|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
San Francisco handgun ban loses in first round.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| San Francisco handgun ban loses in first round.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Crazytree |
| as long as I get to keep my 12ga. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| What ever happened to majority rule??? |
|
|
| yamahafan1000 |
| Seems odd that the same Liberals who claim to champion most other rights are usually so eager to take this one away. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by yamahafan1000
Seems odd that the same Liberals who claim to champion most other rights are usually so eager to take this one away. |
They only support the rights they agree with. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
They only support the rights they agree with. |
do you support rights you don't agree with? do you support the right of the city of SF to enact a handgun ban?
of course not. everyone only supports the rights they agree with. |
|
|
| WillowGlen |
| Quote: Seems odd that the same Liberals who claim to champion most other rights are usually so eager to take this one away |
Nice spin from the group that belives the 2nd amendment (which is written subjectivley at best) is some kind of set in stone law but the 1st Amendment which is wriiten clear as a bell is something that they can change as it suits them. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
do you support rights you don't agree with? do you support the right of the city of SF to enact a handgun ban?
of course not. everyone only supports the rights they agree with. |
The City of S.F. has no right under state law to enact the statute.
Kind of like prop 187 being voted in, but rejected by the courts.
I do support the rights of other individuals, even rights I may not agree with or support personally.
The rights of “government” are a whole different proposition. |
|
|
| JTProcess |
this pretty much sums up the gun control debate...
 |
|
|
| yamahafan1000 |
Quote: Originally posted by WillowGlen
Nice spin from the group that belives the 2nd amendment (which is written subjectivley at best) is some kind of set in stone law but the 1st Amendment which is wriiten clear as a bell is something that they can change as it suits them. |
Find a legal scholar who feels that the 2nd is "subjectively" written.
Also keep in mind that there are a fair number of Democrats that approve of the FCC fines.
I think it would be best for our current crop of politicians to leave the bill of rights alone. |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
I guess I just don't get it, why do you need hand guns, assaults rifles etc?
No problem with rifles or shotguns if the purpose is hunting, but are you really any safer being armed to the teeth?
The US has the most liberal gun policy in the western world, and
easily the highest murder rate. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by thoroldjames
I guess I just don't get it, why do you need hand guns, assaults rifles etc?
No problem with rifles or shotguns if the purpose is hunting, but are you really any safer being armed to the teeth?
The US has the most liberal gun policy in the western world , and easily the highest murder rate. |
Far wrong. Many European countries have laws that would make a BATFE agent jump out a window - NFA weapons almost across the counter (Switzerland) Sound Suppressors recommended and unrestricted (France) "Panoply" weapons (anything manufactured before '45) unrestricted cash and carry (Belgium.) |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Quote: Originally posted by yamahafan1000
Find a legal scholar who feels that the 2nd is "subjectively" written. |
as a constitutional scholar... I am quite amused by the sheer stupidity of such a proposition.
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
The City of S.F. has no right under state law to enact the statute.
Kind of like prop 187 being voted in, but rejected by the courts.
I do support the rights of other individuals, even rights I may not agree with or support personally.
The rights of “government” are a whole different proposition. |
here's the rub: it's the gov't enforcing the right of individuals to be reasonably free from violent handgun crime. not saying I agree or disagree with this... in fact my mind is not made up... but this is the argument, and a strong one at that. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
| the Swiss example has to be taken in context. these weapons are handed out to all eligible adult males in their capacity as members of the national ready reserve. each weapon is painstakingly tracked and accounted for. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
as a constitutional scholar... I am quite amused by the sheer stupidity of such a proposition.
here's the rub: it's the gov't enforcing the right of individuals to be reasonably free from violent handgun crime. not saying I agree or disagree with this... in fact my mind is not made up... but this is the argument, and a strong one at that. |
In California, the State has largely pre-empted the field of local restrictions on firearms ownership, as the city of S.F. found out the last time around when the S.F. board of supervisors voted in a law to ban handgun ownership within the city limits. That law was also thrown out by the court, on the same grounds that this new law failed.
