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

« New Obama picks for DoJ | Main | Debate between Prof. Volokh & Chas. Blek of Brady Campaign »

San Francisco backing down

Posted by David Hardy · 6 January 2009 07:25 AM

In the wake of Heller, Chuck Michel and others filed an action against San Francisco Housing Authority, over its ban on firearms in public housing. It looks as if San Francisco is surrendering.

· Heller aftermath

8 Comments | Leave a comment

DirtCrashr | January 6, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply

Now if we can just get enough pro-2A guys, dressed nicely and behaving well, to pack the 3rd floor of the James R. Browning US Courthouse (95 Seventh Street in San Francisco, the corner of Mission and 7th, one block from Civic Center BART) on January 15th for the Nordyke Case Oral Arguments - the case we hope will make the landmark DC v Heller case apply to California. The argument will start at 1:30 PM.

Jim D. | January 6, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply

"OK. We were wrong. Sorry."

That's it? I was hoping for a couple hundred thousand dollars or a class-action lawsuit. SF doesn't even have to pay lawyer's fees.

That's not right.

Critic | January 7, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply

I don't get it. Why would we settle for anything less than a public admission of incorporation and the meaning of the Second Amendment and full lawyers fees? If these governments keep giving in on these easy things then they may be able to drag it out until Obama can replace one of our Supreme Court Justices. Also we may need this case if Nordyke doesn't go our way for some odd reason.

If they keep giving up on things like simple possession, we may have to take an incorporation case to the Supreme Court on a less favourable issue like concealed carry or something.

Steve | January 7, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply

Critic, I think one reason is that for at least the next 4 years, we can count on hostile briefs being submitted by the solicitor general on behalf of incorporation. Some people like to play it safe & take a small win when they can get it & it's hard for me to criticize that.

Critic | January 7, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply

The Solicitor General's opinion on this issue is plainly just political. It changes from administration to administration. I don't think it will have much affect on the justices interpretation of the constitution on this issue. The 14th amendment was obviously ratified to protect the right of blacks to be armed among other things. If the Supreme Court doesn't respect that then the Solicitor General's opinion will be even less influential.

jdberger | January 7, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply

Please note that there is an event (including dinner) that follows the Nordyke arguments. Please see http://calgunsfoundation.org/main/index.php/news/1-latest-news/64-nordykedinner for details.

hga | January 8, 2009 6:46 AM | Reply

Critic, while I Am Not A Lawyer, I gather that if someone makes a reasonable offer to settle a lawsuit it's hard to avoid taking it. So to get incorporation we're depending on one of the targets of a lawsuit being unreasonable, a role being aptly played by the current Mayor Daley of Chicago (although he'd made some vague noises in the direction of a settlement, e.g. possibly changing the laws).

Critic | January 8, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply

HGA wrote:
>...I gather that if someone makes a reasonable offer to settle a lawsuit it's hard to avoid taking it.

You're probably right, but I wouldn't consider it a reasonable offer unless they offered attorney's fees.

On the other hand, I was afraid that they would give in on Nordyke at the last minute in order to delay incorporation, but other posters suggested that they can't do that. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if they can get out of setting precedent by giving in. Maybe the difference is that if a case has been decided in court then they can't drop it, but if the suit has been filed but hasn't gone to court yet then maybe you cant get attorney's fees if they give in.

Leave a comment