Jump to content


NRA to fight back against San Francisco gun ban


Dodge
 Share

Recommended Posts

From FoxNews.com (sorry)

 

 

NRA to File Suit Against San Francisco Gun Ban

 

Saturday, November 12, 2005

 

SAN FRANCISCO ? San Francisco voters this week passed what could become the nation's strictest gun ban when they outlawed not only the sale of guns in the city, but required almost everyone who is not a cop, security guard or member of the military to surrender their handguns to police by April 1.

 

Supporters of Proposition H say that with 76-gun related homicides this year and 90 last year, taking away people's firearms will help fight crime.

 

"It's a measure that's popular in San Francisco, it's now the will of the voters, and unfortunately, the NRA is trying to thwart the will of the voters," said San Francisco County Supervisor Chris Daley. "The ban on handguns, of course, excludes law enforcement, etc?, but it applies to all San Francisco residents evenly, and we think given that, it can withstand challenges in court."

 

The National Rifle Association is going to sue to nullify the ban.

 

"We are disappointed, but this fight is just beginning," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in a statement. "Lawful residents of San Francisco are being stripped of their freedom because of an illegal measure that defies common sense. We will fight this outrageous assault on the rights of law-abiding San Franciscans and I believe that we will prevail."

 

Former San Francisco police officer Admin Barsetti ? a plaintiff in the NRA's lawsuit ? and most legal analysts say the measure won't stand up in court because gun regulation usually falls under state, not local, jurisdiction. Barsetti says the gun-control lobby probably knows the ban won't survive but pushed it anyway on the liberal turf of San Francisco.

 

"I don't see why we have to jeopardize ourselves, our own personal safety, the safety of our wives and children to make a point, because that's all this is, it's trying to make a point but at the cost of possibly my life," Barsetti argued. "I'm outraged at that and don't think it should be done."

 

In 1982, the courts struck down a similar gun ban on the grounds it conflicted with state law and opponents to the ban are hoping for a similar result this time around. If a reversal doesn't happen, some gun owners say they'll either have to store their weapons somewhere else, or accept that they'll be criminals.

 

 

 

 

 

Whether you support guns or not, it's in the Constitution dammit. You gotta amend it before you ban them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I always wondered why the people who distrust the govt. the most are the ones who want to disarm everyone and make us, absolutley at the mercy of law enforcement and the military.

 

Either way, I bet criminals barely pay attention to the for or against gun control argument as they are going to be packing either way.

 

 

 

That's a great point, I've never thought of it that way.

 

 

I don't own guns but I carry a machete in my car. I just can't afford a gun right now. :lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's lesson in Constitutional and local history-the second amendment does not apply to states, only the federal govt as per the Supreme Court. These bans are going on Chicago and other cities. Havent been struck down.

 

 

 

Here is another lesson in hypocrisy: Big city folks cant tell us rural folk how to live our lives. But when they want to ban guns, we rural folks can tell big city folks how to live their lives.

 

Why does the NRA care if big cities want to control crime by banning guns? Hunters can still hunt right? Or do you want to hunt in the streets now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm joining this militia. We're going to need a cook. I can also fight.

 

Today's lesson in Constitutional and local history-the second amendment does not apply to states, only the federal govt as per the Supreme Court. These bans are going on Chicago and other cities. Havent been struck down.

 

 

 

Here is another lesson in hypocrisy: Big city folks cant tell us rural folk how to live our lives. But when they want to ban guns, we rural folks can tell big city folks how to live their lives.

 

Why does the NRA care if big cities want to control crime by banning guns? Hunters can still hunt right? Or do you want to hunt in the streets now?

 

 

You know the answer to this. Gun owners don't just want to own guns for hunting. My dad owns a few. He carries a .357 under his car seat. Why? He has worked in the murder capital of Eastern Virginia for the past 25 years and he has to drive through it in the early morning hours.

 

I don't hunt, don't really plan to start, but I do plan on having a gun in my house whenever I get out of college. I am not going to be at the mercy of how fast the cops can get to my house if people break into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Moneyball

I'm joining this militia. We're going to need a cook. I can also fight.

 

 

Today's lesson in Constitutional and local history-the second amendment does not apply to states, only the federal govt as per the Supreme Court. These bans are going on Chicago and other cities. Havent been struck down.

 

 

 

Here is another lesson in hypocrisy: Big city folks cant tell us rural folk how to live our lives. But when they want to ban guns, we rural folks can tell big city folks how to live their lives.

 

Why does the NRA care if big cities want to control crime by banning guns? Hunters can still hunt right? Or do you want to hunt in the streets now?

 

 

You know the answer to this. Gun owners don't just want to own guns for hunting. My dad owns a few. He carries a .357 under his car seat. Why? He has worked in the murder capital of Eastern Virginia for the past 25 years and he has to drive through it in the early morning hours.

 

I don't hunt, don't really plan to start, but I do plan on having a gun in my house whenever I get out of college. I am not going to be at the mercy of how fast the cops can get to my house if people break into it.

 

Exactly.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm joining this militia. We're going to need a cook. I can also fight.

