One day after the re-elected San Francisco district attorney (she ran unopposed) announced she plans to join with a handful of urban DAs across the nation and file amicus briefs (friend of the court) with the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Heller case, she got her head handed to her . . . legally speaking.
Today, a state appeals court sided with firearms owners and unanimously upheld a lower court's decision overturning a San Francisco ordinance banning handgun ownership. The Court of Appeal on Wednesday backed arguments from the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and others, stating that the city ordinance was illegal because state law allows handgun ownership.
The SAF issued a news release regarding the appellate court decision. You can read the full appeals court order here. Also, I have included the original order from the San Francisco Superior Court, which struck down the ordinance the first time.
Only yesterday, DA Harris stated that several district attorneys, including her office, hope to make it clear to the Supreme Court that they oppose any interpretation of law that would erode their ability to prosecute gun crimes. Well, citizens of San Francisco ALSO oppose any interpretation of law that affects their constitutional rights, and the courts agreed!
Ms. Harris, trying to tie up your city in a pretty pink box and make believe banning handguns will eliminate the criminals is insane. Your ordinance was illegal when residents passed it, and you knew it. To advise city officials that it would not fly in the courts should have been part of your job. Maybe you did and they ignored you.
At least the courts got it right.
09 January 2008
San Fran DA Handed Setback on Handgun Ban One Day After She Announces Plan To File Heller Amicus Brief
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
righteous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder if SF will appeal it any higher. Can they? Their state supreme court or U.S. Supreme Court? Wouldn't it be ironic to have this gun case decided in Washington also considering the case they are going to look at from the District of Columbia?
Richard,
I'll have to check into that. I don't know. And yes it would be more than ironic. The California case was based on a conflict with state law. The DC case is more complex. I'll get back to you on where the San Francisco officials might go next for relief.
i was listening to a national radio program and the host kept talking about san francisco residents hating people. the city turns its residents into sitting ducks against criminals by tring to ban guns, but people there hold a candlelight vigil for the tiger that killed one young man and severely injured 2 others. what the hell is wrong with those people?
The SF case was lost due to pre-emption by state law. NRA frumped about when it first was overturned that 2A had been supported. Wrong, chaps. Egregious error, stupid.
The DC case is a genuine 2A test. If Harris thinks the DC ban helps her ability to prosecute gun violence, well, I would love to see that fantasy get some play. Even liberal justices might upchuck on that one.
If anyone has barf bags they have liberated from a recent airline flight, please forward them to Justices Ginsberg and Souter, to start.
Post a Comment