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-10-2008, 8:35 AM
savageevo's Avatar
savageevo savageevo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Damn its hot here!!!
Posts: 1,233
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

good point. So does that mean that a judge has the authority to issue a CCW also. It is not clear because it states "to carry guns in public" it didn't say Concealed.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-10-2008, 8:46 AM
ibanezfoo's Avatar
ibanezfoo ibanezfoo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Bastrop County, TX
Posts: 7,021
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steyr_223 View Post
The court also said a 1999 state law banning the sale of the cheap pistols known as Saturday-night specials...
This is good news but this line here... Isn't this incorrect? Isn't Saturday night special actually a racist thing and a specifically a .38 snub nose revolver? I thought they were called "Saturday night ni**er town specials" and people (media) still throw this term around like its no big deal....

-Bryan
__________________
"A rational mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp of reality to anyone’s orders, directives, or controls; it does not sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone’s opinions, threats, wishes, plans, or “welfare.” Such a mind may be hampered by others, it may be silenced, proscribed, imprisoned, or destroyed; it cannot be forced; a gun is not an argument."
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-10-2008, 8:50 AM
1911_sfca's Avatar
1911_sfca 1911_sfca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,259
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

From my cold dead hands!!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-10-2008, 9:24 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It is a sad condition of the people here where such a small improvement seems a huge victory. "Congratulations, you lost eight of your toes to gangrene, but we did save the other two!"
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-10-2008, 9:32 AM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 2,679
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
In the SF Gate article, it stated this:

In a 3-0 ruling Jan. 9, the appeals court said state law allows law-abiding Californians to possess handguns in their homes and businesses and lets them request a concealed-weapons permit or a judge's permission to carry guns in public - authority that leaves no room for a local handgun ban.

What exactly are they referring to about the judge's permission?
IIRC, if a judge issues a restraining order for your protection he could also issue an order for the local CLEO to issue you a CCW too.
__________________

...... you cant have no idea how little I care "

Monte (Tom Selleck) - 'Monte Walsh'

"It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger--and I won't."

John Wayne as John Bernard (J. B.) Books in The Shootist
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-10-2008, 9:35 AM
WokMaster1's Avatar
WokMaster1 WokMaster1 is offline
Part time Emperor
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,443
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by savageevo View Post
good point. So does that mean that a judge has the authority to issue a CCW also. It is not clear because it states "to carry guns in public" it didn't say Concealed.
Open carry & loaded. You'll probably have a wear a badge & vest that says "Judge Judy approved".....something like that..
__________________
"Good friends, good food & good wine. Anything else is just a waste of soy sauce.":)
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-10-2008, 9:41 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,489
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin2 View Post
It is a sad condition of the people here where such a small improvement seems a huge victory. "Congratulations, you lost eight of your toes to gangrene, but we did save the other two!"
Yellowfin,

Would you prefer we lose? Sounds like it. I bet you're an absolutist who told his boss this morning that if he didn't make you a millionaire today you quit, right?

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:29 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.