 

 

Today's lesson in Constitutional and local history-the second amendment does not apply to states, only the federal govt as per the Supreme Court. These bans are going on Chicago and other cities. Havent been struck down.

 

 

 

Here is another lesson in hypocrisy: Big city folks cant tell us rural folk how to live our lives. But when they want to ban guns, we rural folks can tell big city folks how to live their lives.

 

Why does the NRA care if big cities want to control crime by banning guns? Hunters can still hunt right? Or do you want to hunt in the streets now?

 

 

You know the answer to this. Gun owners don't just want to own guns for hunting. My dad owns a few. He carries a .357 under his car seat. Why? He has worked in the murder capital of Eastern Virginia for the past 25 years and he has to drive through it in the early morning hours.

 

I don't hunt, don't really plan to start, but I do plan on having a gun in my house whenever I get out of college. I am not going to be at the mercy of how fast the cops can get to my house if people break into it.

Ok, but if the people of San Fransico vote that they dont want guns around, why does it affect you or your father? If your city doesnt want to ban guns, then dont ban guns. How is it ok for some people to say "let us live our lives" and then tell other people how to live their lives? .

 

Answer me this dodge. If your state or any state wants to ban gay marriage, you would say thats their choice right? So why cant this be the choice for the people of San Fran?

 

Here is the truth: If youre ok with the NRA doing this in San Fran, then youre ok with the ACLU coming into your town and trying to stop school prayer and gay marriage bans. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just ignore San Fransico? It's a city of quasi - communists, who are going to run their city as they see fit, it's ridiculous but they have that right just as counties in the bible belt have the right to enforce their hard right conservative views. As long as the people keep re - electing them this stuff will continue and no one has the right to interfere with counties policies as long as they do it in a legal manner.

 

Stop paying attention to it, because it's not going to stop. You don't live there so what's the point of getting all worked up over it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm joining this militia. We're going to need a cook. I can also fight.

 

 

Today's lesson in Constitutional and local history-the second amendment does not apply to states, only the federal govt as per the Supreme Court. These bans are going on Chicago and other cities. Havent been struck down.

 

 

 

Here is another lesson in hypocrisy: Big city folks cant tell us rural folk how to live our lives. But when they want to ban guns, we rural folks can tell big city folks how to live their lives.

 

Why does the NRA care if big cities want to control crime by banning guns? Hunters can still hunt right? Or do you want to hunt in the streets now?

 

 

You know the answer to this. Gun owners don't just want to own guns for hunting. My dad owns a few. He carries a .357 under his car seat. Why? He has worked in the murder capital of Eastern Virginia for the past 25 years and he has to drive through it in the early morning hours.

 

I don't hunt, don't really plan to start, but I do plan on having a gun in my house whenever I get out of college. I am not going to be at the mercy of how fast the cops can get to my house if people break into it.

Ok, but if the people of San Fransico vote that they dont want guns around, why does it affect you or your father? If your city doesnt want to ban guns, then dont ban guns. How is it ok for some people to say "let us live our lives" and then tell other people how to live their lives? .

 

Answer me this dodge. If your state or any state wants to ban gay marriage, you would say thats their choice right? So why cant this be the choice for the people of San Fran?

 

Here is the truth: If youre ok with the NRA doing this in San Fran, then youre ok with the ACLU coming into your town and trying to stop school prayer and gay marriage bans. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

 

 

I see no real reason that one should consider rural or urban areas when discussing regional gun bans.

 

I'll answer your question. 1) Gay marriage is not protected by the Constitution. 2) This is why I feel that a referendum about banning guns has no right to even be on a ballot.

 

And for the record, I hate the f***ing ACLU, but I don't have a problem if they are fighting against faculty-led prayers or gay marriage bans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no real reason that one should consider rural or urban areas when discussing regional gun bans.

 

Because the primary bulk of NRA/state rifle association membership is rural(or at least non-large city) people and they, through the NRA, are telling urban people how to deal with law and order.

 

I'll answer your question. 1) Gay marriage is not protected by the Constitution. 2) This is why I feel that a referendum about banning guns has no right to even be on a ballot.

 

The contradiction I pointed out still stands. There is the equal protection clause and it has as much if not more foundation on the former issue. The difference is youre discounting the constitutional defense for the right you oppose and playing it up for the right you support. Plus there is no constitutional protection for this. The 2nd amendment has not been held to apply to states. Like I said, Chicago(also DC) has hand gun ban right now and it withstood Constitutional challenges:

 

A bill to overturn the Washington, D.C., ban passed the U.S. House of Representatives in September but died in the Senate. Meanwhile, the ban withstood a recent legal challenge based on the Second Amendment because it's a district, not a state. An appeals court judge decided the right to bear arms does not apply.

 

Chicago passed its ordinance in 1982. Under it, no new handguns could be bought or possessed, but those who already had handguns were allowed to keep them.

 

Two years later, a federal appeals court upheld the freeze, saying it "does not trample fundamental personal rights." The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, leaving the handgun ordinance in place.

 

 

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1722EST7739.DTL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...