Good news for San Francisco

[DrDavidM]

The state of CA has said SF can not legally prevent handgun ownership.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000

Municipalities can't ban people from owning handguns, court rules


Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
T
Printable Version
Email This Article





Georgia (default)
Verdana
Times New Roman
Arial





San Francisco's ban on handguns, blocked by a legal challenge since voters approved it in November 2005, suffered a possibly fatal blow Wednesday when a state appeals court ruled that local governments have no authority under California law to prevent people from owning pistols.
The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco agreed with a June 2006 ruling by Superior Court Judge James Warren, who said state laws regulating gun sales, permits and safety leave no room for a city or county to forbid handgun possession.
State courts have upheld some local restrictions, including prohibitions on the sale or possession of guns on public fairgrounds, Presiding Justice Ignazio Ruvolo noted in the 3-0 ruling. But in general, "when it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly," he wrote.
San Francisco's ban was challenged by the National Rifle Association, whose lobbyist Chris Cox called Wednesday's ruling "a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA members of San Francisco."
Alexis Thompson, spokeswoman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the ruling was disappointing, "particularly in light of the continuing plague of handgun violence here in San Francisco."
The city could ask the state Supreme Court to review the case. History would not be on the city's side, however, as the state's high court refused to review a 1982 ruling by the same appeals court striking down an earlier San Francisco ordinance that prohibited handgun possession in the city limits.
Drafters of the 2005 measure, Proposition H, sought to comply with the 1982 ruling by limiting the handgun ban to San Francisco residents. The ordinance allowed only law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes to possess handguns.
It also prohibited the manufacture, sale and distribution of any type of firearms and ammunition in San Francisco.
Prop. H was approved by 58 percent of the voters but was challenged by the NRA a day after the election in a suit on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers. The proposition has never taken effect.
In Wednesday's ruling, the court said the city ordinance would interfere with an elaborate system of gun regulation enacted by the Legislature.
State laws allow law-abiding Californians to possess handguns in their homes and businesses and let them request a concealed-weapons permit or a judge's permission to carry guns in public, the court said. In addition, the court said, a 1999 state law banning the sale of the cheap handguns known as Saturday night specials, and setting safety standards for legal firearms, implicitly prohibited local governments from outlawing all handguns.
San Francisco argued that its measure was a legitimate response to violent crime. But Ruvolo said in the court ruling, "The ordinance will affect more than just criminals. It will also affect every city resident who has not, through some demonstration of personal disability or irresponsibility, lost his or her right to possess a handgun."
The Legislature, Ruvolo said, has determined the statewide balance between the public's interest in being safe from gun violence and law-abiding citizens' right to buy guns "to deter crime, to help police fight crime, to defend themselves and for certain hunting and recreational purposes." A local government has no power to disrupt that balance, he said.
The court also refused San Francisco's request to allow the city to enforce Prop. H's ban on the manufacture or sale of rifles and shotguns, saying the city must first rewrite the ordinance to narrow its scope.
Online resources

To read the appeals court ruling, go to:

links.sfgate.com/ZCAF

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

[HK4U]

A step in the right direction. Thanks for posting.

[gvaldeg1]

Originally Posted by HK4U

A step in the right direction. Thanks for posting.

It's a huge step in the right direction! Now the NRA-ILA or someone should go after the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) and the Clark County (Las Vegas) District Attorney for flagrantly and openly flouting the registration provisions of Nevada SB 92. The LVMPD still insists (and posts on its web site) that anyone staying in Clark County for 24 hours or more must register their gun(s) with the LVMPD. Nevada SB 92 was signed into law by the Governor and became effective on 1 Jan 2008. LVMPD continues to ignore it and the DA says it's ambiguous. Here's the text of SB 92:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/SB/SB92_EN.pdf
The only thing "ambiguous" is the idea that these entities are representing their constituency in upholding the Law. The registration provisions were clearly changed to the following:
(a) A period of at least 60 days of residency in the county
before registration of such a firearm is required.
(b) A period of at least 72 hours for the registration of a pistol
by a resident of the county upon transfer of title to the pistol to the
resident by purchase, gift or any other transfer.
This registration issue has been a "sacred cow" for Clark County and the LVMPD. This law (per SB 92) also makes it clear that Nevada state law preempts most of the draconian ordinances in North Las Vegas and Boulder City. Unfortunately, the average Joe can't afford to challenge these issues in court.

