SF Gun Ban

[manu1959]

just heard on the radio......that the law SF voters passed to outlaw guns.....was just struck down by the courts......

[LiberalNation]

Good for the courts.

It's not like the law would do any good anyway. All you'd have to do is drive outside the city to get a gun and criminales would have no problem doing it.

[Kathianne]

Here's a link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/09/BAQIUC21G.DTL


Here's some discussion:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_01_06-2008_01_12.shtml#1199914019


[Eugene Volokh, January 9, 2008 at 4:26pm] Trackbacks
San Francisco Handgun Possession Ban Is Preempted by State Law,

says the California Court of Appeal, and so is the provision banning transfers of all firearms and ammunition in San Francisco. The panel vote was 3-0, and it affirmed a 2006 trial court decision that took the same view.

Thanks to Terence Edwards for the pointer, and congratulations to Chuck Michel, Don Kates, Glenn Roberts and Thomas Maciejewski on the victory.
20 Comments

More:

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1150224359.shtml


[Eugene Volokh, June 13, 2006 at 2:45pm] Trackbacks
San Francisco Gun Ban Struck Down by Trial Court:

Here's the opinion, which concludes that the ban on S.F. residents' possessing handguns — and on sales and other transfers of all guns and ammunition within the city — is preempted by state law (thanks to Matt Rustler at Stop The Bleating for uploading the file).

I'm not sure I'd endorse all the details of the court's reasoning, and I'm not an expert on the ins and outs of California state/local preemption law. But I did want to make a few observations:

1.

California Penal Code § 12026(b) quite explicitly says:

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.

This pretty clearly bars any California government entity (including cities and counties) from requiring licenses to buy or possess handguns. And it seems to me that if California government entities may not demand licenses or permits for an activity, they may not forbid it outright, either.
2.

This is yet another reminder to be skeptical of claims that "no one is seriously proposing to ban or confiscate all guns. You hear that only from the gun lobby itself, which whistles up this bogeyman whenever some reasonable regulation is proposed." San Francisco voters categorically banned possession of handguns by city residents (except police officers, security guards, and the like), and categorically banned sales of all firearms. While San Franciscans would remain free to buy rifles or shotguns in neighboring cities, presumably those who advocate for such gun sales bans would endorse the broadening of the bans — if gun sales bans are indeed good for San Francisco, I take it that they would be good for Berkeley, Oakland, San Mateo, and Marin, too.
3.

Finally, the ordinance is another reminder of how gun controls routinely favor those who can hire others to guard them, yet restrict those who want to guard themselves or their family members. "[S]ecurity guards, regularly employed and compensated by a person engaged in any lawful business, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment, may also possess handguns." The celebrity, big businessman, or relatively prosperous store owner may defend himself by hiring a guard. The woman who wants to protect herself against rapists, the parent who wants to protect his family against home invaders, or the small businessman who wants to be his own security guard — because he can't afford to hire someone else — is out of luck. (Nor can one justify this on the theory that security guards are trained professional; they're in fact generally not terribly well trained, and in any event a person who wants to defend himself, his family, and his business is not allowed to have a handgun to do so no matter how much training he gets.)

In any case, I'm glad the ordinance was struck down, and I hope the decision will be affirmed on appeal. Congratulations to my acquaintance Chuck Michel for winning this one.

UPDATE: I originally erroneously paraphrased § 12026 as "bar[ring] any California government entity ... from requiring licenses to buy or possess guns" (rather than "handguns"); thanks to commenter Christopher Cooke for correcting me.

[manu1959]

Good for the courts.

It's not like the law would do any good anyway. All you'd have to do is drive outside the city to get a gun and criminales would have no problem doing it.

all you wouuld have to do is go to the mission or hunters point.....no need to go out of town......

chris daly the resident nut case on the board of supes just said what do you expect coming from a republican judge.....

[typomaniac]

Bans are too extreme. Just another pointless waste of the city government's time and money.

[manu1959]

Bans are too extreme. Just another pointless waste of the city government's time and money.

they ban religion from being taught in public schools.....they ban smoking in bars.....

