San Fran Ban a no-no
A state trial judge on Monday overturned a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco, siding with gun owners who said the city did not have the authority to prohibit the weapons.
Good. As to why:
In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.
I told you so.
June 12th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
When lawmakers go outside of the law – even when voters approve – it’s up to the courts to deal the smackdown. Good on them.
June 12th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
On the other hand, when courts overturn laws in spite of the approval of Citizens, then bad on them. This stuff’s more complicated thatn it looks, isn’t it?
June 12th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
awesome
June 12th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
My favorite line is the city attourney’s spokesman referring to a total ban on handgun possession anywhere in the city as “a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession”.
Remember that the next time an anti-gun type says they don’t want to ban guns and just want reasonable restrictions.
I also wonder how many millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted on this lawsuit.
June 13th, 2006 at 1:16 am
On the other hand, when courts overturn laws in spite of the approval of Citizens, then bad on them.
I’m waiting for the calls of activist judges subverting the will of the people 🙂 . The right decision was made. Its unfortunate that the supervisors who put this on the ballot wasted everyones time, money and energy with this ballot measure.
June 13th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
I want to know what punishments will be dealt those who willingly subverted both the state and federal protections of the right to keep and bear arms, and who willfully violated their Oath of Office.