Judge rules voter-approved S.F. handgun ban is illegal

sfgate.com ^ | 06-12-06 | Bob Egelko

[maine-iac7]

But should judges be allowed on overrule what voters have decided?<

If it violates a standing law - I would think so.

[taxesareforever]

As John Kerry would say, "S.F. is now a free fire zone". :)

[Tadhg]

The Judge (Jame Warren) was the same judge that ruled the City's affirmative action program in contracting violated the State Constitution (Proposition 209).

[AnnaZ]

Please, someone, my smelling salts...

[mike70]

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?

[proxy_user]

"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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

Here... LOL

[onyx]

LOL! but you're right. This is stunning.

[AnnaZ]

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*

[onyx]

LOL -- I love your way with words.

San Franfreaks tried to subvert state law and this judge ruled properly.

[little jeremiah]

How about if voters decide somewhere that slavery should be re-instituted?

[GladesGuru]

"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?

;-(

[Celtman]

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

[cayuga]

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.

[ExSoldier]

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?

[Shooter 2.5]

"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!]

[2harddrive]

San Fran Gun Ban SHOT DOWN!!!

[jocko12]

I'm allways packing when I go to SF.

[af_vet_1981]

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 ...