Skip to comments.
Judge rules voter-approved S.F. handgun ban is illegal
sfgate.com ^
| 06-12-06
| Bob Egelko
Posted on 06/12/2006 4:19:00 PM PDT by steveo
06-12) 16:03 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- An initiative that San Francisco voters approved last November banning residents from owning handguns violated state law, a Superior Court judge ruled today.
Proposition H, which won a 58 percent majority, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who needed the guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of all guns and ammunition in San Francisco.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; bloat; fmcdh; rkba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40 last
To: Daralundy
But should judges be allowed on overrule what voters have decided?<
If it violates a standing law - I would think so.
21
posted on
06/12/2006 4:49:08 PM PDT
by
maine-iac7
(Lincoln: "...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.")
To: steveo
As John Kerry would say, "S.F. is now a free fire zone". :)
To: cripplecreek
The Judge (Jame Warren) was the same judge that ruled the City's affirmative action program in contracting violated the State Constitution (Proposition 209).
23
posted on
06/12/2006 4:54:18 PM PDT
by
Tadhg
To: steveo; feinswinesuksass; HangFire
Please, someone, my smelling salts...
24
posted on
06/12/2006 5:10:36 PM PDT
by
AnnaZ
(Victory at all costs-in spite of all terror-however long and hard the road may be-for survival)
To: Daralundy
Consider a state passing a law allowing slavery. It is in conflict with a constitutional amendment. Should it be allowed because the voters in some jurisdiction want it?
25
posted on
06/12/2006 5:15:49 PM PDT
by
mike70
To: Daralundy
"I don't think handguns should be banned. But should judges be allowed on overrule what voters have decided?
The answer is this: a state is sovereign, but a a city is not. The voters of a state can ban handguns, but the voters in a city cannot ban handguns unless a state law is passed allowing them to do so.
Whether any of the state laws would violate the Federal constitution or not is unknown, and not at issue in this case.
To: Daralundy; The Blitherer
Exactly right. When it violates the U.S. or state constitutional framework, the judge must step in. That doesn't mean they will, but they are required to if they are called to rule on a case. Still, some judges these days don't interpret the constitution the way sane people do.
27
posted on
06/12/2006 5:23:42 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Hey Senators, what have you done with those Conservatives we sent to Congress? (CyberAnt Inspired))
To: AnnaZ
28
posted on
06/12/2006 5:24:35 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Hey Senators, what have you done with those Conservatives we sent to Congress? (CyberAnt Inspired))
To: AnnaZ
LOL! but you're right. This is stunning.
29
posted on
06/12/2006 5:27:32 PM PDT
by
onyx
(Deport the trolls --- send them back to DU)
To: DoughtyOne; onyx
I wish I was kidding, but just the headline made me feel all woozy. When I saw that it was an actual local judge, and not some, say, over-reacher in Oklahoma, well...
*klunk*
30
posted on
06/12/2006 5:34:45 PM PDT
by
AnnaZ
(Victory at all costs-in spite of all terror-however long and hard the road may be-for survival)
To: AnnaZ
LOL -- I love your way with words.
San Franfreaks tried to subvert state law and this judge ruled properly.
31
posted on
06/12/2006 5:39:54 PM PDT
by
onyx
(Deport the trolls --- send them back to DU)
To: Daralundy
How about if voters decide somewhere that slavery should be re-instituted?
To: little jeremiah
"How about if voters decide somewhere that slavery should be re-instituted?"
SF would be a baaaaaad place to try that idea. Ever considered the number of whips and chains shops in SF?
;-(
33
posted on
06/12/2006 5:48:21 PM PDT
by
GladesGuru
(In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
To: Daralundy
But should judges be allowed on overrule what voters have decided? If California were a democracy, no. But the writers of the Constitution wisely guaranteed that each state would have a republican form of government.
- Democracy:
- A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
- Republic:
- Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
Training Manual No. TM 2000-25 on Citizenship, U.S. History and the Constitution
34
posted on
06/12/2006 6:13:03 PM PDT
by
Celtman
(It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
To: umgud
As a state permit, it is supposed to be good anywhere in the state. I understand that SF will not honor it.It's like that in New York. In the mid '70s I was issued a NY State pistol permit by Niagara County. It was valid everywhere in the state except New York City. If I remember right, NYC permits were issued by the Chief of Police, and were very difficult to obtain without friends in high places.
I left in 1977 and never looked back.
35
posted on
06/12/2006 6:18:22 PM PDT
by
cayuga
(A 9mm is a .45 set to Stun. NRA-Life)
To: The Blitherer
Yes, when it really IS unconstitutional.And who gets to decide that? Another judge.
Suppose the city council had passed an "open carry" policy and it was voter approved. What say you then?
36
posted on
06/12/2006 6:29:26 PM PDT
by
ExSoldier
(Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
To: steveo
"The National Rifle Association sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after the measure passed."
Thanks to the NRA.[Lately, it seems like all I have to do is copy and paste that. Whoo Hoo!]
37
posted on
06/12/2006 6:43:06 PM PDT
by
Shooter 2.5
(Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
To: steveo
San Fran Gun Ban SHOT DOWN!!!
38
posted on
06/12/2006 6:48:57 PM PDT
by
2harddrive
(...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
To: 2harddrive
I'm allways packing when I go to SF.
39
posted on
06/12/2006 7:32:58 PM PDT
by
jocko12
To: steveo
Proposition H, which won a 58 percent majority, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who needed the guns for professional purposes,
such as career criminals ...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson