State high court shoots down S.F. handgun ban

[beevul]

State high court shoots down S.F. handgun ban
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, April 10, 2008

(04-09) 17:19 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

The court's unanimous order was a victory for the National Rifle Association, which sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers a day after the measure passed with 58 percent of the vote in November 2005. The initiative has never taken effect.

The ordinance, Proposition H, would have forbidden San Francisco residents to possess handguns, exempting only law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes. It would have also prohibited the manufacture, sale or distribution of any type of firearms or ammunition in San Francisco.

Lower courts ruled that the measure interfered with a statewide system of gun regulation, which bars certain types of weapons and allows others. The rulings did not address the scope of the constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, the focus of a pending U.S. Supreme Court case involving a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL

Just as many predicted.

Interesting article.

[Spoonman]

1. A great story to start the weekend with!

:toast:

[coriolis]

2. Regardless of what you (generic) might think about guns, hand or otherwise,

this decision is good and supports the idea that allowing municipalities to micromanage Constitutional issues is
impractical, illegal and counterproductive. They MIGHT have been able to implement an ordinance prohibiting manufacture and even sale under many conditions without running afoul of the courts. (Yes, I understand they did not specifically address U.S. Constitutional provisions, mainly I suspect because the USSC is already considering those,)

edit for typo

[iverglas]

3. I suspect the intended purpose has been achieved

It has been demonstrated that the interests of a handful of profiteers and self-centred shitheads, and the well-organized political machine that is happy to use them to promote its right-wing aims, will win out over the wishes and welfare of a community every day.

It's a valuable lesson for the public to learn, and it seems to have come pretty cheap.

[Irreverend IX]

4. What profiteers would those be? nt

[virginia mountainman]

5. Since when did civil rights, become a "right wing" aim?

[bossy22]

6. actually- no

the only thing that has been achieved is the striking down of a local law which is in violation of state law. There is no "political machine" involved in this.

If a state has a law that says "only the _______ state legislature has the power to regulate guns in the state" and city X passes a gun control law- they are in violation of that law- so the law if challeneged will be struck down

[iverglas]

7. cheeses, you people really don't read well, do you?

Where are the profiteers, where is the political machine? I hear you cry.

a victory for the National Rifle Association,
which sued on behalf of gun owners,
advocates and dealers

Can you see it now? How about if I make it red and blinky?

[Jack_DeLeon]

8. Thanks...

I as a gun owner really appreciate being called a "profiteer, and self centered-shit head" by the likes of you. :eyes:

[bossy22]

9. you really don't get it

the law was illegal- it was challenged- and rightfully stricken from the books.

[beevul]

11. That cut and paste job you've been waiting for...

Seeing as you so freely involve and express your opinion in matters of OUR country - Spoonman

When will you or anyone come up with an instance of my having done that where(a) I wasn't asked first and (b) the question wasn't one that affects MY country - iverglas


This would be one of those, since you asked. You weren't asked first, and this doesn't effect your country, so far as anyone with reasonable vision can see.


In addition, that there:

It has been demonstrated that the interests of a handful of profiteers and self-centred shitheads, and the well-organized political machine that is happy to use them to promote its right-wing aims, will win out over the wishes and welfare of a community every day.



That there is a mighty interesting way to characterize the city that broke state laws, and the people that took them to task for breaking them.

Mighty interesting indeed.

[iverglas]

12. and here's one for you

I'm sure you've seen it before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context as they go in such a way to achieve equivocation by treating distinct meanings of the word as equivalent.

I'm sure that if I said I found it hot in Dallas, you'd be enraged that I had dared to express "(my) opinion in matters of (YOUR) country".


Clever of you not to have provided a link to the CONTEXT of the remark you quote, but here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=166180&mesg_id=166215

and here's what was said, with some emphasis to focus your mind:

(Spoonman: Seeing as you so freely involve and express your opinion in matters of OUR country)

When will you or anyone come up with an instance of my having done that where

(a) I wasn't asked first
and
(b) the question wasn't one that affects MY country

?

Is stating my opinion that Oleg Volk is a vile piece of shit expressing my opinion on matters in your country? Well, you are apparently stuck with Oleg Volk, so I suppose it is.

Anyway, >>>>>>> I didn't say anything about opinions.

I read jody's DIRECTIVE to Canada, and stated that if Canada wanted his ADVICE (which was a nice way of putting it), Canada would ask.

I'm sure you can come up with something I've said that is, as an example of telling someone else what to do without any instruction having been solicited, just as obnoxious as "If Canada has a problem with gun crime, then sentence offenders to life in prison"? And that you'll be able to copy and paste it here.

So. Was this supposed to be your example of telling someone else what to do without any instruction having been solicited, just as obnoxious as that one ?

Pretty sad attempt, wasn't it then?

[beevul]

14. I said X but I meant Y...

"I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X...I said X but I meant Y...errI said Y but I meant X..."

"No one understands what I say, everyone deliberately misunderstands what I say Blah blah blabedy-blah."


You don't want to clearly be understood. Anyone that does, makes an honest and obvious attempt at doing so, and you don't. The a full 3/4 of any argument or discussion with you, is getting past your verbiage and the fact that you could say clearly and unambiguously convey any message you liked using a simple sentence or 3, yet you don't. You dont want people to understand you clearly, any more than someone whos playing catch wants thier partner to catch thier throw when its thrown deliberately long or short of where thier partner is. Thats your game. Throwing deliberately long or short, and complaining when your throw isn't caught.

Your favorite gambit is old tired and transparent, and its hardly something anyone would call good faith, and everyone hereabouts knows it.

[Retired AF Dem]

16. Damn

No vote button for greatest post.

[iverglas]

21. nah

I said X and you made the false claim that I said Y.

Simple, straightforward and obvious to anyone who cares to admit the truth.

[beevul]

40. Translation: "Hey, um...Look over there!!!!" N/T

[gorfle]

33. Hear Hear, Beevul!

You dont want people to understand you clearly, any more than someone whos playing catch wants thier partner to catch thier throw when its thrown deliberately long or short of where thier partner is. Thats your game. Throwing deliberately long or short, and complaining when your throw isn't caught.

I don't think I've ever seen a nail more squarely hit on the head. Good show. Arguing with Iverglas is like trying to nail down jell-o.

In the very rare case where you can pin her to a specific question, she conveniently drops the thread and the crickets take over.

[maxidivine]

52. Best thread ever

And I mean it.

[NaturalHigh]

15. "How about if I make it red and blinky?"

That still won't change the substance of your comments, which are just out of line. Gun owners are hardly a political machine or profiteers. Representing the interests of gun owners does not make the NRA a political machine or profiteers. As for gun dealers, I'm pretty sure their profession is just as legal as manufacturing ice cream or umbrellas.

[iverglas]

22. who's out of line now?

Gun owners are hardly a political machine or profiteers


And WHO THE FUCK SAID THEY WERE?

And since I DID NOT SAY they were, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING THIS TO ME?

THE N.R.A. was the party that brought the proceedings in question.

THE N.R.A. is a well-organized political machine.

GUN DEALERS who choose to put their profits ahead of the public policy adopted by a democratically elected council are -- in my opinion, that being what I was expressing -- profiteers.

And THAT IS WHAT I SAID.

If you don't like my opinion, tough shit.

Go bother somebody else with your crap, 'k?

[slackmaster]

43. Ah, so gun owners fall under "self-centered shitheads"

Now I understand you.

[beevul]

48. Interesting.

"GUN DEALERS who choose to put their profits ahead of the public policy adopted by a democratically elected council are -- in my opinion, that being what I was expressing -- profiteers."


One can only wonder what opinion you might have of a democratically elected council that oversteps its bounds and costs the taxpayers who elected it a bunch of tax dollars in doing so. And whether thats A-OK in your book because its related to banning guns.

[slackmaster]

19. Of course the state's Attorney General was on the same side as the NRA and gun folks

Remember Jerry Brown?

[Tejas]

10. Yes, however alien the concept to you,

the BOR is to be protected.

[krispos42]

13. Ah,the wishes of a community

Guess somebody has to tell the community that their wishes have to be in accordence with federal and states constitutions and laws.


I suspect that something very similar to what you have just written was said when it became illegal to discriminate against minorities that wanted to own homes in white neighborhoods.

Just a 'fer-instance'.

[iverglas]

23. you are just increasingly cute

Guess somebody has to tell the community that their wishes have to be in accordence with federal and states constitutions and laws.

And I guess that's the job of courts.

Like the one you have in Washington now. And the one that was there back in 1927 and approved state laws authorizing involuntary sterilizations.


I suspect that something very similar to what you have just written was said when it became illegal to discriminate against minorities that wanted to own homes in white neighborhoods.

Do you really?

And I would care because?

Nonetheless, I would have to wonder what handful of profiteers and self-centred shitheads, and the well-organized political machine that is happy to use them to promote its right-wing aims, the people you're thinking about might have had in mind ...

Was there well-organized machine, using profiteers and self-centred shitheads, to promote right-wing aims, behind the move to desegregate neighbourhoods in the US?

I must have missed that one. I often miss things that people have stowed up their bum.

[krispos42]

25. Awww, thank you. I've been told I have enchanting eyes

Like islands, hazel-green around the pupil with some blue-gray on the outer edge.




Hmmm... involuntary sterilization... how interesting.

Furthermore, what's even more interesting is that if I draw any inference, conclusion, or analogy between the San Fransisco case and involuntary sterilization, I am virtually certain to be scolded by you for daring to do so. "I never said...."

Yet, if you did not any inference, conclusion, or analogy, why did you post it?


As to caring... well, hey, as far as you're concerned I'm just a bunch of phospher or LCD pixels on a computer screen somewhere in the Toronto area, so you can care about me or not at your discretion. I'm apparantly sufficiently interesting to be worthy of a reply, and not sufficiently stupid or insulting to warrant being on your ignore list.

But either what a community wants has to be limited by what is legal and constitutional, or it doesn't have to be. Funny, I never mentioned anything about "handful of profiteers and self-centred shitheads, and the well-organized political machine that is happy to use them to promote its right-wing aims" previously.

I trust I can depend on you to scold yourself for putting words in my mouth? At least five paragraphs. With block quotes.



However, since you brought it up, the segregation movement did in fact have a handful of profiteers and self-centered shitheads, as well as political machinery. Remember the Dixiecrats? They won far more electoral votes than Ross Perot ever did, and Perot was ultra-wealthy!

The Republicans did a pretty fair job of capturing the South in the wake of the Civil Rights Act, and uncountable billions of dollars have flowed to them and their think-tanks and lobbyists ever since. The "shitheads" were the racist motherfuckers in the south that would beat a black person to death for using the wrong water fountain. And the shithead racists tooks decades of grinding poverty because being a shithead racists was more important than getting a chance to climb out of the economic pit they were stuck in. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would cost the Democrats the South, and he was proven right.

[iverglas]

27. the end of history

It happens every time someone posts a new message in the Guns forum. What went before disappears from the individual and collective mind.

Funny, I never mentioned anything about "handful of profiteers and self-centred shitheads, and the well-organized political machine that is happy to use them to promote its right-wing aims" previously.

I trust I can depend on you to scold yourself for putting words in my mouth? At least five paragraphs. With block quotes.

For the love of fuck, I SAID IT. I SAID:

It has been demonstrated that the interests of a handful of profiteers and self-centred shitheads, and the well-organized political machine that is happy to use them to promote its right-wing aims, will win out over the wishes and welfare of a community every day.

And then YOU said:

I suspect that something very similar to what you have just written was said when it became illegal to discriminate against minorities that wanted to own homes in white neighborhoods.

And I STILL want to know what "similar" thing might have been said in the case you raise.


However, since you brought it up, the segregation movement did in fact have a handful of profiteers and self-centered shitheads, as well as political machinery.

For the love of god and all the angels. Really. You told me that people who SUPPORTED segregation would have said something similar to what I said. ABOUT people who supported DESEGREGATION, too fucking obviously.

If you're now saying that people who OPPOSED segregation would have said it -- people who OPPOSED segregation would have said that segregationists were acting in the interests of a handful of profiteers and self-centred shitheads, and the well-organized political machine that is happy to use them to promote its right-wing aims -- then DUH.

YOU have just composed the analogy between segregationists and the NRA and its fellow travellers.


President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would cost the Democrats the South, and he was proven right.

Gee.

So sometimes doing the right thing even if you know it might not work out well for you is a good thing?

[krispos42]

36. I know you said it

In fact, you said in in both Reply #3 (your response to OP) and Reply #23 (your response to my Reply #13)

I addressed your "profiteers" comment in Reply #25 because you keep bringing it up to me. It is not the issue I addressed in either Reply #13 or Reply #25.

Whether the people calling the law into question was the NRA-ILA, the ACLU, or the International Brotherhood of Left-Handed Orthodontists isn't the issue. There are no subtle nuances here, no complex case law with far-ranging implications across the legal field, no earth-shaking precedent set by one side or another.

