Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

San Francisco Gun Ban ruled Unconstitutional for 2nd Time California State Court of Appeals 3-0
Second Amendment Foundation ^ | January 10, 2008 | Alan Gottlieb

Posted on 01/10/2008 9:07:44 PM PST by TheEaglehasLanded

CA APPEALS COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF SAF LAWSUIT For Immediate Release: 1/9/2008 In a unanimous decision today, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the City of San Francisco’s handgun ban is illegal under state law, upholding a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and several other groups.

“This is a great day for gun owners and civil rights in California,” said SAF Founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is the second time we successfully fought a gun ban in San Francisco, and what this demonstrates is that the city’s leadership is as horribly out of touch with the law as it seems to be out of touch with reality.”

SAF was joined in the lawsuit by the National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, California Association of Firearms Retailers and several private citizens.

In its ruling, the court held that Proposition H, approved by voters in November 2005, is invalid as preempted by state law. Gottlieb said this was essentially the same case that SAF battled on its own 23 years ago when the city, under then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, adopted a gun ban.

“We urged the city well in advance to drop Proposition H from the 2005 ballot, and warned them that if they pushed the measure and it passed, we would meet them in court,” Gottlieb recalled. “We kept our word, along with our colleagues at the NRA, LEAA and our friends in the CAFR.

“This has been a horrible waste of the court’s time, the city’s legal resources and the taxpayers’ money,” he added. “The only reason this case went forward after the ban was struck down by the trial court is that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors wanted to mandate their extremist anti-gun rights philosophy as public law.

“Every judge in every court that this and the earlier case went before has sided with us,” Gottlieb stated. “This is a battle that had to be fought, and this is a ruling that we expected from Day One of our lawsuit. This wasn’t just a fight over gun rights. It was really about defeating social prejudice against gun owners; a type of bigotry made even more insidious by the fact that it was fostered and defended by a city administration whose attitude toward gun owners is anathema to American values.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

-END-


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: appealscourt; banglisst; gunban; ruling; sanfran; sf; unconsitutional
If the Supreme Court rules correctly on Heller we can get more of these gun bans overturned in the big cities.
1 posted on 01/10/2008 9:07:48 PM PST by TheEaglehasLanded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

I live near this city. I love when it’s policies are thrown away.


2 posted on 01/10/2008 9:14:24 PM PST by Rick_Michael (The Anti-Federalists failed....so will the Anti-Frederalists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rick_Michael

Can’t wait to see the brief on this one.


3 posted on 01/10/2008 9:16:40 PM PST by doc1019 (Rabbit and the Hare Fred 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

Mayor Gavin Newsom

City Hall, Rom 200
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 554-6141
Fax: (415) 554-6160
Email: gavin.newsom@sfgov.org


4 posted on 01/10/2008 9:17:35 PM PST by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
He will see this on his fax machine in the morning.


5 posted on 01/10/2008 9:22:45 PM PST by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

What a bad day. He also had his car vandalized - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1951860/posts?page=1


6 posted on 01/10/2008 9:28:12 PM PST by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

I know it’s been asked before, but if the Constitution prohibits infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, why are Police Chief’s and Sheriffs’ allowed to make people get “permission” to engage in a right granted them under the Constitution? The right is given to the people, it is not delegated to someone to give them that right. This is the issue that needs to be fought and won before it’s too late.


7 posted on 01/10/2008 9:35:46 PM PST by Enterprise (Those who "betray us" also "Betray U.S." They're called DEMOCRATS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
As has been mentioned elsewhere in cyberspace, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., read the 2nd A. when he referenced the first eight amendments of the federal Constitution as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities which the 14th A. made mandatory for the states to respect. So there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd A. now protects the personal right to keep and bear arms from both the federal and state governments as much as any other constitutional privilege and immunity protects other personal rights. See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, one of the precursors to the Congressional Record.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

8 posted on 01/10/2008 9:36:53 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
[W]hy are Police Chief’s and Sheriffs’ allowed to make people get “permission” to engage in a right granted them under the Constitution?

This practice will probably be the next infringement to be challenged if the SCOTUS correctly rules in the Heller case.

9 posted on 01/10/2008 10:09:00 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

WOO HOO!!!! :-)


10 posted on 01/10/2008 10:44:22 PM PST by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

Excellent news!!! My state has a few ounces of sanity left, after all. Gotta get to the range to celebrate! :-D


11 posted on 01/11/2008 12:33:43 AM PST by MonicaG ((Duncan Hunter))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17
"This practice will probably be the next infringement to be challenged if the SCOTUS correctly rules in the Heller case."

I hope you're right, but if you think about it, there really doesn't need to be another hearing. If the justices rule that the Constitution means that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, then there shouldn't be anymore parsing. In other words, how can anyone interpret it to mean that the citizens have a right to keep arms, but not necessarily the right to bear arms? If the framers had intended it to be written that way, then the Constitution would be phrased as the right to keep or bear arms, depending on the permission of an elected official. It is clear to me that the framers intended to bypass all such nonsense and make the individual the decider, not a second or third party. There should be no need to go back to the court and argue that it is unclear about the right to bear arms, but realistically, that is exactly what will happen, unless the USSC makes it clear that both are to be recognized, and that citizens have the right to bear arms unless for example, there is a compelling reason such as a conviction for a felony or adjudication showing someone having diminished mental capacity.

12 posted on 01/11/2008 5:47:46 AM PST by Enterprise (Those who "betray us" also "Betray U.S." They're called DEMOCRATS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

What were the details of the gun ban?


13 posted on 01/11/2008 7:26:57 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

...just because...


14 posted on 01/11/2008 11:18:12 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (Houston Area Texans (I've always been hated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

You would thing the District of Columbia would take a hint...


15 posted on 01/11/2008 11:18:40 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (Houston Area Texans (I've always been hated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

So does anyone know, is it NOW legal to buy (own) a handgun if I live in San Francisco?


16 posted on 01/20/2008 12:31:32 PM PST by tjrockx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson