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 05-19-2009, 1:28 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,448
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default NRA coalition suit: Jackson v SF ("Safe" Storage)

Today, NRA filed a federal suit against the City of San Francisco entitled Jackson v. San Francisco.

The complaint alleges that the requirement to keep handguns unloaded or trigger locked or otherwise in a locked case is exactly the kind of unconstitutional interference with the right to self defense struck down in Heller. The suit also challenges the fact that the "no discharge" ordinance has no exception for self defense. Further the suit challenges the ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition or any ammunition that is not suitable for "sporting purposes" in San Francisco.

Note that the changes in Nordyke's status may impact the timing of this case.

-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
  #2  
Old 05-19-2009, 1:30 AM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,103
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Folks - this is how it is done.

Kudo's to the coalition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Today, NRA filed a federal suit against the City of San Francisco entitled Jackson v. San Francisco.

The complaint alleges that the requirement to keep handguns unloaded or trigger locked or otherwise in a locked case is exactly the kind of unconstitutional interference with the right to self defense struck down in Heller. The suit also challenges the fact that the "no discharge" ordinance has no exception for self defense. Further the suit challenges the ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition or any ammunition that is not suitable for "sporting purposes" in San Francisco.

Note that the changes in Nordyke's status may impact the timing of this case.

-Gene
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-19-2009, 1:32 AM
Dr. Peter Venkman's Avatar
Dr. Peter Venkman Dr. Peter Venkman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 4,217
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Snap!
__________________

"America is not at war. The Marine Corps is at war; America is at the mall."
Quote:
Originally Posted by berto View Post
You're right. There's no possible way that CGN members marching alongside the Pink Pistols in the SF Pride Parade can do anything to dispel the stereotype that gun owners are conservative bigots clinging to their guns and bibles. Not a single person in the crowd is rational or reachable because the parade's for gay folks and it's in SF.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-19-2009, 1:34 AM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,720
iTrader: 162 / 100%
Default

Meaning another unscheduled donation... You people...
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23436916
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-19-2009, 2:04 AM
bigcalidave's Avatar
bigcalidave bigcalidave is offline
Pre-Banned
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: St. George, UT
Posts: 4,817
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Gene you're up way too late. I hope my last donation buys you a few cases of rockstar

Stay busy!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-19-2009, 2:07 AM
gcvt's Avatar
gcvt gcvt is online now
How dare you?
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco :(
Posts: 10,462
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

HALLE-FREAKIN'-LUJAH!!!!!!!!!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
I want to be Princess Anastasia today because I feel pretty
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuarterBoreGunner View Post
Kes is really just an errand boy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
I am NOT...anything other than a schmuck...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-19-2009, 2:12 AM
Joe Joe is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 5,762
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

This is awesome, but what if incorporation gets screwed through the en banc hearing of Nordyke?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-19-2009, 2:13 AM
DDT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
This is awesome, but what if incorporation gets screwed through the en banc hearing of Nordyke?
Then we go 5-4 SCOTUS.

ETA: as long as we keep them healthy.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-19-2009, 2:26 AM
gcvt's Avatar
gcvt gcvt is online now
How dare you?
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco :(
Posts: 10,462
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

I always wondered how Gavin, Kamala, Heather, Alison and even slept at night. Now I just wonder the same thing but for different reasons
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
I want to be Princess Anastasia today because I feel pretty
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuarterBoreGunner View Post
Kes is really just an errand boy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
I am NOT...anything other than a schmuck...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-19-2009, 2:34 AM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 3,906
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Excellent
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-19-2009, 7:27 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,702
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

If the NRA wins this I have a nice hefty contribution for them ready to go.

This is the type of thing I rejoice in seeing from the NRA and I hope to see more and more of this going forward.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-19-2009, 11:10 AM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Once again, we see "the coalition" going after low-hanging fruit, building up caselaw, and not going for the KO first, last, and always. Naturally, something Heller explicitly forbade is good to go.

How's "death by a thousand cuts" feel when you're on the other end, Sarah Brady?

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-19-2009, 11:20 AM
Liberty1's Avatar
Liberty1 Liberty1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,543
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
If the NRA wins this I have a nice hefty contribution for them ready to go.
Why not help them now? They're doing the right thing win or loose right?
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-19-2009, 11:22 AM
Erik S. Klein Erik S. Klein is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 202
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty1 View Post
Why not help them now? They're doing the right thing win or loose right?
Agreed.

Two checks just went into the mail today (NRA and NRA-ILA). . .
__________________
Erik
NRA Life Member
Sig fan.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-19-2009, 11:31 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,702
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

I am helping them "now" through a 2 year membership for myself and a 1 year for my wife. I have made a promise to give them bonus contributions for each 2a court case they win that affects CA (state or federal level). I am looking for a "win" that sets a precedent. This would qualify in that regard.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-19-2009, 11:33 AM
tboyer's Avatar
tboyer tboyer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 632
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default For the full story

You may want to leave a comment on sfgate

http://tinyurl.com/q839o2
NRA sues S.F. over firearms laws

Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The National Rifle Association has filed suit against the city of San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom and Police Chief Heather Fong, taking aim at city laws it contends violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The NRA filed the lawsuit in federal court Friday on behalf of six residents and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association. It challenges three provisions of the city's police code that it says interfere with their right "to defend themselves and others ... within their own homes."
The provisions are:
-- A requirement that handguns in San Francisco homes be kept in a locked cabinet or disabled with a trigger lock.
-- A ban on the sale of fragmenting bullets - a particularly deadly type of ammunition.
-- A city ordinance that prohibits the discharge of firearms within city limits. The law has been on the books since 1938, and is seldom, if ever, enforced, according to city officials.
Neither the association nor the attorney who filed the suit for the NRA could be reached for comment Monday afternoon.
The suit alleges that because of the city's failure to repeal the code sections, the plaintiffs in the case "are subjected to irreparable harm, in that they are unable to keep their handguns within their home in a manner ready for immediate use to protect themselves and their families from attack by violent intruders."
It seeks to have the laws invalidated.
Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for the city attorney's office, said the NRA's real goal is not to strike down the specific city laws but to win court rulings that expand the reach of the Second Amendment.
"It's more about pushing the envelope of the Second Amendment and setting new precedents and policies," he said.
The trigger-lock requirement, signed into law in 2006, prevents residents from having "operable" handguns at their disposal, according to the suit. It argues that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 2008 Heller decision, struck down a similar trigger-lock requirement in Washington as unconstitutional because it made it impractical for residents to protect themselves.
San Francisco's trigger-lock restriction combined with a fragmenting bullet ban that precludes them from loading their weapons with "suitable ammunition," the suit says, "makes it impossible for city residents to use their handguns for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, particularly in urgent, life-threatening situations."
Dorsey, who accused the NRA of engaging in a nationwide suit-filing spree since the Supreme Court ruling, said San Francisco expects to prevail.
"I don't believe anything in federal law invalidates the provisions of the San Francisco ordinances," he said.
E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...BAK417MPKC.DTL
This article appeared on page B - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by swat View Post
Too bad they caved in to the homosexual lobby and their agenda of destroying the morals of our society. Just like some of the "pink pistols" folks are trying to do to CalGuns!
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
Substituting the word "love" for getting sexual pleasure from someone of the same sex, is simply dishonest.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-19-2009, 12:25 PM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tboyer View Post
Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for the city attorney's office, said the NRA's real goal is not to strike down the specific city laws
Who, us? Nobody here but us chickens. No one wants to strike down your century of oppressive violations of your citizen's Constitutional rights. These are not the droids you're looking for.



Quote:
but to win court rulings that expand the reach of the Second Amendment.


Quote:
Dorsey, who accused the NRA of engaging in a nationwide suit-filing spree since the Supreme Court ruling,
The part I don't understand is he says it like it's a bad thing.

Heller+incorporation=nationwide suit-filing spree in pursuit of justice.



