« DC targeting real criminals? | Main | Steve Halbrook testifies on Eric Holder nomination »
More on San Fran Housing authority settling out
The San Francisco Housing Authority settled its suit with NRA (and I've been told the terms did include attorneys' fees). Now, to put a position spin on it, the Authority is contending its rules really weren't intended to ban guns:
"Tim Larsen, a lawyer for the Housing Authority, said Tuesday the agency never intended to enforce its 2005 ban against law-abiding gun owners and has never done so, even though the lease provision covered legal as well as illegal weapons.
"Our intention was to go after people who were engaged in criminal activity," Larsen said."
8 Comments | Leave a comment
Exactly like DCs argument that they never would have actually charged someone with violating the safe storage provision of their ordinance.
Just trust us ...
Sounds to me that the Authority needs a new lawyer. The last one lacked the legal skills to write a lease provision that achieved their intention.
I wonder if it was the same guy who pushed for the Authority to wait for a NRA lawsuit rather then issue a clarification upon the initial inquiry regarding lawful gun ownership.
"Our intention was to go after people who were engaged in criminal activity," Larsen said."
Riiiiight. And Monkeys might fly out of my ass.
If this is what we're hearing from even the notoriously antigun and impervious-to-common-sense San Francisco city government (and an Authority to boot!) over Heller... I feel pretty good about the issue.
Someone should explain the liability of "chilling effect" vis-a-vis civil rights violations in terms of 6 or 7 zeros after a nice whole number preceded by a $ sign.
The fact they got off easy has made them think they really ARE invulnerable.
So is this why they banned water pistols as well? So they could use this against unlawful water pistoleros?
In their minds, owning a gun is an inherently criminal activity - malum in se - but they don't want to come right out and say so. That's my theory, anyway, and this is consistent with it.
I'd also guess that they're delaying in hopes of getting a more gun-unfriendly Supreme Court. They want Heller overturned, and in the meantime they want to produce as little pro-Heller precedent as possible.
ya right
if that's what you intended then that's what you should have written--broad reg with selective enforcement?? sounds suspect to me