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 ...
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.
Go NRA!!!!
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
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802128_pf.html
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.
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.