Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« TV program on FLA law | Main | Brady Campaign on San Fran gun ban »

San Fran gun ban passes

Posted by David Hardy · 9 November 2005 08:01 AM

Word is that the SF referendum on a city gun ban passed yesterday. It reportedly outlaws and authorizes confiscation of all handguns, and prohibits future transfers of rifles and shotguns. From what I've heard, it's in violation of the State pre-emption laws. NRA has announced it'll sue (see extended entry below).

Hint to anyone proposing a pre-emption statute, or want to put teeth in it: insert a provision for attorneys' fees and perhaps damages. Otherwise, a city can and will go ahead and enact one anyway, and figure if anyone objects to the illegality they've have to lay out thousands in legal fees to do anything about it.

[UPDATE: Just received an email from Don Kates, stating that he and Chuck Michel have filed suit challenging it as a violation of the state pre-emption laws.]

NRA to File Lawsuit Challenging
San Francisco Gun Ban

Fairfax, VA - Even with opposition from San Francisco law enforcement and major media outlets, Proposition H -- a measure banning the lawful possession, sale and manufacture of handguns and ammunition within city limits -- passed yesterday. The National Rifle Association (NRA) will file a lawsuit challenging this severe gun ban.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre stated, "We are disappointed, but this fight is just beginning. 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."

Many San Francisco residents who initially supported the ban changed their opinion after NRA and local volunteers began voter education efforts throughout the city. The campaign received an additional boost when the San Francisco Police Officers Association condemned the gun ban, declaring it would "nullify the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense purposes." Major San Francisco newspapers also voiced opposition to Proposition H.

In response to the passage of this proposition, NRA will lead a coalition of organizations to immediately file a lawsuit against this illegal ban in San Francisco. Proposition H, in addition to violating federal guarantees, also violates various California state laws and is therefore preempted.

Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist, concluded, "This is a hollow victory for the gun control lobby because this scheme is in clear violation of California law. We will file suit and fight this to the highest courts in the country until good sense prevails once again in San Francisco."

· contemporary issues

9 Comments | Leave a comment

Christopher A. George | November 9, 2005 1:28 PM | Reply

The vote confirms everything we have long known about San Fransisco...
C.A.G.

DP | November 9, 2005 1:46 PM | Reply

Is this just a ban on handguns or does it include rifles and shotguns too?

Troopship Berlin | November 9, 2005 4:38 PM | Reply

I wish I had more confidence that the preemption argument was a winner. I think it depends on there being a clearly stated right under California law to possess a firearm, which I don't think exists. Penal Code Section 12026 is not exactly a strong recognition of such a right. Maybe there's another provision I don't know about.

I'm not sure that this is any better, but it seems to me that the SF gun ban might be described as an interference, under color of law, by intimidation or coercion, with the exercise of a right secured by the laws of California; to wit, the right to use "any necessary force" to protect the person or property of oneself or one's family from wrongful injury. See California Civil Code Sections 50 and 52.1.

Mike | November 10, 2005 10:42 AM | Reply

If the support from the police shows anything, we have a long way to go in winning the philosophical and rhetorical battle for gun rights. The 2A says nothing about self-defense (in the way the SFPOA means it, at least).

Jim D. | November 10, 2005 12:19 PM | Reply

So does this mean if Roe is reversed by "Bush's conservative court" and the issue reverts to the states, the state pre-emption for abortion in CA should be challenged by the many cities and counties?

It would be interesting to propose this if a challenge to state pre-emption on gun laws from SF's Prop H were going to set precedent.

The Mechanic | November 10, 2005 6:27 PM | Reply

Its been said that liberalism is a mental illness. They certainly oppose freedom of choice whether to arm oneself against a perceived threat. They have always had the freedom to not do so. Now San Francisco is more dangerous. I suggest we don't spend money there accordingly.

David M. Nord | January 6, 2006 11:12 AM | Reply

Another reason I'm glad I live in Michigan. San Francisco is truly like a bowl of granola.

bill jones | February 22, 2006 8:21 PM | Reply

(HITLER IS BACK)

Eric Ammons | March 29, 2006 2:42 PM | Reply

This is rediculous, What is happening to our country. Where are all of our rights going? this is a truely scary thought considering they just violated the second amendment, what is next? no more voting... like Bill jones said, "hitler is back".

Leave a comment