DEMOCRAT GUN BAN News in San Francisco

[NewXD40fun]

NRA Attorney Challenging San Francisco Gun Ban

BCN) An attorney for the National Rifle Association and other groups who are challenging San Francisco's handgun ban said today that it would affect theatrical and movie productions and result in a loss of revenue for the city.

Chuck Michel, a Long Beach attorney who represents five groups and seven individuals who are challenging Proposition H, a measure passed by San Francisco voters in the Nov. 8 special election, said it also would impact auction houses that sell antique guns.

But Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said Michel's statement "is just ridiculous" and alleged that "the NRA is grasping at pretty absurd arguments."

Dorsey said the law "won't be shutting down the opera because they use toy guns."

Michel and Dorsey traded barbs on a day when the city attorney and those who are suing the city reached an greement that delays the implementation of part of the law and aims to streamline the process via which opponents are challenging the law.

The plaintiffs, who include the San Francisco Police Officers Association and the Second Amendment Foundation in addition to the NRA, agreed to refrain from seeking a temporary restraining order and agreed to a briefing schedule that assures a hearing on the merits of the law in mid-February.

Proposition H, which was approved by San Francisco voters by a margin of 58 to 42 percent on Nov. 8, had been scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.

But under the agreement announced today, part of the ordinance won't go into effect until March 1.

Herrera said the agreement will delay for two months the city's enforcement of Section 2 of the measure, which bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and distribution of firearms within the city and county of San Francisco.

Herrera said the measure's other substantive provision -- banning handgun possession by city residents other than peace officers and those requiring the weapons for professional purposes -- already gives residents until April 1 to turn in their weapons.

Michel said the ban against transferring firearms would affect auction houses and theatrical and movie productions.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the American Entertainment Armorers Association, which represents entertainment prop houses, armorers, prop masters, and related professionals and businesses that serve the entertainment industry, said it agrees.

The group said, "While the entertainment industry struggles to keep productions in the U.S., and cities like Los Angeles and New York are actively courting film production business, Proposition H appears to reflect the carelessness of certain San Francisco politicians who, in their desire to make a political statement, did not carefully study the effect of the ordinance on the entertainment industry."

The AEAA said its members provide film, television, and stage production companies with prop guns, which typically are real and regulated but are rigged to fire only blanks.

The group said weapons include handguns, rifles and shotguns, as well as more heavily regulated assault weapons, machine guns, destructive devices, short-barreled weapons and custom-built firearms.

The day after Prop H was approved, the NRA and the other plaintiffs brought a petition challenging the validity of the law directly in the California Court of Appeal, seeking to bypass the trial court altogether.

But Herrera said his office opposed the petition, arguing that the voters' decision to ban handgun possession by San Francisco residents is "of no significant interest to anyone outside San Francisco" and that the citywide ban on the sale of firearms was consistent with state law.

The Court of Appeal rejected the NRA's petition on Dec. 9, forcing the plaintiffs to file a new lawsuit in the trial court.

Michel said the plaintiffs filed a new suit late today.

Subject to approval by the court, the tentative briefing schedule to which the city and the plaintiffs have agreed would begin with the NRA's filing of a petition for a writ of mandate by Jan. 11, 2006. The city's opposition brief would be due by Jan. 25, followed by the plaintiffs' by Feb. 8.

A hearing on the merits of the law would take place in San Francisco Superior Court on Feb. 15.
(Bay City News)

http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_362235157.html


The Democrat/Liberal mission of robbing us of our right to own firearms will never cease.


Tom

[Delija]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

But Herrera said his office opposed the petition, arguing that the voters' decision to ban handgun possession by San Francisco residents is "of no significant interest to anyone outside San Francisco" and that the citywide ban on the sale of firearms was consistent with state law.

Except for one guy in Ohio who is obsessed with it.

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

The Democrat/Liberal mission of robbing us of our right to own firearms will never cease.


Tom

And who is obsessed with posting about "Democrat/Liberal missions", "Bush Haters", "Liberal Extremists", and any other non-existent bogeyman issues he can think of in his blind adoration and his full time job as chief cheerleader for the neo-cons (as well as being a wealth of misinformation about financial instruments).

