Unconfigured Ad Widget

**J-cat** · 11-05-2010, 7:20 PM

She can kiss everyone's arsch.

**Librarian** · 11-05-2010, 7:26 PM

Originally posted by vincnet11

Apparently she is leading votes for Mayor.

http://oaklandlocal.com/article/breaking-jean-quan-takes-lead-mayor-51-alameda-county-instant-run-voting-0

I heard one article of her being anti-gun, granted the fact can she follow the proposal on SF that law abiding citizens cannot use firearms for self defense?

I don't think so. She has no legal mechanism to accomplish it.

Only the state can do anything about licensing or registering guns - state has pre-empted any lower jurisdiction.

Combine that with state law, PC 12026 (b)

(b)No permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed, shall be required of any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to
purchase,
own,
possess,
keep, or
carry, either openly or concealed, a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person within the citizen's or legal resident's place of residence, place of business, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident.

and PC 197

Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

1.When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,

2.When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,

3.When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,

4.When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

and PC 198.5

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.

all together suggest self-defense, with a firearm, cannot be reasonably banned in general.

**vincnet11** · 11-05-2010, 7:29 PM

Originally posted by Librarian

I don't think so. She has no legal mechanism to accomplish it.

Only the state can do anything about licensing or registering guns - state has pre-empted any lower jurisdiction.

Combine that with state law, PC 12026 (b) and PC 197 PC 198.5 all together suggest self-defense, with a firearm, cannot be reasonably banned in general.

So it isn't true for San Francisco as well, or they run their own country?

**CCWFacts** · 11-05-2010, 7:51 PM

She's preempted by state law. Too bad for her and her gang-affiliated constituents. Seriously, a big part of the fanatical obsession with gun control in places like Oakland is because the gangs there have political power. She knows what she needs to do to protect her constituents.

**Paladin** · 11-05-2010, 8:02 PM

Originally posted by CCWFacts

She's preempted by state law. Too bad for her and her gang-affiliated constituents. Seriously, a big part of the fanatical obsession with gun control in places like Oakland is because the gangs there have political power. She knows what she needs to do to protect her constituents.