The National Rifle Association has filed a lawsuit against the City of San Francisco as a challenge of it's ban against handguns in public housing.
The City of San Francisco currently prohibits citizens from possessing or maintaining a firearm in their residence if they happen to live in public housing.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down a handgun ban in the Nation's Capitol and defined the right to bear arms as constitutional and one that the government cannot infringe upon.
Law professors are already predicting a win for the National Rifle Association since the Supreme Court recently ruled on a very similar situation.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom who proclaims himself a champion of civil rights says that the "City will defend it's ban on handguns" which many residents are funding hypocritical since he claims to stand up for the rights of his constituents.
But if the constitution entitles a person to bear arms then should Mayor Newsom not be backing the Nation Rifle Association or making an effort to terminate this unlawful ban?
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the Supreme Court ruling didn't address gun bans on government property and that he was "confident that our local gun control measures are on sound legal footing and will survive legal challenges."
San Francisco also requires residents to keep guns in lockboxes or equip them with triggerlocks. That law, passed by the county supervisors last year, wasn't challenged in Friday's lawsuit.
A state appeals court has overturned a broader citywide gun ban passed by voters in 2005.
The NRA lawsuit against San Francisco is expected to test the ruling's scope for cities and states, a prospect that could open the door to a host of challenges to California gun control laws. The NRA has said it intends to file a similar lawsuit challenging Chicago's stringent gun control laws. Chicago and San Francisco are two of the only major cities with their own laws.
Legal experts say that many gun regulations will remain intact, but the court's decision could place other laws in jeopardy, particularly if they infringe on a person's right to own a gun for self-defense. Lawyers for gun rights advocates maintain that San Francisco's public housing gun law runs afoul of that right.
Allen Davis of the California Firearms Association says "Mayor Gavin Newsom will champion the rights of gay individuals to marry but will not defend individuals constitutional rights to bear arms?".
City of San Francisco Sued By National Rifle Association
Posted by Benjamin Kerensa | 6/28/2008 12:20:00 PM | Law, News, San Francisco | 5 comments »
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I still don't understand why we still have the 2nd amendment. To me, the amendment was written for it's time (the 18th/19th century). We don't need guns like we needed them back then. We have proper police to protect communities. This isn't a new frontier any longer.
Can we use tazers? :)
http://www.firerobin.com
I was unaware of this.
Very informative!
After reading this and some of your other posts, I've come to the conclusion that your blog is informative and well presented.
Nice work.
This is a law suit that figured to come on--as a result of that decision by the Supremes.
What is the point of the police force if everyone has their own guns anyway... I get that there might be times where self-defense is needed, but those guns could easily fall into the wrong hands. If they could make the tazer safer, I would get one xD