How about giving it a break? How can you say the same thing over and over. We all get it. Really! We could all write your posts for you.

In fact, Tom, you don't even write your own posts. You just cut and paste from the NRA site, or "townhall.com".

Anyone interested can go read this stuff without help from you. Right Tom?.

So why not take a well deserved vacation?

Happy New Year,
D.

[NewXD40fun]

Wow, looks like I have my own personal TROLL.

If you have nothing of value to add to the subject please go elsewhere.



Tom

[einheit 13]

If you have nothing of value to add to the subject please go elsewhere. Tom

Lead by EXAMPLE, not by EXCEPTION....

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by einheit 13

Lead by EXAMPLE, not by EXCEPTION....

Hey if you guys want to help the Democrats grab your gun rights that is your Constitutional right, but attacking me personally only spurs me on to expose more liberal hypocrisy.



Tom

[one-eyed-fatman]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

Wow, looks like I have my own personal TROLL.

If you have nothing of value to add to the subject please go elsewhere.



Tom

Funnygun, we have been telling you this for quite some time. You should listen sometime.

[Captain Ray]

This is typical of D (no longer "peace") elija NewXD... he seldom addresses the substance of any particular thread... nothing new there.

And, as is his custom, he expresses his high comfort level with the restriction of firearms... as was evidenced recently in his show of support for gun registration, and other "un-obtrusive" gun regulation.

Wait till' they try and take his guns away.. then he will wish he had listened to you.

Raymond

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Captain Ray

This is typical of D (no longer "peace") elija NewXD... he seldom addresses the substance of any particular thread... nothing new there.

And, as is his custom, he expresses his high comfort level with the restriction of firearms... as was evidenced recently in his show of support for gun registration, and other "unobtrusive" gun regulation.

Are you once again putting words in my mouth? I don't recall "supporting" gun registration. I just don't see anything terribly onerous about it.

The government has my fingerprints from the military, from being a registered representative (series 7, 3, 63, 24, 15, 55 as well as "continuing ed"....each with it's own set of prints). They have my fingerprints from my CCW permit as well.

They have my car registered. My bank accounts and my income taxes are all known to the government.

My gun purchases are recorded if not "registered" (I don't know what the difference is...they have the serial numbers and my name, etc.).

If my guns are stolen and used in a crime, I'd sort of like to know about it.

So no, I don't "support" gun registration. But I don't see any reason to get wound up about it and oppose it in any vehement fashion. My privacy has not been very "private" for decades.

As for a "restriction" on firearms....yeah, I saw what can happen. We all have. Look at how John Lennon was killed. Not with a gun purchased in NYC, where he was shot, but in Texas where there was no restriction.

Not everyone should be allowed to have guns. In the wrong hands, they ARE dangerous.

You don't think so?

Peace,
D.

[Captain Ray]

That's the difference between you and many of us then isn't it.. I do think having to have the serial number of my guns on record as onerous.. I do think being required to submit my fingerprints in order to buy said gun as an unconstitutional imposition.

I also have a problem with you and your ilk thinking that you are a good arbiter as to who should own a gun and who shouldn't.

You have said on more than one occasion that BUG should not be allowed to own a gun.. you have said the same of me.

I find all of that to be offensive.

Raymond

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Captain Ray

That's the difference between you and many of us then isn't it.. I do think having to have the serial number of my guns on record as onerous.. I do think being required to submit my fingerprints in order to buy said gun as an unconstitutional imposition.

I also have a problem with you and your ilk thinking that you are a good arbiter as to who should own a gun and who shouldn't.

You have said on more than one occasion that BUG should not be allowed to own a gun.. you have said the same of me.

I find all of that to be offensive.