Being a Constitutional scholar, maybe you could explain to me which part of the Constitution recognizes a pre-existing right to be reasonably free from a specific type of crime, and how existing criminal statutes addressing those crimes aren't adequate in fullfilling their intent, but new criminal statutes would be. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
the police power as it applies to the individual states through the 10th amendment. there are no specific limits as to which types of laws states may enact, other than they cannot be unconstitutional... a very liberal standard... in this case it appears to be a valid exercise of the police power [health, safety, welfare & morals] that existed before ratification of the constitution.
the CA murder, felony murder and manslaughter statutes have a common law basis and are therefore incorporated into the constitution through the police power/10th amendment. the police power gives states inherent powers to draft criminal laws that affect the health, safety, welfare and morals of its citizens. [citizens as defined by the privlidges OR immunities clause of the Article IV, Section 2].
through the commerce clause as incorporated through Amendment XIV, Section 5. firearms as instrumentalities of interstate commerce. potentially also in conjunction with the necessary & proper clause. the 2nd Amendment is not tested on the Bar of any state that I am aware of, so I apologize for the somewhat simplistic analysis. however, the other constitutional frameworks/mechanisms that I have described are invariably the tools used by the US to enact Federal legislation in spheres of laws usually the purview of state legislatures through the 10th amendment.
as for state limitations, I am unfamiliar with the CA Constitituion [not taught in school for the most part, not tested on the bar at all] or specific legislation dealing with this type or ordinance or regulation. all I know is that other handgun bans in other cities have been adjudicated as Constitutional and withstood challenges from the usual suspects. |
|
|
| yamahafan1000 |
Quote: Originally posted by thoroldjames
I guess I just don't get it, why do you need hand guns, assaults rifles etc? |
Did you see the photage of post Katrina New Orleans? (Perhaps the LA Riots?) Simple fact is that on occasion, for reasons beyond your control the shit hits the fan. The police and governement WILL NOT BE THERE TO HELP YOU. There were many examples of people using handguns and assult rifles to protect themselves and their families during such a situation. If your fortunate enough to live in a "nice" neighborhood where such things are unlikely to happen, then good for you, I am happy for you; however millions of Americans (and a good many Canadians I suspect) can't afford to live in your neighborhood. A handgun or assault rifle may just turn out to be the best insurance policy they ever buy.
Quote: Originally posted by thoroldjames
No problem with rifles or shotguns if the purpose is hunting, but are you really any safer being armed to the teeth?? |
A subject of debate for each CITIZEN to do on their own. Not a place for government to decide what is best for me.
Quote: Originally posted by thoroldjames
The US has the most liberal gun policy in the western world, and
easily the highest murder rate. |
Not higher than South Africa. The UK is on their way to approaching ours as well ever since crime sky rocketed AFTER outlawing handguns. As I have pointed out on this board the answer lies not in access to guns but in WHO is commiting the crimes. Same people in all three countries.
You cannot change the activities of CRIMINALS by passing more laws.
THe only people affected by such laws are LAW ABIDING people.
Thats all there is to it. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
the police power as it applies to the individual states through the 10th amendment. there are no specific limits as to which types of laws states may enact, other than they cannot be unconstitutional... a very liberal standard... in this case it appears to be a valid exercise of the police power [health, safety, welfare & morals] that existed before ratification of the constitution.
the CA murder, felony murder and manslaughter statutes have a common law basis and are therefore incorporated into the constitution through the police power/10th amendment. the police power gives states inherent powers to draft criminal laws that affect the health, safety, welfare and morals of its citizens. [citizens as defined by the privlidges OR immunities clause of the Article IV, Section 2].
through the commerce clause as incorporated through Amendment XIV, Section 5. firearms as instrumentalities of interstate commerce. potentially also in conjunction with the necessary & proper clause. the 2nd Amendment is not tested on the Bar of any state that I am aware of, so I apologize for the somewhat simplistic analysis. however, the other constitutional frameworks/mechanisms that I have described are invariably the tools used by the US to enact Federal legislation in spheres of laws usually the purview of state legislatures through the 10th amendment.
as for state limitations, I am unfamiliar with the CA Constitituion [not taught in school for the most part, not tested on the bar at all] or specific legislation dealing with this type or ordinance or regulation. all I know is that other handgun bans in other cities have been adjudicated as Constitutional and withstood challenges from the usual suspects. |
In California, the State has pre-empted local restrictions, but some types of local restrictions have stood - the West Hollywood SNS ban being the one that comes to mind. Localities have also banned firearms possession on county properties to restrict gunshow activites, and some of these have withstood challenges.
