kelpdiver 2 #26 December 16, 2004 QuoteInteresting idea, but if this right were so inalienable other cities would not have been able to enact legislation e.g. DC. The courts have upheld the law so far, guess we will have to wait and see what happens on appeal. DC is a special case since it's not a state in the union. You missed the greater point - majority rule doesn't apply when it comes to rights issues. Whether or not is sustained, it's not legitimate merely because 51% of San Francisco residents say it should be so. It's a bit funny that the supervisors skipped the step of getting voter signatures to put this on the ballot. CA law should trump anything that SF wants. If not, some people will move, or just ignore it. But I suspect it will go the same way the marriages did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #27 December 16, 2004 CA state law says the city has no ground to stand on. Gun laws are the state's responsibility. Of course, state law hasn't stopped the SF mayor in the past, now has it? You know, those "marriages" and all... This'll be just one more thing where the city is told to STFD & STFU by state courts.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #28 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo you agree that the mere presence of legal gun-owning citizens does not necessarily produce high gun crime rates? Yes. I don't have any problem with the 2nd Amendment either. Holy shit - a simple straight answer from Kallend! No playing with words or dancing around the issue. Wow. Thanks. QuoteUse a gun in any crime Go to jail for a long long time. And we agree on this too. Two agreements in one message! Pardon me, I have to go look out the window for flying pigs... QuoteSo how does Toronto compare with Houston in terms of violent crime? Both are English speaking cities in North America. Ah, back to the games. If you have some point you want to make, just be out with it. You just got through saying that crime is too complex for simplistic explanations, yet here you are trying to make some simplistic comparison with cherry-picked examples. Oh well, you were doing great there for a short while. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #29 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteCity residents will vote ... ...if this become law it will because the people choose to... that is what living in a democracy means. A democracy should respect the rights of minorities who aren't hurting anyone or anything. If the majority voted to reinstitute slavery, would that make it the proper thing to do? If they voted to ban red automobiles, would that be okay? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #30 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuote How many times must I explain to you that "well regulated" does not mean "should have many regulations?" It means 'in good working order.' ps - oh yeah, and it worked so well for Canada. How can an untrained gun owner be called "in good working order"? Training is what creates "good working order".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sfc 1 #31 December 17, 2004 Quote A democracy should respect the rights of minorities who aren't hurting anyone or anything. The constitution serves this purpose. Restrictive gun laws in cities have not been ruled as unconstitutional as far as I know. Quote If the majority voted to reinstitute slavery, would that make it the proper thing to do? Proper is in the eye of the beholder, legal/illegeal is all that really counts and it can be BS at times. If the constitution were changed then this could be made legal, I personally would excercise my right to leave the US if this happened however. Quote If they voted to ban red automobiles, would that be okay? You don't have a right to own a red car or a car of any color, maybe we should add a new ammendment to protect the rights of minority red car owners . Seriously though it would be legal, but the majority is not likely to vote for something as dumb as this, although you never know in America, stranger things have happened, take the last presidential election for example Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,175 #32 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuote A democracy should respect the rights of minorities who aren't hurting anyone or anything. Absolutely, like people who want to grow pot in their backyards and smoke it in the privacy of their homes, or who wish to have homosexual relations with other consenting adults, or women who wish to have confidential treatment from their OB/gyne, or guys who wish to drive at 150mph on deserted highways when no-one else is around, or who help someone with incurable terminal disease to commit suicide...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #33 December 17, 2004 QuoteCA state law says the city has no ground to stand on. Gun laws are the state's responsibility. Wrong-o. CA statutes say that, but the CA Supreme Court has viewed ti differently. In Nordyke v. King (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 875, (a gun show case) the Cal Supreme Court ruled on a county ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms and ammunition on county property. The court found that while the state regulated gun shows, there was nothing to prevent a county from outlawing possession of guns on its property. In Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 853, another gun show case, the court also found that county ordinances with respect to the gun shows were not pre-empted by the Penal Code. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S091549.PDF Nordyke opinion http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S091547.PDF Great Western opinion. Interestingly, Second Amendment arguments weren't made. They often aren't, since there's very little case law on it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #34 December 17, 2004 Those refer to countys' rights to restrict functions on their fairgrounds. That's quite different from enacting gun laws for the citizens. Another example are city taxes on sales by gun stores. