MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
firearms1[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  WELCOME HOME  
  "THE FIRING LINE"  
  RULES OF FIREARMS1  
  CHATROOM  
  Emoticons  
  Emoticons #2  
  Pictures  
  Survival Library  
  Critical Gun Links and Info  
  Spell Checker  
  How To Fire The Shot  
  Use of the Sling  
  Recommendations  
  Links  
  Documents  
  Events   
  Downloadable Targets  
  FFL INFO  
  The Patriot Post  
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : SF Gun Ban Overturned!  
     
Reply
Recommend  Message 1 of 6 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameLazarusUsa  (Original Message)Sent: 1/10/2008 11:32 PM
This, from the Land of Fruit & Nuts...........and it's about time!
 

CA APPEALS COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF SAF LAWSUIT

In a unanimous decision today, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the City of San Francisco’s handgun ban is illegal under state law, upholding a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and several other groups.

“This is a great day for gun owners and civil rights in California,�?said SAF Founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is the second time we successfully fought a gun ban in San Francisco, and what this demonstrates is that the city’s leadership is as horribly out of touch with the law as it seems to be out of touch with reality.�?

SAF was joined in the lawsuit by the National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, California Association of Firearms Retailers and several private citizens.

In its ruling, the court held that Proposition H, approved by voters in November 2005, is invalid as preempted by state law. Gottlieb said this was essentially the same case that SAF battled on its own 23 years ago when the city, under then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, adopted a gun ban.

“We urged the city well in advance to drop Proposition H from the 2005 ballot, and warned them that if they pushed the measure and it passed, we would meet them in court,�?Gottlieb recalled. “We kept our word, along with our colleagues at the NRA, LEAA and our friends in the CAFR.

“This has been a horrible waste of the court’s time, the city’s legal resources and the taxpayers�?money,�?he added. “The only reason this case went forward after the ban was struck down by the trial court is that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors wanted to mandate their extremist anti-gun rights philosophy as public law.

“Every judge in every court that this and the earlier case went before has sided with us,�?Gottlieb stated. “This is a battle that had to be fought, and this is a ruling that we expected from Day One of our lawsuit. This wasn’t just a fight over gun rights. It was really about defeating social prejudice against gun owners; a type of bigotry made even more insidious by the fact that it was fostered and defended by a city administration whose attitude toward gun owners is anathema to American values.�?


First  Previous  2-6 of 6  Next  Last 
Reply
Recommend  Message 2 of 6 in Discussion 
From: SargeSent: 1/11/2008 6:52 PM
Let's sue California cities and counties and the state until their pocket books are empty.  They are too stupid to stay in the USA.  Give them back to Mexico, that would cut the immigrant problem down.
Sarge

Reply
Recommend  Message 3 of 6 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameWhirdervi1Sent: 1/13/2008 10:32 AM
I remember this. Gavin actually said when the measure passed that the courts would throw it out. The SFPD were also against it, or at least didn't support it ('course if they were the ones who were gonna have to round up the guns, I can see why!)

It doesn't surprise me that this passed in that city. When I was there, the people were such self-absorbed jerks for the most part, I've never been in a more negative, unfriendly place (generally speaking, though I can think of unusual & atypical times that were worse). Even Oakland was a bit better, despite being "on the wrong side of the tracks." They also have a suicide problem, one so bad that that big bridge of their has to post guards to keep jumpers off.

They've mystified me, too. Like one Frisco drone walked right out in front of my car. Granted, he had right of way, but he gave me no time to stop (and I've seen people like him driving who give NO respect to pedestrians). At first I was glad I didn't hit him and wondered if he was on cocaine for jumping out in front of me like that. As he passed, he slammed his fist down on the hood of my car. I've always wondered, why is he scared of people with a gun, but not scared that I'd put the pedal to the metal and flatten him on the street? Just one of many mysteries.

The funniest thing I recall was meeting one of the nicer people who later told me that she was a Satanist and also that she was leaving Frisco because the people were too rude and uncivilized.

I've sworn to never step foot in that city again myself, or even to pass through it if possible. I don't care for much of the rest of the Bay Area either.

All in all, Frisco didn't vote to ban guns because guns are bad, but because too many of them are bad people.

Reply
Recommend  Message 4 of 6 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameCPTTangoSent: 1/14/2008 4:01 AM
hey now there are plenty of good people in CA. My family lives there. (Northern CA). That is where you find to good folks (North of Sacramento). Here is what I say we do. We all move to ca all teh gun owners in the country. Move there and take over the government. Pass laws we like adn repeal ones we do not. Then lets see what they do. Giving in to them only gives them more power. Taking power and giving back to the good people of this country is what we need to do. once we take over CA then we can all up and move to NJ and take it back then a short hop up to NY and take it back. The country follows CA and NJ. So if we take them back we are golden.

Reply
Recommend  Message 5 of 6 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameLazarusUsaSent: 1/15/2008 10:55 PM

San Francisco Handgun Ban Overturned, MSM Yawn

By Ken Shepherd | January 14, 2008 - 16:30 ET

On January 9, a California appeals court struck down San Francisco's 2005 ban on handguns, citing that local governments lack authority under California law to enact such a ban (h/t NewsBusters reader John Kernkamp).

While this is a state law struck down on state constitutional grounds, not the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is a major victory for gun rights advocates -- in a liberal Democratic state no less -- in a presidential election year in which the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing a 2nd Amendment case in March (District of Columbia v. Heller).

Yet while the San Francisco Chronicle's Bob Egelko covered the story on January 10, I'm having trouble finding any coverage elsewhere in the media. When searching Nexis, I found no coverage of the San Francisco gun ban story in the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, nor broadcast networks ABC, CBS, or NBC.

Meanwhile, as the Chronicle's Egelko noted in a January 14 story, San Francisco's district attorney has filed a friend-of-the-court brief backing the District of Columbia in its appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the District's 1976 handgun ban:

Prosecutors led by the district attorneys of San Francisco and New York are urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to recognize a broad individual right to gun ownership that could endanger state and local firearms laws.

The court is preparing to hear arguments in March on the constitutionality of a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun possession, with a ruling due by the end of June. A federal appeals court ruled last March that the ban violated the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms - the first time a gun-control law had been struck down on that basis.

In arguments filed Friday, 18 elected prosecutors, led by Kamala Harris of San Francisco and Robert Morgenthau of New York, said a similar ruling by the Supreme Court could cast doubt on numerous gun laws, ranging from bans on assault weapons to increased sentences for using a firearm during a crime.

Last week the MSM were obsessed with the supposed sea change in the Democratic race with Clinton's "comeback" in New Hampshire, and, to be fair, the primary race rightly was topic A in the news last week.

Yet the fact that the MSM are not tracking legal and political developments in what could well prove to be a sleeper issue this election season just goes to show the MSM's deficiencies in tracking issues of political substance. The fact that Democrats have been gun shy of pushing gun control for fear of being trounced at the polls by 2nd Amendment-supporting voters could also explain the media's reticence about reporting on conservative victories on this issue.


Reply
Recommend  Message 6 of 6 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameredbeardxSent: 1/20/2008 3:12 AM
Crap we won one.Now if we can take the DC one its really a good start

First  Previous  2-6 of 6  Next  Last 
Return to General