Hope you didn't sell your guns...

[red-beard]

Judge rules voter-approved S.F. handgun ban is illegal

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/12/MNGQ9JCVC15.DTL

(06-12) 16:03 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- An initiative that San Francisco voters approved last November banning residents from owning handguns violated state law, a Superior Court judge ruled today.

Proposition H, which won a 58 percent majority, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who needed the guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of all guns and ammunition in San Francisco.

The National Rifle Association sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after the measure passed. The NRA argued that Prop. H overstepped local government authority and intruded into an area regulated by the state. The city agreed to delay enforcement of the measure while the suit was pending.

In today's ruling, Judge James Warren said California law, which authorizes police agencies to issue handgun permits, implicitly prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

That law "demonstrates the Legislature's intent to occupy, on a statewide basis, the field of residential and commercial handgun possession to the exclusion of local government entities,'' Warren wrote in a 30-page decision.

If the city were allowed to ban handguns within its borders, he said, nearby counties could be flooded by handguns no longer allowed in San Francisco. Such a possibility illustrates the need for gun ownership to be regulated on a state level, Warren said.

A state appeals court said much the same thing in 1982 when it overturned another ordinance that would have prohibited handgun possession in San Francisco. Sponsors of Prop. H said they had hoped to stay within the limits of that ruling by drafting a narrower measure that applied only to city residents.

Warren also overturned Prop. H's prohibition on sales of other types of guns and ammunition, saying it was tied to the handgun ban and could not be salvaged as a separate measure.

"We're thrilled that the judge recognized that law-abiding citizens who possess firearms to defend themselves and their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem,'' said Chuck Michel, the NRA's lawyer.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

[ronin]

although I'm glad about the outcome, I must say that I am totally surprised

[Joeaksa]

Thank God. Now wonder how long before the 9th circus court of appeals strikes it down...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Thank God. Now wonder how long before the 9th circus court of appeals strikes it down...

No jurisdiction, won't happen. But what is more likely, is that the judge spelled out in his decision exactly what the state legislature needs to pass in order for SF to prohibit guns, and it will get passed, and Arnold Swartzenegger is unpredictable on his veto of anti-gun legislation.

[pwd72s]

My Kudos to the NRA! Guys, if you believe in our Constitution, especially the 2nd amendment, the NRA is the horse to ride...the only group with enough clout to take issues all the way through the court system. Who else has the ability to take on the ACLU?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by pwd72s
My Kudos to the NRA! Guys, if you believe in our Constitution, especially the 2nd amendment, the NRA is the horse to ride...the only group with enough clout to take issues all the way through the court system. Who else has the ability to take on the ACLU?

When did the NRA oppose the ACLU in court, they're usually cooperating on issues.

[Jeff Higgins]

Pat, wouldn't Ahhhnold, as governator, be out of the loop? We are talking about a locally passed initiative.

It is apparent that California has no state-wide pre-emption law concerning gun possesion. I suspect there is little chance of ever passing one, either.

[jyl]

California state law does in fact preempt local city or county regulation of gun possession. Local governments can ban gun-related businesses, such as gun stores or shooting ranges, but they cannot ban gun owners.

Attempts to do so were stuck down in a couple decades ago and knowledgeable observers expected the latest SF ban to be struck down as well.

I used to be active on Calguns.net and I don't think any of those guys, if they lived in SF, were selling off their guns.

[Tobra]

Originally posted by jyl
California state law does in fact preempt local city or county regulation of gun possession. Local governments can ban gun-related businesses, such as gun stores or shooting ranges, but they cannot ban gun owners.

Attempts to do so were stuck down in a couple decades ago and knowledgeable observers expected the latest SF ban to be struck down as well.

I used to be active on Calguns.net and I don't think any of those guys, if they lived in SF, were selling off their guns.

It was pretty much common knowledge that this would be struck down, the people who wrote it knew it violated the state constitution when they wrote it(Not unlike Mayor Newsom, who knew he was vilating the law allowing same sex marriages so he could get his picture in the paper, again). Seems like the cost of it being on the ballot should be absorbed by the jokers who stuck it in there.

[tabs]

Mayor Newsome warned them NOT to pass the Iniative, because he knew it couldn't pass muster in the Courts. This won't be appealed.

And I was ready to BUY BUY BUY...ouuuuu I've allready done that, scratch that idea.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Tobra
It was pretty much common knowledge that this would be struck down, the people who wrote it knew it violated the state constitution when they wrote it(Not unlike Mayor Newsom, who knew he was vilating the law allowing same sex marriages so he could get his picture in the paper, again). Seems like the cost of it being on the ballot should be absorbed by the jokers who stuck it in there.