[typomaniac]

they ban religion from being taught in public schools.....they ban smoking in bars.....

The first is a constitutional issue (yes, I realize that so are guns). Banning smoking in bars might be too extreme: it could be fairer to place the smokers in a glassed-off area with separate ventilation...

[manu1959]

The first is a constitutional issue (yes, I realize that so are guns). Banning smoking in bars might be too extreme: it could be fairer to place the smokers in a glassed-off area with separate ventilation...

they teach tollerance of the muslim religion in public schools and in doing so teach the basic tenant of the religion that one needs to be tollerant of....why is that not "against" the law.....

what about non-smoking cougars with too much perfume......or the gold chain crowd with too much old spice where do they get put......or the earth girls with no personal hygene.....

[typomaniac]

they teach tollerance of the muslim religion in public schools and in doing so teach the basic tenant of the religion that one needs to be tollerant of....why is that not "against" the law.....Simple. Because we can't lawfully discriminate against people based on their religions, schools teach tolerance of all religions.


what about non-smoking cougars with too much perfume......or the gold chain crowd with too much old spice where do they get put......or the earth girls with no personal hygene.....As far as I know, none of these people are dangers to public health.

[Little-Acorn]

It was in interesting law. It applied only to SF residents. So if some guy brought in a gun from Oakland across the bay, broke into your house in San Fran, and blew away half your family before you could get your gun out, get the trigger lock off, assemble the cylinder, load it, and shoot him, you were guilty of violating the handgun ban, but the murderer wasn't.

Only in California.....!!!

[Kathianne]

The first is a constitutional issue (yes, I realize that so are guns). Banning smoking in bars might be too extreme: it could be fairer to place the smokers in a glassed-off area with separate ventilation...

Makes more sense to put the non-smokers in a clean environment. In any case, not being done. In IL, we've joined CA, NY, Euro Union. Cool with me, I'm going to go the home entertainment route, save lots of $$ and get more nice stuff for home.

[pegwinn]

Simple. Because we can't lawfully discriminate against people based on their religions, schools teach tolerance of all religions.

As far as I know, none of these people are dangers to public health. Earth grrl walking down the main drag and givin it up for 20 bux sure is
:laugh2:

[Sitarro]

they teach tollerance of the muslim religion in public schools and in doing so teach the basic tenant of the religion that one needs to be tollerant of....why is that not "against" the law.....

what about non-smoking cougars with too much perfume......or the gold chain crowd with too much old spice where do they get put......or the earth girls with no personal hygene.....

Earth Girls????? :laugh2::laugh2: You really do live around the bay area don't you?:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: Sorry the rep machine won't let me give you some for that manu.... iI owe ya.:laugh2:

[manu1959]

Simple. Because we can't lawfully discriminate against people based on their religions, schools teach tolerance of all religions.

As far as I know, none of these people are dangers to public health.

so you can teach tollerance of islam and their teachings but not christians and their teachings......

as for perfume intollerance....the city of berkeley will toss you out of their city hearings if you wear too much or objectional cologne or perfume....

[typomaniac]

As far as I know, none of these people are dangers to public health.Earth grrl walking down the main drag and givin it up for 20 bux sure is:laugh2:That's why givin it up for cash ain't legal, son. :poke:

[pegwinn]

That's why givin it up for cash ain't legal, son. :poke:

That jus depends on where, how much, and the arrangements :cheers2:

[Kathianne]

Simple. Because we can't lawfully discriminate against people based on their religions, schools teach tolerance of all religions.

As far as I know, none of these people are dangers to public health.

Can we teach 'moderate Christianity' in schools? I think not, for good reason.

Can major religions be addressed in comparative religions? Yes.

[emmett]

they teach tollerance of the muslim religion in public schools and in doing so teach the basic tenant of the religion that one needs to be tollerant of....why is that not "against" the law.....

what about non-smoking cougars with too much perfume......or the gold chain crowd with too much old spice where do they get put......or the earth girls with no personal hygene.....


:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::l augh2::laugh2::laugh2: