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

[LiberalInGeorgia2005]

Judge rules voter-approved S.F. handgun ban is illegal
The San Francisco Chronicle
By: Bob Egelko
June 12, 2006

(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.

The National Rifle Association sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after the measure passed. The NRA argued that Prop. H overstepped local government authority and intruded into an area regulated by the state. The city agreed to delay enforcement of the measure while the suit was pending.

In today's ruling, Judge James Warren said California law, which authorizes police agencies to issue handgun permits, implicitly prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/12/MNGQ9JCVC15.DTL

[Union Label]

1. I saw that

So now the gun nuts can still get their handguns. No one needs these little tools of murder and thats all they are for.

[Erika]

2. The U.S. increase in crime rates may be partially due

to firearms access per a newswire release. If you lessen controls on firearms, you increase the chance of firearm access by the less desireable.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Ringo84]

3. Re:

Well, I don't think this is so bad.

A middle ground should be found in the guns debate. I don't think that banning all guns will make violence drop to zero. And the Constitution does guarantee the right to bear arms. But the NRA is nutty when they think that that means 'the right to own bazookas'.

I believe in gun control when it applies to powerful weapons like AK-47s and such. Not handguns.
Ringo

[Billy Ruffian]

5. AK-47s ARE strictly regulated

As are all fully automatic weapons, and have been since 1934. Further, since 1986, no new full auto weapons have been allowed to be sold to US citizens.

There do exist semi-automatic versions of the AK, and those are just like any other semi-automatic rifle.

Also, the round fired in the AK-47, whether a highly regulated full auto, or semi-auto version, is NOT that powerful a round. IIRC, the ballistics of the 7.62x39 (the round used in the AK) is similar to that of the .30-30.

Finally, the semi-auto versions of scary looking guns ("assault weapons") are NOT easily converted to full auto.

[Ringo84]

8. AK-47s

Good. I'm glad. I just get nervous about the thought of average joes owning missile launchers. That kind of high weaponry should be left in the capable hands of those trained for its use (like military personnel). It's too dangerous for a private citizen to own something like that.

But neither do I fully agree with the "regulate all gun ownership" viewpoint. It probably goes too far.
Ringo

[benEzra]

10. The National Firearms Act tightly controls the following:

all automatic weapons (including AK-47's), and all weapons easily convertible to automatic fire

all weapons over .50 caliber (except for some over-.50 hunting weapons)

all short-barreled rifles and shotguns

all rifles and shotguns shorter than 26" overall

all smoothbore handguns

M203-type grenade launchers

grenades, explosives, etc.

rocket launchers

sound-suppressed firearms

disguised firearms (cane guns, cell phone guns, etc.)


Such weapons are restricted to police/military only, unless you can pass what amounts to a Secret-level government security clearance.


Also restricted by Federal law are armor-piercing ammunition for handguns and some rifles; handguns not detectable by X-ray; possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of any property owned by a school; possession of any firearm or ammunition by a criminal or a person who has EVER been convicted of a felony (even writing a bad check) or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; and so on. There are also countless miscellaneous restrictions too detailed to go into here.

[Selatius]

6. If you can't ban gun ownership, then you should regulate it

Also, if you want to fight crime, then the answer is more social programs to help people out of poverty. Poverty and crime are linked. We lack both poverty prevention and responsible gun-ownership training. The result is thousands of people dying each year as a result of violent gun crime and gun accidents.

If you want guns, you cannot have it for nothing. You need discipline, but if you are not willing to invest the time and effort it takes to learn how to live with guns safely, then maybe you are truly unfit to have firearms.

Ideally, this country would replace individual firearm ownership with community-regulated citizen militias. I'm not talking about the National Guard, which is too much under the influence of the federal government and its wars of imperialism, but militias that are under the control of their respective communities. If the federal government wants militias for a foreign war, then the federal government should ask the people directly to commit troops.

[applegrove]

7. So the Hypocrites like regulations now!!! I'll have to book mark this

article. Done!

[benEzra]

9. The NRA has long been on record as supporting

the National Firearms Act of 1934, most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, yadda yadda yadda, and they helped author the 1986 ban on Kevlar-piercing handgun bullets, the ban on guns undetectable by X-ray equipment, and the mandatory point-of-sale background check law.

"The NRA opposes all gun regulation" is a straw man concocted by the gun-ban lobby. What the NRA opposes is placing further restrictions on the right of law-abiding adults with clean records to own NFA Title 1 civilian firearms, which is a far cry from opposing all regulation.

[ComerPerro]

11. activist judges, legislating from teh bench