Of course, by "NRA" he really means "the gun-rights coalition." But since the media doesn't want to admit that there is anything beyond the fantasy NRA that they portray as being a tool of the gunmakers (which is closer to the opposite of the truth), I guess this is the correct language for him.

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-19-2009, 12:35 PM
madmike's Avatar
madmike madmike is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Santa Rosa
Posts: 461
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ow! My wallet!!!! You guys make it hurt so good!!!!!


-madmike.


__________________
-madmike.

I would like to say something profound here...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-19-2009, 12:35 PM
DarkHorse's Avatar
DarkHorse DarkHorse is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The United States of America
Posts: 935
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

"fragmenting bullets - a particularly deadly type of ammunition"

MOST types of ammunition are deadly if used properly. ALL types of ammunition are deadly if used improperly. What a maroon.

Is the ban on actual "fragmenting" ammo, or hollow-points? The article says frags, but The Hoff says HPs.

Either way, we have yet another reporter, with no knowledge of terminal ballistics, writing an article discussing a law, written by other people that know nothing about terminal ballistics, commenting on the alledged terminal ballistics of certain ammunition. I blame Al Gore.

Last edited by DarkHorse; 05-19-2009 at 12:36 PM.. Reason: What's a "banf?"
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-19-2009, 1:30 PM
rivviepop's Avatar
rivviepop rivviepop is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: texas
Posts: 2,561
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

If I'm not mistaken, 613.10(g)(3) covers Frangible ammunition -- which can be argued is more safe (sic) than a typical jacketed ball round. It's entire sintered design is based upon the concept of disintegrating upon contact (i.e. metal targets) to prevent splash.
__________________
ˇprefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado! - emiliano zapata salazar
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-19-2009, 1:54 PM
KCM222 KCM222 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Campbell
Posts: 181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here's my comment:

Quote:
"-- A city ordinance that prohibits the discharge of firearms within city limits. The law has been on the books since 1938, and is seldom, if ever, enforced, according to city officials."

What would it matter if the law is "seldom, if ever, enforced"? If the law criminalizes someone's just actions (self defense) then why would you want it on the books?

Would the city of San Francisco be OK with a law stating that sodomy was illegal as long as it was "seldom, if ever, enforced"?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-19-2009, 1:58 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,839
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

That's hilarious, SF is having massive layoffs (with many more to come) and yet they STILL have the money to fight to defend symbolic never-enforced unconstitutional laws that do nothing for public safety.

Way to go SF!

I'm so happy that the budget crisis is going to clean out our state (and to some extent local) governments and help them focus their spending. At the same time, it's going to force Californians to become more self-reliant in terms of their own safety.
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke

Math denialism: We can have free, universal healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, and open borders.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-19-2009, 2:14 PM
MrClamperSir's Avatar
MrClamperSir MrClamperSir is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Almost Paradise
Posts: 2,577
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
That's hilarious, SF is having massive layoffs (with many more to come) and yet they STILL have the money to fight to defend symbolic never-enforced unconstitutional laws that do nothing for public safety.

Way to go SF!

I'm so happy that the budget crisis is going to clean out our state (and to some extent local) governments and help them focus their spending. At the same time, it's going to force Californians to become more self-reliant in terms of their own safety.
Couldn't agree more. Can't wait to see how these things are play out.
__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dieselpower View Post
Its very rare LEO encounter some armed crazy who is going to kill them, but it happens enough to warrant their training....... And its rare to encounter LEO willing to lie, cheat and falsify testimony, but it happens enough to warrant invoking all your rights the second you are stopped.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-19-2009, 4:05 PM
artherd's Avatar
artherd artherd is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,038
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

THIS is how we do it! CGF & NRA - Defending your civil rights!
__________________
- Ben Cannon.
Chairman, CEO - GPal, Inc.™
CoFounder - GeoVario™, LLC. - the hosting company that brings you Calguns™

Postings are my own, and are not formal positions of any other entity, or legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-19-2009, 4:11 PM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artherd View Post
THIS is how we do it! CGF & NRA - Defending your civil rights!
For the two or three Calgunners who know the song <grin>:

"I got a fist of iron and a fist of steel/If the right one don't get you then the left one will."

Gosh, but how does this fit into the "NRA does nothing, they should get out of the way of CGF/SAF/GOA" meme we keep hearing about?

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-19-2009, 4:45 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,371
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
This is awesome, but what if incorporation gets screwed through the en banc hearing of Nordyke?
This seems like the perfect way to replace the loss of Nordyke's precedent for incorporation if it comes down to that, either temporarily because of en banc and/or SCOTUS appeal, or permanently if it somehow gets reversed then denied cert.
__________________
"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.

Last edited by yellowfin; 05-19-2009 at 4:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-19-2009, 4:49 PM
tombinghamthegreat's Avatar
tombinghamthegreat tombinghamthegreat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,785
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I like where this is going and i am glad that there is a wave of national lawsuits going on. Also i did not know SF had a ban on the sale of hollow points, well that ban won't hold up for long.
__________________
"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
  #28  
Old 05-19-2009, 4:55 PM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombinghamthegreat View Post
I like where this is going and i am glad that there is a wave of national lawsuits going on. Also i did not know SF had a ban on the sale of hollow points, well that ban won't hold up for long.
Another state, New Jersey perhaps, has that ban statewide. People have to do things like purchase expanding FMJ ammo, I think. Anyone know for sure?

What I particularly like about this case is that it attacks a "sporting purpose" clause directly. Man oh man, how far I would like to see that line of litigation go. Let's hope this is the "cloud the size of a man's hand" on the horizon of "sporting purpose" gun bans.

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-19-2009, 5:16 PM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I'm reading the complaint now, and it occurs to me that there is a *very* good reason the law says "no non-sporting ammo *or* expanding ammo." Non-expanding ammo is useless (or more accurately unethical) for most hunting (I exclude pure pelt hunting), which is certainly a sporting purpose.

Which only illustrates the iron rule that "sporting only" laws *inevitably* infringe on sporting use as well. "Sporting use" is nothing more than gun-banning rhetoric.

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-19-2009, 6:12 PM
bigtoe416 bigtoe416 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 81
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not sure how well the prohibition on firing of guns will do in court since this sfgate article says it's rarely if ever enforced. One thing I recently learned about lawsuits is that a lawsuit can only bring forth complaints that are "ripe," meaning the law that is being challenged here must be a threat to the suing party. If the law is rarely if ever enforced, it might not be ripe and therefore be unable to be challenged in court. I'm not sure how often the handgun law is enforced either. I certainly don't have mine under lock and key at all times.

The frangible case should be much easier to bring forth though.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-19-2009, 6:31 PM
DDT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
Not sure how well the prohibition on firing of guns will do in court since this sfgate article says it's rarely if ever enforced. One thing I recently learned about lawsuits is that a lawsuit can only bring forth complaints that are "ripe," meaning the law that is being challenged here must be a threat to the suing party. If the law is rarely if ever enforced, it might not be ripe and therefore be unable to be challenged in court. I'm not sure how often the handgun law is enforced either. I certainly don't have mine under lock and key at all times.

The frangible case should be much easier to bring forth though.
I don't have the data in front of me but I suspect there have been more "discharge in the city limits" prosecutions than "frangible" prosecutions. If for no other reason than the fact that the bullet is so often not found after a discharge.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-19-2009, 6:56 PM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Here's another very interesting part of the complaint: it alleges violation of Article I, section 1 of the California state Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Constitution of The State Of California

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty
, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Now, I assumed the bolded text is what they principally mean. But the California Supreme Court has held that there is no right to arms in the CA Constitution--holding, I guess, that you may have a right to self defense but not to any particular weapon that would make it effective. It seems as though Jackson is alleging to the contrary that the California right to defense includes the right to effective means. Now I have said before that I expect that those who ratified this Constitution in 1879 believed this to be the case, so I agree with the plaintiffs as a matter of fact, but nobody's opinion but the state Supreme Court justices actually matters a bit and apparently they are determined not to obey the original meaning of the constitution (quelle surprise) or they know I'm wrong (doubtful they would even care enough to check).