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,175 #35 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteCA state law says the city has no ground to stand on. Gun laws are the state's responsibility. Wrong-o. CA statutes say that, but the CA Supreme Court has viewed ti differently. In Nordyke v. King (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 875, (a gun show case) the Cal Supreme Court ruled on a county ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms and ammunition on county property. The court found that while the state regulated gun shows, there was nothing to prevent a county from outlawing possession of guns on its property. What ever happened to property rights? The county's property???? The people truly are the chattel of the state.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #36 December 17, 2004 QuoteYou don't have a right to own a red car or a car of any color, maybe we should add a new ammendment to protect the rights of minority red car owners Yes, actually, you do. There already is an amendment to that effect. Look up the ninth amendment to the constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #37 December 17, 2004 There's a significant difference between what's allowed on county property and what a city can outlaw (in contravention of state law), right? I mean one is property choices by gov. entity, and the other is a ban on private property ownership (of an item protected by state and federal law, as I recall). The second amendment wouldn't really affect legal activities (vs. illegal), but this is a civil rights issue, no?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #38 December 17, 2004 Do you mind you messed up the dress right dress of the Tuna formation. R.i.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #39 December 17, 2004 Hey. I'm just saying that they'll be attempting to extend the law of the cases I cited. By the way, if I own a business, and I own th eoffice, I can't smoke in it or allow smoking for the public benefit. "Let's extend that to guns" is the argument. I hope this law gets stricken quickly, if passed (which it likely will be" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #40 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf they voted to ban red automobiles, would that be okay? Seriously though it would be legal, but the majority is not likely to vote for something as dumb as this... Banning law-abiding gun ownership is just as dumb as banning red cars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #41 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteCA state law says the city has no ground to stand on. Gun laws are the state's responsibility. Wrong-o. CA statutes say that, but the CA Supreme Court has viewed ti differently... Here is the relevant info, from the Second Amendment Foundation: Calling it an "ill-considered return visit of anti-gun bigotry," the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today blasted plans to put a handgun ban on the November 2005 ballot in San Francisco, California, reminding proponents of the measure that such a ban was declared illegal when first tried in 1982. "This issue was decided by the California courts more than 22 years ago, and the gun ban extremists lost," recalled SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "Why some city supervisors want to waste the time, and money, of voters to revisit an issue that was unanimously trounced by the State Court of Appeals makes no sense. Even if the ban were to pass, it will not hold up in court." In late June 1982, then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein pushed through a handgun ban in San Francisco that lasted only three months before it was overturned by the California State Court of Appeals. Twenty days after the ban was enacted, SAF took Feinstein and the city to court, ultimately beating the ban on Oct. 30 of that year. The city appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court, which allowed the Appeals Court ruling to stand in January 1983. "It is incredible," Gottlieb added, "that in a city where the government has supposedly taken a lead in defending individual rights and freedoms, it is still considered acceptable to practice social bigotry, so long as gun owners are the victims. This may come as a shock to the moral inquisitors in San Francisco, but gun owners have civil rights, too, just like any other social group. Those civil rights are not up for grabs at the whims of the Board of Supervisors, or even the popular vote. We fought this battle once, and we're not afraid to fight it again." If the issue does pass, they'll just end up wasting a whole lot of the taxpayer's money trying to defend it in court, when it has already been ruled illegal. The taxpayers should demand better than this from their elected representatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #42 December 17, 2004 You know, I did a search to find that case that they are talking about, which is Doe v. City of San Francisco (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 509. Ths was cited in the opinion in Great Western. This opinion has not been overturned, and on the basis of this opinion, there is a fantastic argument. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Obviously, I didn't dig too deeply here. This seems right on point with the decision in Doe. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #43 December 17, 2004 The issue here, I believe, is called "preemption". A good explanation of the principle is here: Preemption Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #44 December 17, 2004 Pre-emption is the key issue here. The issue is whether this law is pre-empted or not. For that, you must also examine "Express" vs. "implied" preemption. California courts do not like to find pre-emption, since that leads them more into "Political Questions" that courts are traditionally averse to touching. If the courts do not find an "express pre-emption" the chances go down for success at overturning it. By the way - the real reason for this may be political press. My guess is this SF kook has done plenty of voter research to see whether he can get more votes for doign this, regardless of his success. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #45 December 17, 2004 So the reason the 1982 law was quashed was that it also exempted certain classes of people, and apparently gave them a license to own a gun. Which only the state can do. The claim is that it doesn't apply this time, since they won't actually administer any sort of licensing this time. It's a pretty lame distinction, but one they'll try to use. It's not all too comforting that this was the reason for striking it down, not the more obvious reasons. BTW, for whoever was talking about DC - apparently the House has voted to repeal most control measures there, and the Senate is now considering. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #46 December 18, 2004 Quote Interesting idea, but if this right were so inalienable other cities would not have been able to enact legislation e.g. DC. The courts have upheld the law so far, guess we will have to wait and see what happens on appeal. Quote http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bill+overturn+gun+law+washington+dc&btnG=Google+Search That ban in Washington DC is under threat of repeal from two sides: both legislative and judicial. Don't put all your eggs in that basket just yet. There is a lawsuit brought by residents of Washington DC that their rights ar being infringed. There is also a bill before congress that would alter the gun ban. (already approved by the House, now before the Senate or one of its committees)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sfc 1 #47 December 18, 2004 QuoteQuote Interesting idea, but if this right were so inalienable other cities would not have been able to enact legislation e.g. DC. The courts have upheld the law so far, guess we will have to wait and see what happens on appeal. Quote http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bill+overturn+gun+law+washington+dc&btnG=Google+Search That ban in Washington DC is under threat of repeal from two sides: both legislative and judicial. Don't put all your eggs in that basket just yet. There is a lawsuit brought by residents of Washington DC that their rights ar being infringed. There is also a bill before congress that would alter the gun ban. (already approved by the House, now before the Senate or one of its committees) I don't think city wide bans do squat for gun crime, but not being or planning to be a gun owner I don't really give a hot steamy turd about such a law being passed. I just don't get how some people get so bent out of shape about a city voting for a ban, I mean it is their freakin city, and if you don't like it move somewhere else, there are enough cities in the US to suit every purpose, some people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #48 December 18, 2004 QuoteI don't think city wide bans do squat for gun crime, Well, we can completely agree there, and be secure in our beliefs based on decades of the failed experiment in DC. Quote but not being or planning to be a gun owner I don't really give a hot steamy turd about such a law being passed. Well, I don't plan on openning up a newspaper or magazine, but I surely would care about a law being passed that insituted wide ranging censorship. QuoteI just don't get how some people get so bent out of shape about a city voting for a ban, I mean it is their freakin city, and if you don't like it move somewhere else, Does the idea of minority rights within majority rule truly escape you? Quotethere are enough cities in the US to suit every purpose, So some rights should only apply in certain cities? Self defense doesn't deserve to be a nationwide right? Quotesome people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. So it's ok to shove religion down people's throats? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #49 December 18, 2004 Quotesome people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. I've never thought of the pro-gun stance as one that wants to shove gun ownership down people's throats, but rather one fights for my freedom to own a gun if I choose to do so. The anti-gun stance on the other hand absolutely wants to take that choice away from me, shoving their position down my throat. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallRate 0 #50 December 18, 2004 QuoteThere, you can't get CCL except in extreme cases (bodyguards, armed car guards, etc.) Is it acceptable to claim that you are your own bodyguard? The notion of private security being placed in a category of special privilege is a bit on the dumb side. Reminds me of Rosie's hypocrisy? FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
sfc 1 #31 December 17, 2004 Quote A democracy should respect the rights of minorities who aren't hurting anyone or anything. The constitution serves this purpose. Restrictive gun laws in cities have not been ruled as unconstitutional as far as I know. Quote If the majority voted to reinstitute slavery, would that make it the proper thing to do? Proper is in the eye of the beholder, legal/illegeal is all that really counts and it can be BS at times. If the constitution were changed then this could be made legal, I personally would excercise my right to leave the US if this happened however. Quote If they voted to ban red automobiles, would that be okay? You don't have a right to own a red car or a car of any color, maybe we should add a new ammendment to protect the rights of minority red car owners . Seriously though it would be legal, but the majority is not likely to vote for something as dumb as this, although you never know in America, stranger things have happened, take the last presidential election for example Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #32 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuote A democracy should respect the rights of minorities who aren't hurting anyone or anything. Absolutely, like people who want to grow pot in their backyards and smoke it in the privacy of their homes, or who wish to have homosexual relations with other consenting adults, or women who wish to have confidential treatment from their OB/gyne, or guys who wish to drive at 150mph on deserted highways when no-one else is around, or who help someone with incurable terminal disease to commit suicide...