Raymond

Raymond, I understand that "many of (you)" feel any registration of guns is onerous. And I don't particularly like it myself. The thing is, in the grand scheme of our lives, it's just another way the government (State, Fed., local....pick one, pick a pair, pick 'em all...once we're in the system, we're in) already has us numbered, folded, spindled, tagged, bent, stapled, mutilated and filed. So knowing how things are, it seems to me that not liking it isn't gonna make any difference. Worrying about it...what's the upside? Assuming we could pick our battles and have a real impact, is this a major priority? I realize for some it is. And I respect that. I just don't agree...I just don't see it as an issue that is likely to affect any of our lives. We are all, at least in theory, law abiding citizens or we wouldn't be allowed to buy guns anywhere in the US...at least not new guns from licensed dealers.

In Florida face to face sales, anything goes. Is that a good thing? Wouldn't you agree it would depend on who's involved? If you, Captain Ray were the Man In Charge, would you really be completely comfortable with totally unrestricted face to face gun transactions? It is easy to say "YES"....but how strongly do you really feel about it? I don't know what it's like in Oregon, but in Florida I can lawfully sell my guns to ANYONE who is willing to pay my price. On the spot. Don't even have to get the buyer's name.

Chances are good that it would never be an issue, but not 100%......In fact, if my next door neighbor, Mr. Niceguy can come and tell me he wants to buy my XD so he can shoot his wife who he just saw screwing his best friend through his bedroom window, I can sell him that gun. And if he DOES use it to commit a murder, I may be an accessory to that murder, but legally it seems possible that I would only be guilty of having just used very poor judgement. And that isn't a crime. If it were we'd all be in constant trouble.

As far as what is constitutional, I am not a lawyer, and neither are you. And being a lawyer still doesn't make one a constitutional scholar necessarily (although right here on a pretty much daily basis, we get many opinions from lay people who seem to believe they are such scholars).

But it appears that since all this fingerprinting and record keeping is going on, those who interpret the law when it counts seem to believe it IS constitutional. Otherwise how is it that in some places like Chicago and NYC and now San Francisco it is virtually impossible for any non LE person to obtain a carry permit?

You and I can BOTH make valid arguments as to the meaning of the Second Amendment. It is the worst worded of the Bill of Rights. A comma might have helped, but we didn't get it. We can BOTH make our arguments either pro or con. It's too easy to argue either way.

Just like you (and maybe this surprises you), I'd LIKE to believe the "right to bear arms" applies the way the NRA sees it. Yet I know that the courts don't see it that way. So maybe I'm just lucky that I don't see it as an issue to get wound up about....can't do anything about it. I have plenty to stress about in my life as it is.

Wanting something to be and having it be are two different things. So PLEASE don't make assumptions that I don't believe the framers of the Bill of Rights didn't intend us to have semi-auto pistols. We can't read the minds of dead guys. And we'd be really overstepping our arrogance if we were to make presumptions about what guys a thousand times smarter than us would have thought if they could have foreseen the future of firearms.

Lastly, you say that I (and my "ilk"...whoever my "ilk" may be LOL) believe "we" are "good (arbiters) as to who should own a gun and who shouldn't"

In fact, I don't believe that. Not at all (can't speak for the "ilk").

Furthermore, I wouldn't want the responsibility. I don't want to be a politician, a judge or a law enforcement person....those are really the "ilk" that make such decisions. Depending on where you live of course (which seems in itself to show it's not a Second Amendment issue, but a states right....look at Packing.org for some variety!

I don't recall ever saying that I thought you shouldn't own a gun. If I did, it was in jest and I believe you have to know that.....particularly since I DO recall saying on more than one occasion that I believe you to be a law abiding guy and that you "play by the rules"....you've said that you carry a gun where permitted, and don't where not permitted.

That is NOT the case with many others.

BUG is an example of someone who obeys the rules (laws?) as it is convenient to him. By his own admission. Repeatedly.

For a self proclaimed "conservative" how can you possibly think anyone is above the law?

Since most of us who have carry permits must carry concealed, breaking the "no guns" rule is easy. And if any of our lives were saved by having a gun when and where we shouldn't, well then breaking the rule will have been the correct move. Are rules made to be broken? Who gets to decide? There is something to be said for conforming to the law. It keeps us civilized. It keeps anarchy at bay. Nothing works right 100% of the time. We just have to hope the rules and laws do work for the best. When they clearly don't, they can and do get repealed. We've seen that on a constitutional basis.