CT, on the question of the interstate commerce connection to firearms law, check out the judgment in the Stewart case by the Ninth Circuit - Stewart was charged and convicted on a number of firearms related charges, including possession of unregistered machineguns - he appealed, and the Ninth circuit threw out the unregistered MG charges, on the basis that the weapons in question were homemade, of a unique design, and had never entered interstate commerce.
This is a bit off topic, but there are other SC decisions that have come down in recent years restricting the use of interstate commerce as a legislative rational.
I'd also like to direct you to this piece in the Yale Law Journal:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html
The Embarrassing Second Amendment by Sanford Levinson.
Interesting examination of the common misconceptions concerning US v. Miller, the case that is cited most often in support of firearms restrictions. Levinson makes it clear in his article that he is not a Second Amendment supporter. |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
Quote: Originally posted by yamahafan1000
Not higher than South Africa. The UK is on their way to approaching ours as well ever since crime sky rocketed AFTER outlawing handguns. As I have pointed out on this board the answer lies not in access to guns but in WHO is commiting the crimes. Same people in all three countries.
You cannot change the activities of CRIMINALS by passing more laws.
THe only people affected by such laws are LAW ABIDING people.
Thats all there is to it. |
Not really counting present day South Africa as western power
(maybe I'm wrong in that, but the UK? come on, most recent stats show the UK's murder rate comparable with Canada, France
etc. still around 1/4 that of the US |
|
|
| yamahafan1000 |
Quote: Originally posted by thoroldjames
Not really counting present day South Africa as western power
(maybe I'm wrong in that, but the UK? come on, most recent stats show the UK's murder rate comparable with Canada, France
etc. still around 1/4 that of the US |
But as I have pointed out to you in the past, the difference in the overall rates can be defined by the difference in the demographics of the various countries. The murder rate for whites in the US is about the same as that of whites in Canada, UK , France etc. Likewise the murder rate for blacks in those countries are all very similar. So at the end of the day it is merely the fact that blacks are about 13% of the US population vs >10% for all of the other countries we mentioned.
It has nothing to do with guns, it has everything to do with people. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
In California, the State has pre-empted local restrictions, but some types of local restrictions have stood - the West Hollywood SNS ban being the one that comes to mind. Localities have also banned firearms possession on county properties to restrict gunshow activites, and some of these have withstood challenges.
CT, on the question of the interstate commerce connection to firearms law, check out the judgment in the Stewart case by the Ninth Circuit - Stewart was charged and convicted on a number of firearms related charges, including possession of unregistered machineguns - he appealed, and the Ninth circuit threw out the unregistered MG charges, on the basis that the weapons in question were homemade, of a unique design, and had never entered interstate commerce.
This is a bit off topic, but there are other SC decisions that have come down in recent years restricting the use of interstate commerce as a legislative rational.
I'd also like to direct you to this piece in the Yale Law Journal:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html
The Embarrassing Second Amendment by Sanford Levinson.
Interesting examination of the common misconceptions concerning US v. Miller, the case that is cited most often in support of firearms restrictions. Levinson makes it clear in his article that he is not a Second Amendment supporter. |
interesting material... I'll take a look at it when I have some spare time.
here's a legal question you might be able to address:
-can I carry a unloaded handgun in a locked case in my trunk at all times, or only when going to and from the range?
-does a longgun have to be locked in the trunk, or can it be in the cabin?
-am I prohibited from having loaded clips in the trunk outside of a locked case containing an unloaded handgun? |
|
|
| GayTony |
HAW HAW, i love reading a squirming socialist attack the 2nd Amendment...short of an activation of Article 5 Constitutional Convention, the Bill OF Rights is *I*M*M*U*N*E* to the tyrrany of the majority. As Ben Franklin put it, democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner, and Liberty is the lamb vetoing the wolve's decision.