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #33 December 17, 2004 QuoteCA state law says the city has no ground to stand on. Gun laws are the state's responsibility. Wrong-o. CA statutes say that, but the CA Supreme Court has viewed ti differently. In Nordyke v. King (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 875, (a gun show case) the Cal Supreme Court ruled on a county ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms and ammunition on county property. The court found that while the state regulated gun shows, there was nothing to prevent a county from outlawing possession of guns on its property. In Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 853, another gun show case, the court also found that county ordinances with respect to the gun shows were not pre-empted by the Penal Code. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S091549.PDF Nordyke opinion http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S091547.PDF Great Western opinion. Interestingly, Second Amendment arguments weren't made. They often aren't, since there's very little case law on it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #34 December 17, 2004 Those refer to countys' rights to restrict functions on their fairgrounds. That's quite different from enacting gun laws for the citizens. Another example are city taxes on sales by gun stores. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,175 #35 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteCA state law says the city has no ground to stand on. Gun laws are the state's responsibility. Wrong-o. CA statutes say that, but the CA Supreme Court has viewed ti differently. In Nordyke v. King (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 875, (a gun show case) the Cal Supreme Court ruled on a county ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms and ammunition on county property. The court found that while the state regulated gun shows, there was nothing to prevent a county from outlawing possession of guns on its property. What ever happened to property rights? The county's property???? The people truly are the chattel of the state.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #36 December 17, 2004 QuoteYou don't have a right to own a red car or a car of any color, maybe we should add a new ammendment to protect the rights of minority red car owners Yes, actually, you do. There already is an amendment to that effect. Look up the ninth amendment to the constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #37 December 17, 2004 There's a significant difference between what's allowed on county property and what a city can outlaw (in contravention of state law), right? I mean one is property choices by gov. entity, and the other is a ban on private property ownership (of an item protected by state and federal law, as I recall). The second amendment wouldn't really affect legal activities (vs. illegal), but this is a civil rights issue, no?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #38 December 17, 2004 Do you mind you messed up the dress right dress of the Tuna formation. R.i.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #39 December 17, 2004 Hey. I'm just saying that they'll be attempting to extend the law of the cases I cited. By the way, if I own a business, and I own th eoffice, I can't smoke in it or allow smoking for the public benefit. "Let's extend that to guns" is the argument. I hope this law gets stricken quickly, if passed (which it likely will be" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #40 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf they voted to ban red automobiles, would that be okay? Seriously though it would be legal, but the majority is not likely to vote for something as dumb as this... Banning law-abiding gun ownership is just as dumb as banning red cars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #41 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteCA state law says the city has no ground to stand on. Gun laws are the state's responsibility. Wrong-o. CA statutes say that, but the CA Supreme Court has viewed ti differently... Here is the relevant info, from the Second Amendment Foundation: Calling it an "ill-considered return visit of anti-gun bigotry," the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today blasted plans to put a handgun ban on the November 2005 ballot in San Francisco, California, reminding proponents of the measure that such a ban was declared illegal when first tried in 1982. "This issue was decided by the California courts more than 22 years ago, and the gun ban extremists lost," recalled SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "Why some city supervisors want to waste the time, and money, of voters to revisit an issue that was unanimously trounced by the State Court of Appeals makes no sense. Even if the ban were to pass, it will not hold up in court." In late June 1982, then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein pushed through a handgun ban in San Francisco that lasted only three months before it was overturned by the California State Court of Appeals. Twenty days after the ban was enacted, SAF took Feinstein and the city to court, ultimately beating the ban on Oct. 30 of that year. The city appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court, which allowed the Appeals Court ruling to