Why do I think it's important to play by the rules? Well that's a tough one since I know the argument will always be "the bad guys don't play by the rules, so we good guys can't let ourselves become victims of someone else's rules that makes no sense"....easy to rationalize, right? So why do I object to hearing guys boast that they ignore the "no guns" rules?

Two reasons. One is that for the most part, guns are disallowed in places where emotions can and often do run high......bars, and sporting events come to mind. How many fights occur in the stands of stadiums and arenas during sporting events? People root, people bet, people get very emotional. Can't have a gun in a casino in Florida either. Wonder about in Las Vegas? (could look at packing.org). I'd be very surprised if guns are allowed in the Vegas casinos.

The other reason that I object to CCW permit holders carrying where they are not supposed to is I see it as a bad reflection on we who DO "play by the rules". Someone gets sloppy, flashes his gun even unintentionally in a bar, and if it escalates into any kind of newsworthy event, it will be portrayed in the press as some "gun nut" by the gun grabbers. It's just a bad image for those of us who want LESS and not MORE restrictions on gun rights. You see this as me being in favor of gun control? I see this as being in favor of self control. And basically you have me pegged wrong on this issue.

To get more specific: in BUG's case he has exhibited a pretty good degree of what I have called "bloodthirstiness". Certainly he seems to relish the thought of having an opportunity to use his weapons on other humans. Maybe it's just my perception. But I've heard others say they got the same message from BUG's posts.

So yeah, I have said that I don't see BUG as being someone who should be armed in public. I haven't said that about anyone else...not in earnest. I have joked about XD40Fun but in the sense that he never admits to being wrong about anything....even when proved wrong. Do I think he'd use a gun improperly like he uses his logic (or lack of logic) improperly in his constant political rants? No. It was just a joke. If anyone here besides me is guilty of misplaced humor Ray, it has to be you. N'est pas? You've said so yourself.

I know that you and I bang heads in our "debates". And while I admit that I sometimes will go beyond pure reason when arguing with you, as you do when it comes to me....it is just talk. When you say you'd like to "shoot liberals" but don't only because it leads to too much legal hassle, I know it is your way ....not to be taken literally. And I make equally outrageous statements to be emphatic at times. Although I've never said I wanted to shoot anyone.... because I have, and I have been shot as well. Neither is anything a normal person wants to experience.


Ray, I know one thing.....you and I could sit and argue about a million things and it would be interesting. Hence my open invitation to buy you dinner, drinks, whatever if we could be in the same place at the same time. We might never admit to taking a point, but we both would. That is quite different than what I (OR YOU) would get out of a face to face discussion with a parrot. Your opinions are informed opinions whether I like them or not. And I try to explain myself which I guess I am not very good at since it takes me too many words. This post being another fine example! LOL

But I try. I try like all hell to never say "I'm right and you're wrong" without giving reason.....although I know my words are very often a wasted effort.

You and I will never see eye to eye on a slew of things. But in truth I believe we have more in common than we don't.

I believe we have the same real core values....belief in our country and the freedoms that is all about. Even at occasionally very high costs. It's what I see that separates you from the standard issue "ditto heads" that don't seem to fully grasp that freedom isn't free. That seem to have no problem with giving up some freedoms for some perceived safety. Is it New Hampshire's license plates that say "live free or die"? Whichever state, I believe that with all my soul. And I have to believe you do as well.

We both are guilty of using poor judgement and poor taste in our attacks on each other. I hope this new year will be different. I really do.

The only thing that really ever bothered me was NOT what you said, but the sense I got that you may have believed it (Like when you said I had a "favorite abortionist"....that was very personally hurtful and distasteful and completely off base..... While I hoped to have made MY admittedly tasteless insults so far and OBVIOUSLY off base that it would be evident that I didn't believe it. Or mean it. And if I failed then I apologize.


Peace,
D.