Appeals court won't reinstate S.F. handgun ban

[RamboLiberal]

Source: SF Chronicle

A state appeals court refused today to revive a ban on handgun possession in San Francisco, saying the measure that city voters approved in November 2005 conflicts with state law.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco agreed with a June 2006 ruling by Superior Court Judge James Warren, who said local governments in California have no authority to prohibit handguns. Warren said a California law that authorizes police agencies to issue concealed-weapon permits implicitly forbids a city or county to ban handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

The San Francisco measure, Proposition H, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of any type of firearms and ammunition in San Francisco.

Prop. H was challenged by the National Rifle Association, which sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after voters passed the measure, 58 percent to 42 percent. Enforcement has been suspended since the suit was filed.

In today's 3-0 ruling, the appeals court cited its own 1982 decision overturning a San Francisco ordinance that prohibited handgun possession within city limits.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/09/BAQIUC21G.DTL&tsp=1

---

I agree with the court on this one.

[frebrd]

1. I also agree!

I was stationed at Ft Mason back in the Fifties when it was still an Army post. I always said I would go back to S.F. to live if I ever came into a lot of money, but I have definitely abandoned that idea!

I wouldn't even want to live in California now, although I was born there.

[-..__...]

2. Another nail in the gun control coffin.

:bounce:

It was a foolish/feel good piece of legislation that would have done nothing except deny/limit a Constitutional right to San Fran
citizens.

[depakid]

5. Had nothing to do with that!

It was simply case of state preemption of local authority. Could have be applied to any of a thousand different statutes.

[michreject]

6. That's why it was the correct decision.

As a gun owner with a CPL, it's easier to know the state law that the difference in laws from city to city.

[-..__...]

7. True...

but if the court had ruled in favor of the city, I can guarantee you that the Brady/VPC/MMM parasites would have been all over it proclaiming a "great victory" for "sensible gun control laws" and "the tide is turning" BS.

Now, they can just go cry in their cornflakes and chalk up another one in the loss column.

[aikoaiko]

3. SF hangun ban laws were just political masturbation so that a few could get their yayas off

They knew they had no legal authority.

[goodgd_yall]

9. Foolish

I can tell you, people in San Francisco would support banning handguns. You make it sound like only a few supported this.

[slackmaster]

10. Yes, but they don't have the authority to impose their will

On their fellow citizens who don't want to ban them.

You can ban guns from your home, but not from your neighbor's.

[aikoaiko]

11. Thats why I called it political masturbation. The city knew the law would fail, but did it for kicks

The politicians and anti-gun folks in SF get to feel great, but they fired a blank on unfertile ground.

eta: The "few" that I alluded to were politicians, not constituents.

[Purveyor]

4. Thank you for posting this. K&R eom

[goodgd_yall]

8. I don't agree

[fascisthunter]

12. gun lobby.... sell, sell, sell

nothing to do with rights of the people, but for gun manufacturing and selling of those guns.

[Endangered Specie]

13. Makes sense, its like trying to ban cars even if driver's licenses were being issued.