MinutemanEagle1
Inactive
I usually support voter ballot initiatives. If the voters want to screw up their own area, let them - they'll have to live with the consecquences. But not when it involves the violation of a basic right - in particular, one protected by the Constitution.
Bit by bit, the anti-gun-rights crowd is losing ground. Looks like San Franciscans can still defend themselves - for now.
----------------------------
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/12/MNGQ9JCVC15.DTL&type=printable
Judge rules voter-approved S.F. handgun ban is illegal
- Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, June 12, 2006
(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.
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.
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.
(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
Bit by bit, the anti-gun-rights crowd is losing ground. Looks like San Franciscans can still defend themselves - for now.
----------------------------
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/12/MNGQ9JCVC15.DTL&type=printable
Judge rules voter-approved S.F. handgun ban is illegal
- Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, June 12, 2006
(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.
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.
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.
(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