Exhibit A: Subdivisions of the State of California cannot enact gun-control laws stricter than state law.

Exhibit B: A subdivision of the State of California tried to do just that.

Verdict: Said subdivision's law was rendered null and void.

And I STILL want to know what "similar" thing might have been said in the case you raise.

Oh, use your imagination. We can do the simple "swat a word in the sentence" routine, like this:

It has been demonstrated that the interests of a handful of profiteers and self-centred shitheads, and the well-organized political machine that is happy to use them to promote its right left-wing aims, will win out over the wishes and welfare of a community every day.

But I know that drives you absolutely batty, and you reply with something like "you could replace that with 'turnip', so what?", avoiding the topic of whether it is a valid word-swap or not.

So let's pretend. I'll go fondle my shotgun and channel the primative, right-wing thought process from the ether into my brain...

How dare some pinko-commie peacenik tell me that I can't sell my house to whoever I want! It's MY house, that I bought with my hard-earned dollars, and I will choose who I take money from when I sell it, not some bureaucrat! This is a nice, quiet, neighborhood and I'll be damned if I'm going sell it to some Negro! I don't want this area to turn into the ghetto!

See, I even through in the ungrammarical "whoever" instead of "whomever", just for that added touch of authenticity. You can supply your own *pssht* of a beer can popping at the end there.

For the love of god and all the angels. Really.

Odd. Quite a change from:

Was there well-organized machine, using profiteers and self-centred shitheads, to promote right-wing aims, behind the move to desegregate neighbourhoods in the US?

I must have missed that one. I often miss things that people have stowed up their bum.

YOU have just composed the analogy between segregationists and the NRA and its fellow travellers.

This statement is valid only if the original use of the "profiteers" quote is, which from your Reply #3 means that the Vast Pro-Gun Conspiracy went to court and, using large amounts of lobbyist money to hire a legal team of breathtaking depth and skill, in conjunction with an effective public-relations campaign, overwhelmed the poor overtaxed, underpowered SanFran attorneys and twisted and turned the laws of the state into some spaghetti-like mess of contorted legal logic.


Since this didn't happen, the analogy doesn't work. Considering the relatively lightening-fast speed with which this whole chapter of events happened, it really was as simple as saying "Hey, you can't pre-empt California state law".

[iverglas]

38. oh look

Quite a very large number of words devoted to an attempted proof of the hypothesis that "right" and "left" are the same.

[krispos42]

39. Ah, good point

I should have just said "Quite a very large number of words devoted to an attempted proof of the hypothesis that "right" and "left" are the same" in my previous post instead of doing all that typing.

Well, maybe next time.

[slackmaster]

18. No, it's about the fact that state law prohibits municipalities doing their own thing on gun laws

California's state preemption law was not written by profiteers or self-centered shitheads.

[Raskolnik]

28. With which portion of the court's opinion do you take issue?

I assume, naturally, that you've read the opinion. So where did the court go wrong in interpreting the law?

Of course, if *haven't* read the opinion, to characterize it as demonstrating a win for the "interests of a handful of profiteers and self-centred shitheads, and the well-organized political machine that is happy to use them to promote its right-wing aims" would be rather intellectually lazy and dishonest. I'm sure that's not the case here, however.

So--what legal error do you think the court made in this case?

[iverglas]

29. "So where did the court go wrong in interpreting the law?"

I assume you meant to address someone who made that assertion. Just thought I'd let you know that your message went astray.

[Raskolnik]

30. Is the opinion legally correct or is it not?

You're the one criticizing the opinion, so I would like to know upon what you base that criticism.

Do you think the court's opinion is legally correct?

[iverglas]

31. "You're the one criticizing the opinion"

Again, you seem to be losing your way here.

Maybe if you use the "view all" option and the "find" function, you can locate the post by the person you are meaning to address.

[Raskolnik]

32. Perhaps you could explain what you meant by...

"It has been demonstrated that the interests of a handful of profiteers and self-centred shitheads, and the well-organized political machine that is happy to use them to promote its right-wing aims, will win out over the wishes and welfare of a community every day."

If you didn't intend this as a criticism of the outcome of the legal proceeding, please be so kind as to explain what meaning should be attached to your words.

(and if you really want to turn this into chapter 1,456 of Poor Misunderstood Iverglas, please save us both the time and skip it--that process only seems to titillate you)

*edit typo

[iverglas]

34. Oh, you mean me?

What might need explaining? I meant what I said.

You might find life easier if you stopped trying to attach intentions to things people say. Just read 'em. If you don't understand 'em, sure, ask.

But asking "if you didn't mean such-and-such, what did you mean?" -- well, that ain't just asking.

I don't think I've been misunderstood at all. In fact, I virtually never think that I or anyone else is misunderstood. Sorry to disappoint!

[Raskolnik]

35. Once again, Iverglas proves herself utterly unable to answer a direct question.

Not terribly surprising, but the fact that you can't/won't even address the merits of the court's opinion speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty.

At this point, I'm 99.9% sure you haven't laid eyes on the actual opinion, and thus all your generalized hand-wringing about the lessons of this case is worth about as much as the rest of your generalized hand-wringing.

Good night, Iverglas.

[iverglas]

37. I can't/won't address several brazillion things

I'm not especially interested in the merits of the court's opinion. I haven't read the bleeding thing, and don't intend to. Just.not.interested.

What I did find interesting was the identity of the parties carrying the torch for all things legal and constitutional and blah blah blah.

Not the community. Not the public. The NRA and the firearms dealers and "advocates" and firearms owners it claimed to speak for.

Is that the Democratic Party's constituency?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL

In seeking state Supreme Court review, Herrera's office urged the justices to declare that "local governments retain significant, meaningful ... power to protect their residents against gun violence."

The city's lawyers said the use of guns in San Francisco homicides is rising, accounting for 61 percent of all killings in 2001 and 83 percent in 2005, and is particularly high in poor and minority neighborhoods. Gun violence costs San Francisco at least $31.2 million a year for hospital care, police and fire response and jail expenses, the city said.

... The court relied on its own 1982 ruling striking down a San Francisco ordinance that would have prohibited handgun possession by anyone in the city limits. Prop. H drafters sought to comply with the ruling by limiting the ban to city residents.

... The appeals judges also refused San Francisco's request to allow enforcement of Prop. H's ban on the manufacture or sale of rifles and shotguns, saying the city must first rewrite the measure to narrow its scope.

Opinions may differ. Some opinions happen to be authoritative. Dem's da breaks.

[slackmaster]

42. State law is abundantly clear, the city of SF was clearly out of line

From the Attorney General's Web site:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/53701.php

What I did find interesting was the identity of the parties carrying the torch for all things legal and constitutional and blah blah blah.

Yet you insist on ignoring the fact that the Attorney General was one of those parties. You are cherry-picking. Never mind for a moment that the NRA and other parties who took to court their oppostion to the measure were actually right by any objective measure.

[Raskolnik]

45. "I'm not especially interested in the merits of the court's opinion."

It's good to know that you're not interested in "all things legal and constitutional and blah blah blah."

Those are pretty minor details when it comes to the law, after all.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. That's classic.

Why debate the actual merits, when your preconceived ideas are so enlightened? No need to actually read the opinion before making asinine comments about it. Thanks for being honest.

David

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

46. watch out

You're about to get about 10 of those "does not contribute to discussion" posts.

[iverglas]

47. oh, and

if you would cease to employ the word "liberal" in conjunction with my name, I'd be grateful.

No need for insults then, is there?

[slackmaster]

17. Members of the SFCC openly said they knew it would be declared unconstitutional

This is just another typical example of SF street theater politics.

[iverglas]

24. duh

Now gee, I wonder what *I* said.

[slackmaster]

41. I already responded to what you said in a different post

What are you blathering about in this sub-thread?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. You said nothing as usual.

At least nothing in anyway meaningful.

David

[iverglas]

51. whereas ........

[fighterdem6]

20. Guns should be kept at home

Carrying guns outside of home is a risk to people's safety.

[Firethorn]

26. Cars should be kept at home...

Driving cars outside of home is a risk to people's safety.

CCW permit holders have a lower misfire rate than cops.

Or do you have some statistics that show people are particularly dangerous with guns outside of home? I mean, most people who own guns take them to the range occasionally, millions go hunting each year, and CCW holders, of course, often carry concealed.

[TomHansley]

53. So if some town voted to outlaw certain religions in their town...

that would be cool with everyone? "No Mormons or Jews allowed here!"

Hey, the townspeople voted for it!

Sorry, but the SF ban violated the 2nd amendment... 42% of the people voted against it, so the majority is allowed to strip the rights off the minority?

[old mark]

54. They should have..

..it is illegal.

mark