Judge rules San Francisco handgun ban illegal (1 Viewer)

[Little-Acorn]

I usually support voter ballot initiatives. If the voters want to screw up their own area, let them - they'll have to live with the consecquences. But not when it involves the violation of a basic right - in particular, one protected by the Constitution.

Bit by bit, the anti-gun-rights crowd is losing ground. Looks like San Franciscans can still defend themselves - for now.

----------------------------

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/12/MNGQ9JCVC15.DTL&type=printable

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

- Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, 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.

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.

That law "demonstrates the Legislature's intent to occupy, on a statewide basis, the field of residential and commercial handgun possession to the exclusion of local government entities,'' Warren wrote in a 30-page decision.

A state appeals court said much the same thing in 1982 when it overturned another ordinance that would have prohibited handgun possession in San Francisco. Sponsors of Prop. H said they had hoped to stay within the limits of that ruling by drafting a narrower measure that applied only to city residents.

Warren also overturned Prop. H's prohibition on sales of other types of guns and ammunition, saying it was tied to the handgun ban and could not be salvaged as a separate measure.

"We're thrilled that the judge recognized that law-abiding citizens who possess firearms to defend themselves and their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem,'' said Chuck Michel, the NRA's lawyer.

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

 

[Binary_Digit]

This is excellent news!

 

[taxedout]

Thank goodness somebody still has some sense out there.

 

[Kelzie]

So I guess legislating from the bench is okay as long as it's something you agree with. I'm sure everyone who agrees with this will also support judges over-ruling gay marriage bans

 

[taxedout]

Legislating form the bench would indicate making legislation.
This was erasing legislation, not writing it.

 

[Kelzie]

Legislating form the bench would indicate making legislation.
This was erasing legislation, not writing it.

So great, when pro-gay marriage judges "erase" a piece of legislation that bans it, I'm sure it will be received with open arms.

 

[taxedout]

Maybe, but at least they won't be authoring their own laws.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

So great, when pro-gay marriage judges "erase" a piece of legislation that bans it, I'm sure it will be received with open arms.

This judge is not acting independently, but simply enforcing what the constitution says. There is nothing in the constitution about homosexual marriage, and thus, is an entirely seperate issue.

 

[NYStateofMind]

This judge is not acting independently, but simply enforcing what the constitution says. There is nothing in the constitution about homosexual marriage, and thus, is an entirely seperate issue.

The judge did not overturn the ban based on the constitution, but based on a state law.

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.

 

[Kelzie]

This judge is not acting independently, but simply enforcing what the constitution says. There is nothing in the constitution about homosexual marriage, and thus, is an entirely seperate issue.

All judges at that level are supposed to be acting according to the constitution. If they over-turn a gay marriage ban it is because they feel it is unconstitutional. And for that matter, "hand guns" aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. Seperate issue?

 

[ShamMol]

Maybe, but at least they won't be authoring their own laws.

No judge has ever authored a bill, but law is made each and every day in their courtroom because that is their job. Know what they do.

The judge made the right decision here because it is protected by the second amendment.

 

[Gill]

All judges at that level are supposed to be acting according to the constitution. If they over-turn a gay marriage ban it is because they feel it is unconstitutional. And for that matter, "hand guns" aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. Seperate issue?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Arms: A weapon, especially a firearm...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arms

Last I heard, a handgun is still considered a weapon or firearm.

 

[Kelzie]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Arms: A weapon, especially a firearm...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arms

Last I heard, a handgun is still considered a weapon or firearm.

And you can still have rifles, correct? So obviously, the right to bear arms is not being infringed. Just the right to bear handguns. Which is not in the Constitution. Just like gay marriage.

For the record, I don't agree with the handgun ban. I think the judge correctly interpreted the Constitution in this case. However, "interpreted" is the operative word. So many people have problems when judges interpret the Constitution different than they feel it should be. Except of course when it's something they agree with, then they are "upholding the Constitution."

 

[Gill]

And you can still have rifles, correct? So obviously, the right to bear arms is not being infringed. Just the right to bear handguns. Which is not in the Constitution. Just like gay marriage.

More of Kelzie's infamous wordsmithing....

Tell me this, does the constitution say "rifle"?

Does it say "shotgun"?

 

[Kelzie]

More of Kelzie's infamous wordsmithing....

Tell me this, does the constitution say "rifle"?

Does it say "shotgun"?

I'm infamous? Kick ***.

No it doesn't. Notice my part about interpretation? Might want to read it again.

 

[Gill]

I'm infamous? Kick ***.

No it doesn't. Notice my part about interpretation? Might want to read it again.

Sorry to break the news Kelzie, but being infamous is not a good thing.

