Skip to comments.NRA sues to overturn San Francisco gun ban in city housing
Posted on 06/27/2008 9:17:26 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
The National Rifle Association today filed a lawsuit challenging San Francisco's ban on handguns in public housing, trying to capitalize on the U.S. Supreme Court's historic ruling finding a constitutional right to own guns for self-defense in the home.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, lawyers for gun rights advocates are asking a federal judge to invalidate San Francisco's handgun law based on the Supreme Court's decision striking down a broader Washington, D.C. law forbidding residents to own handguns.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
9th district? Hmmmmmm?!
Go get ‘em, guys.
***who is a gay man living in a San Francisco Housing Authority unit who said in court papers that he keeps a gun in his home to protect himself against hate crimes based on his sexual orientation.***
hmmmm...so if I call him a fudge-packer which to libs is a “hate crime”, then that gives this “gay man” a reason to shoot me??
He might have a better case that way . Shouldn't hurt a real man that much , he probably has a .380 or something being a poofter and all .
**He might have a better case that way .**
I forgot that it’s San Fran. My bad.
Does the fact the city is paying the freight give them a right to make the rules?
From what I can ascertain onthe Internet, all these NRA lawsuits are going to be a terrific strain on their recourses send them all the loose change you can. ;-)
No. The second ammendment is the rule.
The movement is growing.
I suggest you get familiar with the "Pink Pistols".
There are no less than 20 FReep threads on PP over the past 5 years, and you'll note that they are generally supportive threads -- supporting guns used in self-defense wins over bashing homosexuality. Search titles on "pink pistols" and select archive rather than quick search.
If you use the above link be sure "archive" is selected, not "quick".
And, as far as I know, calling a queer a "fudge-packer" does not constitute a hate crime. However, if you beat the sh!t out of him on the street -AND- while you're doing that, you're calling him a "fudge-packer", then the beating becomes a hate crime.
I disagree mightily with the whole hate-crime crap. But if you're going to talk about it, at least get the definitions more accurate. As far as I know, using the epithet is not, in itself, a crime, though it might get you sued.
Does the fact the city is paying the freight give them a right to make the rules?
No, the fact that the city is paying the freight does not give the city the right to violate the individually-held right to keep and bear arms. Were you serious?
Yup,, I had to snip a piece that mentions Chicago and its gun ban is also going to be targeted (no pun intended) by the NRA.
Just look at all the government rules private schools must accept if they take government money.
I wonder if the NRA has any plans regarding bans in housing like mine, that is owned by the university, but off campus.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
IIRC the 9th circus declared a few years ago that there was no right individual right in the 2nd.
might be worth checking their site.. or a local chapter.
What a joke. Is there even ONE NRA member in San Francisco “Public Housing” ??? I doubt it. These are the people, who when the bother to vote, for for the fools enacting the bans. SF public housing is synonymous with gang banging, drug dealing, hookers and stupidity. I can’t believe my dues are going for this.
Good to hear. An aggressive follow up to the main event is critically important.
So I’ll assume you are serious.
Regarding private schools and government money: government cannot legitimately violate the BOR (now including the 2nd amendment). This applies even to schools which receive government money. Don’t Catholic Universities get government grants, and without giving up their religion? Aren’t government searches on private school grounds still restricted by the 4th amendment? (to the extent that the 4th amendment still exists for the rest of us, anyway). Can’t presses operated by religious schools still print whatever they want?
IAMAL, but, while there may be strings attached to government funds, those strings generally don’t involve violation of fundamental civil rights (now including the 2nd amendment).
The free exercise of religion is guaranteed yet no school taking government money could get away with forbidding homosexual behavior by students attending a church run University, nor could they compel student participation in school led prayers. When a church accepts tax exempt status they are no longer allowed to petition the government if part of the appeal to the congregation is to support a particular candidate who is sympathetic.
I think SF is one of the places to take the fight to the enemy . I think the plaintiff and the public housing are not coincidence . I haven't been a life member and purchased all those gift memberships for my grandchildren because I was fearful of losing my rights here in Idaho .
The really next frontier is to get California’s absolutely insane “assault weapon” ban killed. It is totally useless and is only meant to harass the law-abiding citizen — criminals do not obey laws anyway. This, like the other stupid gun restrictions, which expired and were proven to show that NOTHING WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY THEM -— just served to show that these “laws” serve only the paranoid radical leftists.
Now California is trying to restrict handgun ammo sales. Just more harassment of lawful citizens and GUN STORE OWNERS. Same old liberal socialist crap.
Good points, and it’s probably becoming more and more evident that IANAL with every post I write.
I think there’s a reasonable case to be made that your statements are actually examples of how government, and agencies that receive government funds, cannot legitimately interfere with individually held rights. I think that there’s a reasonable case to be made that it’s an individual right to participate in homosexual behavior, and so government, or government-funded organizations, cannot abridge that right. I am even more certain that there’s a very strong case that there’s an individual right to participate, or not participate, in prayers, and so government and government-funded organizations cannot abridge that right.