It would make for an interesting test case. The legislators (or city council members) would claim sovereign immunity, which they do have if exercising their their power within their grant of power. In this case, clearly they did not have such a power, were repeatedly advised that they did not have such a grant of power, and elected to pass a law in the face of all that, which should be malfeasance of office, which is prosecutable or litigatable in a civil suit. You would have to have $50k to $100k to start with for any lawyer to take the case, and most of us don't have that.

[sammyg2]

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws (and me) will have guns. Lots of em.
If mexifornia outlaws guns the only thing that will change is where I store my guns.

[jyl]

Originally posted by tabs
Mayor Newsome warned them NOT to pass the Iniative, because he knew it couldn't pass muster in the Courts.

This is true, Newsom opposed the measure as illegal. The backers were the city council.

Newsom has been a pretty good mayor for SF. He's socially liberal, which some of you dislike, but that's the city he represents after all. But he's no wooly liberal - he's a capitalist and has been as pro-business as you can expect in SF.

[charleskieffner]

its a sad sad day when you have to register a ruger 10/22 rifle as a ASSAULT RIFLE in kalifornia!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by sammyg2
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws (and me) will have guns. Lots of em.
If mexifornia outlaws guns the only thing that will change is where I store my guns.

If California outlaws guns, more than they already have, I hope you don't store them at all, you should be using them regularly by that point.

Lay in an adequate stock of rope now, before the Sacramento fascists outlaw that, which they will do after a few of them are found hanging from lamp posts.

[jyl]

Originally posted by charleskieffner
its a sad sad day when you have to register a ruger 10/22 rifle as a ASSAULT RIFLE in kalifornia!

Why do you think you do?

California law defines assault rifle as a "centerfire" weapon. http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.htm

[charleskieffner]

i was under the impression that ANY semi-auto rifle/shotgun was construed as a "EVIL BLACK ASSAULT WEAPON" in kalifornia. buddy moved all his guns that were not letter of kalifornia law to nevada.

was riding dirtbikes in kalifornia one time and got pulled over by dyke armed forest ranger outside of tahoe. it was july 4th and a group of us bikers were legally riding on forest service roads w/licensed/tagged dual purpose bikes. when ranger dangerette asked me for two forms of ID, i produced my AZ drivers lic. and AZ CCW permit(i was not carrying in calif.) she went to defensive weapon position and asked me to place my hands on hood of truck! my buddies were going nuts! after she patted me down and found nothing, all the while calling me "MOOSE" due to my riding jersey and pants having "MOOSE" logo on them, she found nothing on any of us. as back up arrived, she then proceeded to check VINS on all bikes, and found nothing amiss again. stated to us "i'll let you go this time!" we stated to her to find someone that is doing something illegal next time. male backup rangers agreed w/us!

that was a real eye opener that someone can be so narrow minded as far as weapons laws and carry a badge!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by charleskieffner
i was under the impression that ANY semi-auto rifle/shotgun was construed as a "EVIL BLACK ASSAULT WEAPON" in kalifornia. buddy moved all his guns that were not letter of kalifornia law to nevada.

was riding dirtbikes in kalifornia one time and got pulled over by dyke armed forest ranger outside of tahoe. it was july 4th and a group of us bikers were legally riding on forest service roads w/licensed/tagged dual purpose bikes. when ranger dangerette asked me for two forms of ID, i produced my AZ drivers lic. and AZ CCW permit(i was not carrying in calif.) she went to defensive weapon position and asked me to place my hands on hood of truck! my buddies were going nuts! after she patted me down and found nothing, all the while calling me "MOOSE" due to my riding jersey and pants having "MOOSE" logo on them, she found nothing on any of us. as back up arrived, she then proceeded to check VINS on all bikes, and found nothing amiss again. stated to us "i'll let you go this time!" we stated to her to find someone that is doing something illegal next time. male backup rangers agreed w/us!

that was a real eye opener that someone can be so narrow minded as far as weapons laws and carry a badge!

You left her drawing breath?

For shame.

[charleskieffner]

yes we ALL COMMENTED how many times she turned her back on the rest of my friends while patting me down and a host of other stupid moves that could have got her killed if we had been bad hombres! she takes the prize for the dumbest officer i have EVER MET! must have been all of 25 yrs or so! but she WAS BIG and SHE HAD A GUN! and she was determined to rid her forest of us evil good for nothing low life worthless piece of crap dirtbikers!

my friends that were there that day sometimes still call me moose and we laugh our asses off about it. at the time it wasnt real funny though!

[Jeff Higgins]

You didn't just drive off a bit and nail her from a LASERED 656 yards?