stand in January 1983. "It is incredible," Gottlieb added, "that in a city where the government has supposedly taken a lead in defending individual rights and freedoms, it is still considered acceptable to practice social bigotry, so long as gun owners are the victims. This may come as a shock to the moral inquisitors in San Francisco, but gun owners have civil rights, too, just like any other social group. Those civil rights are not up for grabs at the whims of the Board of Supervisors, or even the popular vote. We fought this battle once, and we're not afraid to fight it again." If the issue does pass, they'll just end up wasting a whole lot of the taxpayer's money trying to defend it in court, when it has already been ruled illegal. The taxpayers should demand better than this from their elected representatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #42 December 17, 2004 You know, I did a search to find that case that they are talking about, which is Doe v. City of San Francisco (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 509. Ths was cited in the opinion in Great Western. This opinion has not been overturned, and on the basis of this opinion, there is a fantastic argument. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Obviously, I didn't dig too deeply here. This seems right on point with the decision in Doe. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #43 December 17, 2004 The issue here, I believe, is called "preemption". A good explanation of the principle is here: Preemption Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #44 December 17, 2004 Pre-emption is the key issue here. The issue is whether this law is pre-empted or not. For that, you must also examine "Express" vs. "implied" preemption. California courts do not like to find pre-emption, since that leads them more into "Political Questions" that courts are traditionally averse to touching. If the courts do not find an "express pre-emption" the chances go down for success at overturning it. By the way - the real reason for this may be political press. My guess is this SF kook has done plenty of voter research to see whether he can get more votes for doign this, regardless of his success. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #45 December 17, 2004 So the reason the 1982 law was quashed was that it also exempted certain classes of people, and apparently gave them a license to own a gun. Which only the state can do. The claim is that it doesn't apply this time, since they won't actually administer any sort of licensing this time. It's a pretty lame distinction, but one they'll try to use. It's not all too comforting that this was the reason for striking it down, not the more obvious reasons. BTW, for whoever was talking about DC - apparently the House has voted to repeal most control measures there, and the Senate is now considering. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #46 December 18, 2004 Quote Interesting idea, but if this right were so inalienable other cities would not have been able to enact legislation e.g. DC. The courts have upheld the law so far, guess we will have to wait and see what happens on appeal. Quote http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bill+overturn+gun+law+washington+dc&btnG=Google+Search That ban in Washington DC is under threat of repeal from two sides: both legislative and judicial. Don't put all your eggs in that basket just yet. There is a lawsuit brought by residents of Washington DC that their rights ar being infringed. There is also a bill before congress that would alter the gun ban. (already approved by the House, now before the Senate or one of its committees)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sfc 1 #47 December 18, 2004 QuoteQuote Interesting idea, but if this right were so inalienable other cities would not have been able to enact legislation e.g. DC. The courts have upheld the law so far, guess we will have to wait and see what happens on appeal. Quote http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bill+overturn+gun+law+washington+dc&btnG=Google+Search That ban in Washington DC is under threat of repeal from two sides: both legislative and judicial. Don't put all your eggs in that basket just yet. There is a lawsuit brought by residents of Washington DC that their rights ar being infringed. There is also a bill before congress that would alter the gun ban. (already approved by the House, now before the Senate or one of its committees) I don't think city wide bans do squat for gun crime, but not being or planning to be a gun owner I don't really give a hot steamy turd about such a law being passed. I just don't get how some people get so bent out of shape about a city voting for a ban, I mean it is their freakin city, and if you don't like it move somewhere else, there are enough cities in the US to suit every purpose, some people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #48 December 18, 2004 QuoteI don't think city wide bans do squat for gun crime, Well, we can completely agree there, and be secure in our beliefs based on decades of the failed experiment in DC. Quote but not being or planning to be a gun owner I don't really give a hot steamy turd about such a law being passed. Well, I don't plan on openning up a newspaper or magazine, but I surely would care about a law being passed that insituted wide ranging censorship. QuoteI just don't get how some people get so bent out of shape about a city voting for a ban, I mean it is their freakin city, and if you don't like it move somewhere else, Does the idea of minority rights within majority rule truly escape you? Quotethere are enough cities in the US to suit every purpose, So some rights should only apply in certain cities? Self defense doesn't deserve to be a nationwide right? Quotesome people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. So it's ok to shove religion down people's throats? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #49 December 18, 2004 Quotesome people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. I've never thought of the pro-gun stance as one that wants to shove gun ownership down people's throats, but rather one fights for my freedom to own a gun if I choose to do so. The anti-gun stance on the other hand absolutely wants to take that choice away from me, shoving their position down my throat. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallRate 0 #50 December 18, 2004 QuoteThere, you can't get CCL except in extreme cases (bodyguards, armed car guards, etc.) Is it acceptable to claim that you are your own bodyguard? The notion of private security being placed in a category of special privilege is a bit on the dumb side. Reminds me of Rosie's hypocrisy? FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
