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

« Notes on Alito and gun control | Main | Another carnival of cordite »

SF gun ban brief

Posted by David Hardy · 16 November 2005 09:07 AM

Clayton Cramer has a post on the San Fran gun ban, with a link to a brief filed by Chuck Michel and Don Kates in the matter (caveat: large pdf file). The brief appends a copy of the referendum.... and brother, is it one strange piece of legislation.

1. It bans all transfer of firearms and ammunition (rifle and pistol alike) within the city. This would include transfers by will, etc., so as rifle and shotgun owners die off, their firearms become contraband.

2. It bans handgun possession by residents of the city. A nonresident may still possess a handgun while in town (provided other CA requirements are met).

3. The ban on possession by residents applies to police officers, except when they are actually performing official duties.

4. The ban applies to pretty much everyone else, at all times. Which means it may be difficult to try a case involving a handgun. There is no exemption for court clerks to possess a handgun as an exhibit in a case, or for prosecutors or defense attorneys to pick one up during the trial. (On the other hand, there's probably no such exemption in the drug laws, but attorneys, judges, and jurors regularly "possess" heroin, meth and everything else in the course of a trial).

· contemporary issues

1 Comment | Leave a comment

robert | November 17, 2005 10:05 AM | Reply

This is the predictable results of "Inalienable Rights" being subject to "reasonable regulation." It's happened to every one of the ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

The US Constitution would NOT have been ratified without the Bill of Rights. They were the dealmaker. Some say, now that the government has proscribed, subscribed, and suppressed beyond relevance the first ten amendements to the Constitution, that the deal is OFF.

I personally think that we have slowly moved into a corporate view of governance, away from the individual rights guaranteed by the original US Constitution, and that this evil will be with us for a very, very long time.

Leave a comment