I did read it again and this is what you wrote:

And you can still have rifles, correct? So obviously, the right to bear arms is not being infringed. Just the right to bear handguns. Which is not in the Constitution. Just like gay marriage.

You are clearly stating that handguns were banned because they are not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

I'll ask again... are rifles and shotguns 'specifically' mentioned in the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Kelzie]

Sorry to break the news Kelzie, but being infamous is not a good thing.

Says you. I'm taking it as a compliment.

I did read it again and this is what you wrote:


You are clearly stating that handguns were banned because they are not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

I'll ask again... are rifles and shotguns 'specifically' mentioned in the 2nd Amendment?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this would be so difficult for you. Let me help. See when I said "Notice my part about interpretation?" it should have clued you in to look for the word "interpret" in it's various forms. Now, let's look at what you found:

And you can still have rifles, correct? So obviously, the right to bear arms is not being infringed. Just the right to bear handguns. Which is not in the Constitution. Just like gay marriage.

Nary a mention of interpretation. See, what you should have been reading is:

For the record, I don't agree with the handgun ban. I think the judge correctly interpreted the Constitution in this case. However, "interpreted" is the operative word. So many people have problems when judges interpret the Constitution different than they feel it should be. Except of course when it's something they agree with, then they are "upholding the Constitution."

It was right below what you found...almost had it. Maybe next time. :2wave:

Make more sense now? I'm sure that answers your question.

 

[Jerry]

I'm infamous? Kick ***.

No it doesn't. Notice my part about interpretation? Might want to read it again.

Kelzie, you kick @$$!

You've got the GOP by the balls.

Squeeze, Kelzie.
Squeeeeeezzze.

 

[Kelzie]

Kelzie, you kick @$$!

You've got the GOP by the balls.

Squeeze, Kelzie.
Squeeeeeezzze.

What, ew! Lord only knows where those have been.:mrgreen:

 

[Gill]

Says you. I'm taking it as a compliment.

Well you go right ahead Kelzie. You twist the meaning of most words, so why should this one be any different.

 

[Kelzie]

Well you go right ahead Kelzie. You twist the meaning of most words, so why should this one be any different.

So no rebuttal? Aw, don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to have one. It's sad though that you feel you are reduced to insulting. Especially when you can't even prove it. My heart goes out to you.:2wave:

 

[Gill]

So no rebuttal? Aw, don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to have one. It's sad though that you feel you are reduced to insulting. Especially when you can't even prove it. My heart goes out to you.:2wave:

I've learned that debating a topic with you is pointless Kelzie. You argue for days over the most menial point of the thread. This is your debating tactic. Obscure the overall picture with meaningless drivel until the original topic is forgotten.

I am curious though.. prove what exactly???

 

[ProudAmerican]

So I guess legislating from the bench is okay as long as it's something you agree with. I'm sure everyone who agrees with this will also support judges over-ruling gay marriage bans

I would think the difference is that one is a constitutional right (specifically laid out) and the other isnt.

unless I missed that right to gay marriage just after the right to bear arms.

 

[ProudAmerican]

And you can still have rifles, correct? So obviously, the right to bear arms is not being infringed. Just the right to bear handguns. Which is not in the Constitution. Just like gay marriage.

For the record, I don't agree with the handgun ban. I think the judge correctly interpreted the Constitution in this case. However, "interpreted" is the operative word. So many people have problems when judges interpret the Constitution different than they feel it should be. Except of course when it's something they agree with, then they are "upholding the Constitution."

just out of curiousity. do you think freedom of speech includes TV and radio. they arent specifically mentioned in the constitution. so as long as you are allowed freedom of speech in the newspaper....but radio and TV are taken away....the right to free speech isnt being taken away?

how about the right to practice Islam, or Judaism. they arent specifically mentioned either.

the notion that "handguns" dont count because they arent mentioned doesnt hold much water.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

now, and interesting twist. (im not arguing with you kelzie, im just making points to cause people to think here)

if the intent of the government at the time was to allow the people to be a well regulated militia, wouldnt that mean their intent was for the people to be able to defend against a rogue government????

if thats the case, shouldnt I be allowed to have the same weapons? say an F-16 fully armed?
or an abrams tank.

just some food for thought.

 

[Kelzie]

I've learned that debating a topic with you is pointless Kelzie. You argue for days over the most menial point of the thread. This is your debating tactic. Obscure the overall picture with meaningless drivel until the original topic is forgotten.

I am curious though.. prove what exactly???

Still...nothing? I suppose I've learned that from debating you too. Once you start losing you cry about how I'm being unfair. Wipe your eyes, you'll be okay.

I'll await your response to my previous post. Did you finally find that part about "interpretation"?