lawrocket 3 #33 December 17, 2004 QuoteCA state law says the city has no ground to stand on. Gun laws are the state's responsibility. Wrong-o. CA statutes say that, but the CA Supreme Court has viewed ti differently. In Nordyke v. King (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 875, (a gun show case) the Cal Supreme Court ruled on a county ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms and ammunition on county property. The court found that while the state regulated gun shows, there was nothing to prevent a county from outlawing possession of guns on its property. In Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 853, another gun show case, the court also found that county ordinances with respect to the gun shows were not pre-empted by the Penal Code. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S091549.PDF Nordyke opinion http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S091547.PDF Great Western opinion. Interestingly, Second Amendment arguments weren't made. They often aren't, since there's very little case law on it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 December 17, 2004 Those refer to countys' rights to restrict functions on their fairgrounds. That's quite different from enacting gun laws for the citizens. Another example are city taxes on sales by gun stores. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #35 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteCA state law says the city has no ground to stand on. Gun laws are the state's responsibility. Wrong-o. CA statutes say that, but the CA Supreme Court has viewed ti differently. In Nordyke v. King (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 875, (a gun show case) the Cal Supreme Court ruled on a county ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms and ammunition on county property. The court found that while the state regulated gun shows, there was nothing to prevent a county from outlawing possession of guns on its property. What ever happened to property rights? The county's property???? The people truly are the chattel of the state.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #36 December 17, 2004 QuoteYou don't have a right to own a red car or a car of any color, maybe we should add a new ammendment to protect the rights of minority red car owners Yes, actually, you do. There already is an amendment to that effect. Look up the ninth amendment to the constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #37 December 17, 2004 There's a significant difference between what's allowed on county property and what a city can outlaw (in contravention of state law), right? I mean one is property choices by gov. entity, and the other is a ban on private property ownership (of an item protected by state and federal law, as I recall). The second amendment wouldn't really affect legal activities (vs. illegal), but this is a civil rights issue, no?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #38 December 17, 2004 Do you mind you messed up the dress right dress of the Tuna formation. R.i.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #39 December 17, 2004 Hey. I'm just saying that they'll be attempting to extend the law of the cases I cited. By the way, if I own a business, and I own th eoffice, I can't smoke in it or allow smoking for the public benefit. "Let's extend that to guns" is the argument. I hope this law gets stricken quickly, if passed (which it likely will be" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #40 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf they voted to ban red automobiles, would that be okay? Seriously though it would be legal, but the majority is not likely to vote for something as dumb as this... Banning law-abiding gun ownership is just as dumb as banning red cars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #41 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteCA state law says the city has no ground to stand on. Gun laws are the state's responsibility. Wrong-o. CA statutes say that, but the CA Supreme Court has viewed ti differently... Here is the relevant info, from the Second Amendment Foundation: Calling it an "ill-considered return visit of anti-gun bigotry," the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today blasted plans to put a handgun ban on the November 2005 ballot in San Francisco, California, reminding proponents of the measure that such a ban was declared illegal when first tried in 1982. "This issue was decided by the California courts more than 22 years ago, and the gun ban extremists lost," recalled SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "Why some city supervisors want to waste the time, and money, of voters to revisit an issue that was unanimously trounced by the State Court of Appeals makes no sense. Even if the ban were to pass, it will not hold up in court." In late June 1982, then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein pushed through a handgun ban in San Francisco that lasted only three months before it was overturned by the California State Court of Appeals. Twenty days after the ban was enacted, SAF took Feinstein and the city