So do I read this wrong, or is the NRA putting this in there so, if it is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, there is an opportunity to overturn the ruling that there is no right to effective means? Isn't that what paragraph 67 and the second alternative method of relief ask for explicitly?

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.

Last edited by 7x57; 05-19-2009 at 7:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-19-2009, 7:10 PM
mecam's Avatar
mecam mecam is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East Bay
Posts: 4,056
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

SF is broke, they'll fold.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-19-2009, 8:14 PM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,907
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default Now is the time for all good lawyers ... say what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mecam View Post
SF is broke, they'll fold.
Again, now is the best time to strike them with lawsuits. We have as many Bush judges as we are ever going to have and the State, Counties, and Cities might just decide they'd rather fund their Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plans.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-19-2009, 8:33 PM
elenius's Avatar
elenius elenius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Redwood City
Posts: 772
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Awesome that they are appealing to the CA constitution as well! Might as well try to get that precedent overturned while they're at it and give us double RKBA protection
__________________
NRA Member
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-19-2009, 8:40 PM
Vtec44's Avatar
Vtec44 Vtec44 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fontana & Big Bear, CA
Posts: 2,231
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Great news!!!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-19-2009, 8:48 PM
DDT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7x57 View Post
So do I read this wrong, or is the NRA putting this in there so, if it is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, there is an opportunity to overturn the ruling that there is no right to effective means? Isn't that what paragraph 67 and the second alternative method of relief ask for explicitly?
I would assume the idea is that with Heller/Nordyke they feel California is no longer afforded the liberty to exclude firearms from the range of tools one may use to defend their rights and property. (I guess there are no originalists on the CA Supreme Court)
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-19-2009, 10:02 PM
tonelar's Avatar
tonelar tonelar is offline
Dinosaur
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Franpsycho
Posts: 6,041
iTrader: 117 / 100%
Default

God bless, this is great timing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-19-2009, 10:16 PM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT View Post
I would assume the idea is that with Heller/Nordyke they feel California is no longer afforded the liberty to exclude firearms from the range of tools one may use to defend their rights and property.
That's the idea of the *federal* 2A claim. I don't see how it can be the idea behind the CA Constitutional claim, since if what the SCOCa says is true we only have federal protection for *effective* armed defense. The complaint seems to specifically argue for CA protection paralel to the federal 2A, which in fact most states have (in theory, but in many the state case law has nullified that portion).

Perhaps they think the originalist line of argument in Heller will cause some to re-examine the state constitutions and caselaw? Bully for us if it does.

Quote:
(I guess there are no originalists on the CA Supreme Court)
I guess there were less than four at the time the court ruled "no RKBA" in the CA Constitution, anyway. Without proof or actual knowledge my bet is that the original understanding of Article I section 1 is just as the NRA case claims, but I am doubtful that a *California* court can be persuaded to give a flying fig about the original social compact. But hey, maybe Chuck Michel or Don Kates knows differently and thinks the current court will reverse if they can just get the issue before them.

That said, if they think it's worth a gamble, it probably is. My read is that the NRA cases are more conservative than the SAF/CGF cases--CCW at least doesn't seem as much of a slam-dunk to me as the NRA's case against SF, which seems rock-solid and air-tight as SCOTUS pretty much already put a dagger through it's black heart. I suspect that's why the NRA decided to pick this case.

Or maybe it isn't conservatism--maybe the NRA just gets particular pleasure out of squeezing money out of SF, over and over, and decided to make SF their special cat-toy while other coalition members take on other defendants. It's gotta hurt SF the most to lose to the *NRA*.

Anyway, if I'm right, then that means that some very conservative chess players decided that was a play worth making. But I might not be and it might just be how the labor got divided (and the roster suit had to belong to SAF/CGF anyway since they were already in court over DC's clone roster).

Either way, good times.

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-19-2009, 10:55 PM
dwtt dwtt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,471
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Many of the names in that lawsuit are familiar. I hope the outcome is similar to the suit against Prop H.
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 12:49 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.