CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
City anticipates legal fight about gun laws
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Mayor Gavin Newsom said he will fight for more gun-control efforts in The City despite a landmark, pro-gun U.S. Supreme Court ruling and an expected legal battle with the National Rifle Association.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 32-year-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C., on Thursday in granting an individual’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment for the first time in American history.
The federal court’s ruling, however, does not specifically reverse current San Francisco laws. City leaders, though, said they expected a looming legal battle with the powerful gun-rights organization.
“My response to rulings like this is not just to take the hit and have the assault come from the NRA and roll over — it’s to give them a little bit more to be concerned about,” Newsom said, noting he would make an announcement today. “So we’re working on more legislation to give them more to be concerned about.”
In 2005, city voters approved Proposition H, a ban on handgun sales and possession in The City. But earlier this year, after the California Court of Appeal ruled against the ban, the California Supreme Court rejected a review of the decision requested by The City.
After Thursday’s ruling, city leaders said they expect the NRA to come after ordinances already in place that ban guns on city land such as public housing, parks and schools as well as requirements that handguns stored in homes be kept in locked containers or disabled by a lock.
Any potential lawsuit would come at a time when The City is mired in a violent year of homicides, many of which have been committed with guns. A man was shot dead near Holly Park early Thursday morning, and three men — a father and his two sons — were killed in a car earlier this week after a traffic incident. The last incident brought The City’s homicide total to 52 for the year. Last year there were 98.
City Attorney’s Office spokesman Matt Dorsey said the ruling does not necessarily threaten the validity of gun laws in The City but left observers pessimistic about the future of gun control.
“There’s not much in this ruling that gives us cause for optimism,” Dorsey said.
Comments from Examiner Readers
7:22 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 17, 2008 re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
8:44 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
2:14 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
2:08 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
12:47 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
12:41 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
11:50 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
11:42 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
11:33 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
11:05 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
9:32 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
8:55 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
8:46 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
7:12 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
6:38 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008
re: "Gun ban may be mortally wounded"
Report as inappropriate
Ooo-ree-bay said:
"Daly said San Franciscans “believe the science” of gun control in that if “you remove handguns from these incidents you lower mortality rates.” *** If that is true, then we are even more delusional than I thought.
79 agree | 52 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
If gun control works and this law had been in effect since 2005, how do you explain this "The City has witnessed the four deadliest years of the past decade since 2003."?
109 agree | 79 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Albert Franklin said:
Ban guns and the city will just say that you are pot smoking drunk, as they trump up a case against you, for freaking out zoo animals, that taxpayers feed!
94 agree | 53 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Simple solution to this repeat performance, adopt the Official Code of Georgia Annotated at 16-11-173 (2)(b)(1)as a state regulation: "No county or municipal corporation, by zoning or by ordinance, resolution or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner gun shows; the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or components of firearms, firearms dealers; or dealers in firearms components." Can't put it much clearer...
79 agree | 71 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall, not be infringed." What's unclear? Any gov attempt to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights violates the Constitution.
82 agree | 69 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
What a total waste of city tax dollars. Daly et al. are happy to spend what they didn't earn to promote their ideology. They knew this was DOA. They knew it would cost tax dollars. They felt it was worth it to make some asinine point that handguns are evil. Nice work guys. Wish those dollars went to filling potholes or helping the truly needy.
64 agree | 71 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This was doomed from the start, but I am glad to see that we apparently have been given a reprieve from Stalinism for a few more years. I agree with the previous poster on Harris... her focus on "illegal" guns is wrong-headed. and what she means of course is ALL guns and not just "illegal" ones. She is simply out to disarm law abiding people and let "Kamala's Kids" take over the streets. I think she's got a fetish for criminals...
102 agree | 66 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is a great ruling. Thank you NRA.
86 agree | 62 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
pro law abiding citizen said:
continued: The media justifies criminal actions because of events in their childhood. What about their victims? Not "news" unless it fits their agenda.
83 agree | 61 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
pro law abiding citizen said:
It is funny how politicians are always pushing pro criminal laws. Banning guns in the homes of law abiding citizens is like banning fire extinguishers. Have a kitchen fire? That is what 911 is for, just dial and wait. If you have a gun in the house, a criminal might get injured, or killed when breaking into your house and threatening your family. Think of the lives saved. What about your family? Who cares, it keeps the media profitable. This theory works well, just look at the guns present at city hall to protect only politicians. If you really want the guns off the streets, eradicate the illegally armed gangs roaming the city. There is something being done about gangs, right? NO. If any one of them commits a crime, bring them all in, as they are all accessories to the crime. Politicians will not do this, because of the parents of gang members pleading to have their "innocent kids" released, and the media backing them up, justifying their actions due to the events t
93 agree | 80 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Citizen K said:
I purchased my gun after the 1992 LA riot. Law enforcement agencies were overwhelmed and a lot of people were left unprotected against the criminal elements. I'm keeping my gun to protect my family.
84 agree | 63 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
DRH said:
BRAVO to the Court of Appeals.
100 agree | 56 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Klueless Kamala is the flunkie responsible for prosecuting criminals and sending them to prison, but what does she blame? Guns. Yep, guns are to be blamned. She wants "illegal" guns, meaning all guns, to be confiscated. She wants the Cow Palace Gun Show banned because of all the Republican NRA members committing murders in SF. She wants to enter the locked homes of law abiding gun owners, in defiance of the 4th Amendment, to ensure their guns are locked up. She has already co-blamed law abiding gun owners who've had their guns stolen yet she has no harsh words for the thieves. A total dingbat that couldn't be a better choice of the liberals- good looking, female, and a hands off approach to dealing with vicious, violent thugs.
94 agree | 71 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Why does Washington State whom issues concealed weapons permits to anyone without a record have fewer homicides per capita, again per capita, than California? In fact are there any right to carry States that do? The left has wanted the guns since Marx,nothing new.
93 agree | 75 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
80% of homicides were committed with a gun. How many were registered? Do you really think a ban will keep guns out of SF? I am buying stock in tin foil and there appears to be demand for it in SF.
92 agree | 78 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree