This is a discussion on A Win for The Good Guys within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; California court strikes San Francisco handgun ban | U.S. | Reuters From 1/9/2008: SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California state appeals court on Wednesday struck ...
California court strikes San Francisco handgun ban | U.S. | Reuters
Glad to hear that at least the CA Court of Appeals knows how to interpret and implement the law, even if the DA and city gov't don't.SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California state appeals court on Wednesday struck down a ban on the private ownership of handguns in San Francisco, one of several U.S. cities that have outlawed small firearms.
San Francisco voters passed their ban in 2005, barring all city residents from selling, distributing or manufacturing firearms or ammunition.
Like similar laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C., San Francisco's ban also prohibited residents from possessing handguns unless they are government employees or security guards.
Retired law enforcement and military personnel joined several firearms rights groups to challenge San Francisco's ban before it could be enforced.
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal upheld a district court decision, which found that the ordinance was pre-empted by several state laws, one of which prohibits cities from restricting handgun possession in an individual's home, business, or private property.
"These laws of statewide application reflect the legislature's balancing of interests -- on the one side the interest of the general public to be protected from the criminal misuse of firearms, on the other, the interests of law-abiding citizens to be able to purchase and use firearms," the panel wrote in its unanimous decision.
"When it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly."
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he was disappointed with the ruling and that the city would consider further appeal. "We think that localities should have this ability to protect the health and safety of their residents," Herrera said.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a similar case this year, when attorneys from Washington will defend that city's 31-year-old law banning private possession of handguns.
Opponents say the Washington ban violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Legal experts say the Supreme Court's decision in the dispute could be the most important decision on gun rights in nearly 70 years and produce a decisive ruling on whether civilians have a right to keep firearms.
Representatives of the National Rifle Association, which has pressed both the Washington and San Francisco cases, said they were pleased with the California court's decision.
"This is at least another step in the right direction," said the NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris Cox. "When one city, in this case San Francisco, seeks to defy state law and restrict the rights of law abiding residents, the NRA has and will continue to stand up and fight on their behalf."
Hopefully the SCOTUS hands down a similar decision.
If the city DA feels that the municipality "has the ability to protect the health and of their residents," they should also have the responsibility. Meaning they are open to a civil suit any time a law-abiding citizen loses his/her life at the hands of a scumbag that the city didn't protect them from.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
- Thomas Jefferson
"I'm the arrow, you're my bow, shoot me forth and I will go"
"Do not let any individual posts put a knot in your Big Boy Under-Roos"
When is the SCOTUS going to hear the case? I've not seen any date.