[Ektarr]

How about letting the NRA go after New Freaking Damn Jersey! We're feeling like the forgotten stepchild over here, fercryinoutloud! Nevada already has a viable concealed carry law, albeit limited in Clark County. At least you guys have some opportunity to protect yourselves in Nevada, especially in light of the new development of reciprocity with Florida. We here in New Jersey have Squat . . . but we have a lot of it!

[gvaldeg1]

Originally Posted by Ektarr

How about letting the NRA go after New Freaking Damn Jersey! We're feeling like the forgotten stepchild over here, fercryinoutloud! Nevada already has a viable concealed carry law, albeit limited in Clark County. At least you guys have some opportunity to protect yourselves in Nevada, especially in light of the new development of reciprocity with Florida. We here in New Jersey have Squat . . . but we have a lot of it!

You completely missed the point! SB 92 already has been voted into law by the Nevada legislature, signed by the Governor, and the officials in Clark County are ignoring it.

BTW...I'm from Arizona...not Nevada. The Nevada issue should be a slam dunk for the NRA-ILA if they'd pursue it. As for New Jersey...I wish you luck!

[CA CCWInstructor]

With only 8 permits issued in San Fran, that won't change.

[joeren]

and just in time. San Fransisco is cited in Brady's Amicus Brief to the courts.
http://www.appellate.net/briefs/Park...rief_final.pdf

No doubt they didn't see that coming.:D

Joe

[Ektarr]

Originally Posted by gvaldeg1

BTW...I'm from Arizona...not Nevada. . . As for New Jersey...I wish you luck!

Wasn't singling you out...just venting.

I'll be visiting both Arizona and Las Vegas next month. Corporate business in Lost Wages, and I have a Friend in Kingman I haven't seen in about 3 years. Gonna mix a little pleasure with my business.

P.S. New Jersey doesn't need any "luck". What it needs is Politicians who truly represent the Constitutions of both the United States -and- New Jersey. Statesmen! What we have is Political hacks who represent the very best of stereotypical corrupt politics and Socialist ideals.

[gvaldeg1]

Originally Posted by Ektarr

Wasn't singling you out...just venting.

I'll be visiting both Arizona and Las Vegas next month. Corporate business in Lost Wages, and I have a Friend in Kingman I haven't seen in about 3 years. Gonna mix a little pleasure with my business.

P.S. New Jersey doesn't need any "luck". What it needs is Politicians who truly represent the Constitutions of both the United States -and- New Jersey. Statesmen! What we have is Political hacks who represent the very best of stereotypical corrupt politics and Socialist ideals.

No problem...I understand why you were venting. Also, it's clear that your votes didn't go to those Political hacks of whom you speak.

I hope that you enjoy both Vegas and your visit with your friend. Coincidentally, I'm driving to Vegas for a few days fun on Tuesday and my wife and I always stop in Kingman on the way over.

[tes151]

Originally Posted by Ektarr

Wasn't singling you out...just venting.

I'll be visiting both Arizona and Las Vegas next month. Corporate business in Lost Wages, and I have a Friend in Kingman I haven't seen in about 3 years. Gonna mix a little pleasure with my business.

P.S. New Jersey doesn't need any "luck". What it needs is Politicians who truly represent the Constitutions of both the United States -and- New Jersey. Statesmen! What we have is Political hacks who represent the very best of stereotypical corrupt politics and Socialist ideals.

Don't take this personal because I don't think you are voting for them, but you gotta admit, SOMEONE in Jersey is voting those tards into office. Apparently there are a lot of people there that like the way things are going in that state. We here in PA have sort of the same problem in that we are presently stuck with a Philadelphia crook in the governors mansion due to the liberal morons in Philly and Pittsburgh.