to court, ultimately beating the ban on Oct. 30 of that year. The city appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court, which allowed the Appeals Court ruling to stand in January 1983. "It is incredible," Gottlieb added, "that in a city where the government has supposedly taken a lead in defending individual rights and freedoms, it is still considered acceptable to practice social bigotry, so long as gun owners are the victims. This may come as a shock to the moral inquisitors in San Francisco, but gun owners have civil rights, too, just like any other social group. Those civil rights are not up for grabs at the whims of the Board of Supervisors, or even the popular vote. We fought this battle once, and we're not afraid to fight it again." If the issue does pass, they'll just end up wasting a whole lot of the taxpayer's money trying to defend it in court, when it has already been ruled illegal. The taxpayers should demand better than this from their elected representatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #42 December 17, 2004 You know, I did a search to find that case that they are talking about, which is Doe v. City of San Francisco (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 509. Ths was cited in the opinion in Great Western. This opinion has not been overturned, and on the basis of this opinion, there is a fantastic argument. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Obviously, I didn't dig too deeply here. This seems right on point with the decision in Doe. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #43 December 17, 2004 The issue here, I believe, is called "preemption". A good explanation of the principle is here: Preemption Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #44 December 17, 2004 Pre-emption is the key issue here. The issue is whether this law is pre-empted or not. For that, you must also examine "Express" vs. "implied" preemption. California courts do not like to find pre-emption, since that leads them more into "Political Questions" that courts are traditionally averse to touching. If the courts do not find an "express pre-emption" the chances go down for success at overturning it. By the way - the real reason for this may be political press. My guess is this SF kook has done plenty of voter research to see whether he can get more votes for doign this, regardless of his success. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #45 December 17, 2004 So the reason the 1982 law was quashed was that it also exempted certain classes of people, and apparently gave them a license to own a gun. Which only the state can do. The claim is that it doesn't apply this time, since they won't actually administer any sort of licensing this time. It's a pretty lame distinction, but one they'll try to use. It's not all too comforting that this was the reason for striking it down, not the more obvious reasons. BTW, for whoever was talking about DC - apparently the House has voted to repeal most control measures there, and the Senate is now considering. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #46 December 18, 2004 Quote Interesting idea, but if this right were so inalienable other cities would not have been able to enact legislation e.g. DC. The courts have upheld the law so far, guess we will have to wait and see what happens on appeal. Quote http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bill+overturn+gun+law+washington+dc&btnG=Google+Search That ban in Washington DC is under threat of repeal from two sides: both legislative and judicial. Don't put all your eggs in that basket just yet. There is a lawsuit brought by residents of Washington DC that their rights ar being infringed. There is also a bill before congress that would alter the gun ban. (already approved by the House, now before the Senate or one of its committees)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sfc 1 #47 December 18, 2004 QuoteQuote Interesting idea, but if this right were so inalienable other cities would not have been able to enact legislation e.g. DC. The courts have upheld the law so far, guess we will have to wait and see what happens on appeal. Quote http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bill+overturn+gun+law+washington+dc&btnG=Google+Search That ban in Washington DC is under threat of repeal from two sides: both legislative and judicial. Don't put all your eggs in that basket just yet. There is a lawsuit brought by residents of Washington DC that their rights ar being infringed. There is also a bill before congress that would alter the gun ban. (already approved by the House, now before the Senate or one of its committees) I don't think city wide bans do squat for gun crime, but not being or planning to be a gun owner I don't really give a hot steamy turd about such a law being passed. I just don't get how some people get so bent out of shape about a city voting for a ban, I mean it is their freakin city, and if you don't like it move somewhere else, there are enough cities in the US to suit every purpose, some people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #48 December 18, 2004 QuoteI don't think city wide bans do squat for gun crime, Well, we can completely agree there, and be secure in our beliefs based on decades of the failed experiment in DC. Quote but not being or planning to be a gun owner I don't really give a hot steamy turd about such a law being passed. Well, I don't plan on openning up a newspaper or magazine, but I surely would care about a law being passed that insituted wide ranging censorship. QuoteI just don't get how some people get so bent out of shape about a city voting for a ban, I mean it is their freakin city, and if you don't like it move somewhere else, Does the idea of minority rights within majority rule truly escape you? Quotethere are enough cities in the US to suit every purpose, So some rights should only apply in certain cities? Self defense doesn't deserve to be a nationwide right? Quotesome people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. So it's ok to shove religion down people's throats? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #49 December 18, 2004 Quotesome people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. I've never thought of the pro-gun stance as one that wants to shove gun ownership down people's throats, but rather one fights for my freedom to own a gun if I choose to do so. The anti-gun stance on the other hand absolutely wants to take that choice away from me, shoving their position down my throat. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallRate 0 #50 December 18, 2004 QuoteThere, you can't get CCL except in extreme cases (bodyguards, armed car guards, etc.) Is it acceptable to claim that you are your own bodyguard? The notion of private security being placed in a category of special privilege is a bit on the dumb side. Reminds me of Rosie's hypocrisy? FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
sfc 1 #47 December 18, 2004 QuoteQuote Interesting idea, but if this right were so inalienable other cities would not have been able to enact legislation e.g. DC. The courts have upheld the law so far, guess we will have to wait and see what happens on appeal. Quote http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bill+overturn+gun+law+washington+dc&btnG=Google+Search That ban in Washington DC is under threat of repeal from two sides: both legislative and judicial. Don't put all your eggs in that basket just yet. There is a lawsuit brought by residents of Washington DC that their rights ar being infringed. There is also a bill before congress that would alter the gun ban. (already approved by the House, now before the Senate or one of its committees) I don't think city wide bans do squat for gun crime, but not being or planning to be a gun owner I don't really give a hot steamy turd about such a law being passed. I just don't get how some people get so bent out of shape about a city voting for a ban, I mean it is their freakin city, and if you don't like it move somewhere else, there are enough cities in the US to suit every purpose, some people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #48 December 18, 2004 QuoteI don't think city wide bans do squat for gun crime, Well, we can completely agree there, and be secure in our beliefs based on decades of the failed experiment in DC. Quote but not being or planning to be a gun owner I don't really give a hot steamy turd about such a law being passed. Well, I don't plan on openning up a newspaper or magazine, but I surely would care about a law being passed that insituted wide ranging censorship. QuoteI just don't get how some people get so bent out of shape about a city voting for a ban, I mean it is their freakin city, and if you don't like it move somewhere else, Does the idea of minority rights within majority rule truly escape you? Quotethere are enough cities in the US to suit every purpose, So some rights should only apply in certain cities? Self defense doesn't deserve to be a nationwide right? Quotesome people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. So it's ok to shove religion down people's throats? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #49 December 18, 2004 Quotesome people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. I've never thought of the pro-gun stance as one that wants to shove gun ownership down people's throats, but rather one fights for my freedom to own a gun if I choose to do so. The anti-gun stance on the other hand absolutely wants to take that choice away from me, shoving their position down my throat. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallRate 0 #50 December 18, 2004 QuoteThere, you can't get CCL except in extreme cases (bodyguards, armed car guards, etc.) Is it acceptable to claim that you are your own bodyguard? The notion of private security being placed in a category of special privilege is a bit on the dumb side. Reminds me of Rosie's hypocrisy? FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Kennedy 0 #48 December 18, 2004 QuoteI don't think city wide bans do squat for gun crime, Well, we can completely agree there, and be secure in our beliefs based on decades of the failed experiment in DC. Quote but not being or planning to be a gun owner I don't really give a hot steamy turd about such a law being passed. Well, I don't plan on openning up a newspaper or magazine, but I surely would care about a law being passed that insituted wide ranging censorship. QuoteI just don't get how some people get so bent out of shape about a city voting for a ban, I mean it is their freakin city, and if you don't like it move somewhere else, Does the idea of minority rights within majority rule truly escape you? Quotethere are enough cities in the US to suit every purpose, So some rights should only apply in certain cities? Self defense doesn't deserve to be a nationwide right? Quotesome people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. So it's ok to shove religion down people's throats? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #49 December 18, 2004 Quotesome people seem to need to shove gun ownership down the throat of everyone, give it a break, it is a gun not a religion. I've never thought of the pro-gun stance as one that wants to shove gun ownership down people's throats, but rather one fights for my freedom to own a gun if I choose to do so. The anti-gun stance on the other hand absolutely wants to take that choice away from me, shoving their position down my throat. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #50 December 18, 2004 QuoteThere, you can't get CCL except in extreme cases (bodyguards, armed car guards, etc.) Is it acceptable to claim that you are your own bodyguard? The notion of private security being placed in a category of special privilege is a bit on the dumb side. Reminds me of Rosie's hypocrisy? FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