There is no serious legal debate about the Framer's intent or the language of the 2nd Amendment...the Federalist Papers are comprehensive documents of the Founders debates over the issue and it was clearly described as an individual right.
Furthermore, the critique that the 2nd Amendment's phrase "the People" is somehow a reference to collective State militias (aka the National Guard, whihch wasn't founded until *1917*) is absurd. The same phrase "the People" is operative in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments...are these "collective" and not "individual" rights as well??
Fuck the Left, and Fuck the Right...the 1st and 2nd Amendments are the logical foundation of ALL the others, and of American Democracy and Liberty.
To those who invoke the unconstitutional patchwork that has grown like a fungus around the 2nd Amendment in the last century, i call your attention to the SCOTUS striking down the 90 year old requirement that police knock before serving a lawful warrant, and to the Robert's hearings. When being questioned by Sen Feingold, the new Chief Justice made a point of characterizing the state of 2nd Amendment precedent as spotty and incomplete at best, and expressed his solid support for the 2nd Amendment as understood by the Framers.
Attacking the right of human beings to defend themselves as INDIVIDUALS has utterly crippled Democrats for decades, and politically the tide has turned for good...even the margin of victory in places like San Francisco has shrunk many points from the last time this shit was attempted. Americans are sick of academics and camoflauged Socialists telling them to be declawed and defenseless "for the greater good".
it is not for anyone else to tell me i can or cannot defend myself or speak my mind, BOTH are basic human rights and the subterfuge to the contrary has been broken.
suck it UP.:yes: |
|
|
| atomizer |
| As a screaming liberal, I still have handguns. I love 'em. They protect me from Patriot Actors. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
interesting material... I'll take a look at it when I have some spare time.
here's a legal question you might be able to address:
-can I carry a unloaded handgun in a locked case in my trunk at all times, or only when going to and from the range?
-does a longgun have to be locked in the trunk, or can it be in the cabin?
-am I prohibited from having loaded clips in the trunk outside of a locked case containing an unloaded handgun? |
All the answers are here:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/
As a practical matter, I travel often with firearms. Here's my solution. The firearms are locked in cases separate from magazines, the magazines are locked separate, and the ammo is locked separate.
Flying with firearms post 9/11 is a whole different matter, and I've partially solved the problem by shipping the firearm(s) in question overnight to myself at my destination. |
|
|
| GayTony |
Quote: Originally posted by atomizer
As a screaming liberal, I still have handguns. I love 'em. They protect me from Patriot Actors. |
:lol:
dats a good vun:btu: |
|
|
| Satyaki |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
What ever happened to majority rule??? |
Where are you from? We live in a representational democracy under a constitution, not CBS's SURVIVOR show. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by Satyaki
Where are you from? We live in a representational democracy under a constitution, not CBS's SURVIVOR show. |
In CA, there is the propositional process, where a certain number of signatures of registered voters can get a proposition on the ballot.
Should the proposition pass, the citizens can bring a civil action to block the implementation of said proposition - it happens all the time, and I never hear the majority rule argument from anyone but the losers - on either side of the issue – liberal or conservative. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
As a practical matter, I travel often with firearms. Here's my solution. The firearms are locked in cases separate from magazines, the magazines are locked separate, and the ammo is locked separate. |
Why do you lock the ammo seperately? Out of an abundance of caution?
From reading the law, it sounds like I can put my unloaded weapon in my trunk... but I don't have to put a lock on it, since the trunk is itself a locked container. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
Why do you lock the ammo seperately? Out of an abundance of caution?
From reading the law, it sounds like I can put my unloaded weapon in my trunk... but I don't have to put a lock on it, since the trunk is itself a locked container. |
In CA, it's always a case of Better Safe than Sorry ... |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
point taken. |
CT, like I've said many times, if you're a hook (fisherman) or bullet (hunter/shooter) man you're persona non grata in CA, maybe even with creds. |
|
|
|
|
|