As for a church accepting tax-exempt status, and then no longer being allowed to petition the government as you described ... I have a real problem with any restriction on being allowed to petition the government, but I’m not so sure that this issue represents an infringement of individual rights, as opposed to the powers of groups.
So, how does this apply to banning guns in public housing? Keeping and bearing arms is an individual right. Therefore, consistent with the examples cited above, I don’t think government can abridge that right just because government “pays the freight.”
Well, that’s my analysis. Make of it what you will.
A blatant Fourth amendment violation but I don’t think the courts have yet made this illegal.
Bill Would Require Some to Pass Drug Test to Get Aid
Supporters Say State Must Curb Abuse, but Critics Think People in Crisis Need Help, Not Punishment
By Chris L. Jenkins
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 19, 2008; B05
Another good point, but, as you mentioned, this is likely a 4th amendment violation, and has not yet been subject to judicial review. According to the headline you posted, the bill hasn’t even been passed yet. Therefore, I’m not certain that the drug-testing bill provides much of a precedent against being allowed to KBA in government housing.
Had any ban won, L.A. and other cities in California would have followed. This lawsuit finally stops that nonsense for good.
Since they cater to the gays so much in SF, I saw a gklimmer of hope that maybe they would do the right thing-if only for that “protected class”.
Would it be alright for the city to dictate how he votes? What church he attends? Which books or newspapers he reads? Liberals are going to have their hands full trying to imagine the limits of the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Once there is a clear mandate that it is a RIGHT, many other things start to fall into place.
The recent handgun ban that was overturned in San Francisco due to state pre-emption originally passed by 57% to 43%. That's a lot of people who voted NOT to ban handguns.
Uuuuh ............... What part of "... shall not be infringed." is so confusing as to be not understood?
At it's core Gun Control is still a racist policy. It's always been about race. No one on the left cares if a rich, white suburban guy wants to go buy a shotgun, they never did. The people who they want to prevent getting guns are "Black Men". That's why all the gun control comes from areas where white people rule over a large minority population.
And treating it that way and getting liberals to finally admit it (even indirectly as Mayor Newsome just did) will be the thing that restores all of our rights.
As this thread moves along, I don’t think its fair to make fun a gay guy (poof, small gun, etc.) who wants a pistol for personal attention. Its his right, too.
They will have little recourse but to spend their resources.
I wonder whether shouting “I love you” while beating the carp out of somebody would make it less of a crime....
Perhaps in SF it would be considered public S&M and condoned if not celebrated along with the rest of the diversity....
And for all we know, there are gay folks who arrange (for love or money) to be beat up while their partner screams "Fudge-packer!" at them. But doing it themselves, in private, is their own business.
S&M is different from real assault. Last I knew, actual muggers don't respect "safe words".
Your recollection is correct. However, you have to take what that group of socialists say with a grain of salt. Usually within a few months the Supreme Court overturns their fantasies and the left coast settles down until they sit in judgment over the lessors again.
Remember, it is your right to preserve your life by any means. You decide what to use not them.
An Old Man
Yeah. That this thread quickly morphed into "Ooh! Let's make fun of homos!" is a bit unseemly.
I am. My tax dollars are not to be made available for any infringement whatever.
I had thought that this issue had already been laid to rest, but evidently the case that came up years ago, and was decided in favor of the renters, must have been public housing controlled by the feds. The feds CANNOT disarm people living in public housing. This was even re-addressed when refugess from Katrina were disarmed as a condition of living in emergency housing. The courts said, "No way", I think.
This case is public housing controlled by a state or a city and that makes it a suitable case for "incorporation" under the Fourteenth Amendment, causing the Second Amendment to apply to the states.
This is really good case because it puts the liberals into the position of having to argue that states and cities have the power to disarm poverty-stricken gays.
See, I guess the problem is that I strongly oppose the idea of public housing. In a free society, I shouldn’t be forced to pay to provide homes for the numerous able-bodied folks who reside in public housing. No one pays to house me, and I don’t ask anyone else to do so. Thus, I say, if someone wishes to be the ward of the taxpayers, that person forfeits the rights of a free citizen. In my mind, it wouldn’t be inappropriate for the public to impose essentially any punitive restrictions (curfews, drug tests, etc.) on public housing residents that the majority deems appropriate.
I have been more than supportive of the 2nd Amendment rights of sodomites and abortionists to be armed and shoot back . I have spent time , money and organized to that end . However if my 1st Amendment right to make stupid , stereotypical cliched jokes must be suspended in the interest of "seemlyness" then I guess you got here with the PC police just in time .
i bet you dollars to donuts the gun crime rate in these city projects are much higher than the rest of the city. these people do not understand that criminals do not care about gun laws!