pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Judge upholds city ordinances on gun storage, bullet standards
#1
San Francisco: Judge upholds city ordinances on gun storage, bullet standards

Posted on November 28, 2012

More Sharing Services Share on facebook Share on twitter
San Francisco can require handgun owners to keep their weapons locked when stored at home and can ban bullets that expand or splinter on contact, a federal judge has ruled in rejecting a National Rifle Association backed effort to block enforcement of the local gun laws.
In denying an injunction sought by gun owners, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said Monday that neither city ordinance appeared to violate standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling that declared a constitutional right to possess firearms at home for self defense.
LINK: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the...dards.aspx
Read the article: The San Francisco Chronicle (Calif.)
das, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#2
das;47130 Wrote:San Francisco: Judge upholds city ordinances on gun storage, bullet standards

Posted on November 28, 2012

More Sharing Services Share on facebook Share on twitter
San Francisco can require handgun owners to keep their weapons locked when stored at home and can ban bullets that expand or splinter on contact, a federal judge has ruled in rejecting a National Rifle Association backed effort to block enforcement of the local gun laws.
In denying an injunction sought by gun owners, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said Monday that neither city ordinance appeared to violate standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling that declared a constitutional right to possess firearms at home for self defense.
LINK: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the...dards.aspx
Read the article: The San Francisco Chronicle (Calif.)

Easy solution... sell house, move 4 miles in any direction to leave San Francisco county.

Hayward, CA anyone?
Reply
#3
I don't think this is the latest ruling, but here's another document from the case summarizing the judge's side of the matter in brief: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/dis...15014/134/

For example, there's this gem:

Quote:Plaintiffs argue that Section 4512 nevertheless impairs their right to bear handguns in selfdefense because it is impractical to carry a handgun at all times in the home, particularly when
sleeping. The circumstances under which a person not carrying his or her gun might encounter an
immediate threat are endless. If an intruder burst in during dinner time, and the homeowner’s gun
were in another room, whatever additional time it might take to disable a trigger lock might be
inconsequential, if the gun could not be reached in the first instance. Conversely, even a sleeping
homeowner awakened by a noise downstairs could have plenty of time to render a gun operable
before going to investigate. It is at least conceivable, however, that there could be some situations
in which a homeowner, previously asleep or already awake, suddenly becomes aware of an
imminent peril when he or she is not armed, but has a gun close at hand. In such instances, a small
delay in being able to fire the weapon might sometimes be consequential.
That potentiality, however, is insufficient to compel a conclusion as a matter of law that
Section 4512 is unconstitutional under Heller, which did not hold that any impairment of the ability
to use handguns for self defense in the home, no matter how slight, is impermissible.

Let's look at the language in Heller, shall we, emphasis added:

Quote:3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.

Heller stated flatly that a trigger lock requirement impeding on self-defense is unconstitutional, and began the statement by saying that it was so unconstitutional that it was similar to a requirement that, by ALL standards of scrutiny, could not be constitutional. I call bullshit on this judge's latest excuse. Scalia woud have a field day with this.

...

If I can find the latest exact ruling on this case the article is referencing I shall engage in a more thorough comparison of it's failings to adhere to not just the SCOTUS decisions, but also to common sense.
IronSight, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#4
Thank you Ironsight. Good info. This ruling is criminal imo. Just ask the bad guy to "give you a minute" ...nonsense!
das, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#5
It's a shame that this all has to get to the SCOTUS to settle. We need some rational lower court judges in a bad way.

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#6
Let SCOTUS have it, this is a slam dunk reversal waiting to happen.
Reply
#7
JustinHEMI;47191 Wrote:It's a shame that this all has to get to the SCOTUS to settle. We need some rational lower court judges in a bad way.

Justin
Amen to that!
das, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#8
Valorius;47193 Wrote:Let SCOTUS have it, this is a slam dunk reversal waiting to happen.

Slam dunk refers to a sure thing.
Lest we not forget John Roberts.
"In 4 more OMao years you won't like how America looks....I guarantee it."
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” -- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#9
Pocketprotector;47207 Wrote:
Valorius;47193 Wrote:Let SCOTUS have it, this is a slam dunk reversal waiting to happen.

Slam dunk refers to a sure thing.
Lest we not forget John Roberts.
Dodgy
Actually, Roberts wrote the majority opinion on Heller. The question to me is will there still be a majority of justices who either have a conservative or original intent type view by the time this case makes it there? Remember, Heller was a 1 vote win for our side.
[Image: member955.png]
USAF (1976 -1986) NRA, GOA Anim_sniper2
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living." Dan Cofall
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Bloomberg Bullet pinhead1979 2 838 04-24-2014, 08:41 AM
Last Post: Rik Bitter
  Judge drops charges against man for violating NY SAFE Act 7-round magazine limit middlefinger 0 627 03-02-2014, 10:00 AM
Last Post: middlefinger
  Citizen satirizes proposed local firearms ordinances middlefinger 8 1,329 02-08-2014, 04:37 PM
Last Post: Dave
  BREAKING: NY Federal Judge Strips 7-10 Rule from NYS Gun Law ArcticSplash 8 1,306 01-01-2014, 06:15 PM
Last Post: Philadelphia Patriot
  New York At It Again - 'Safe Weapons Storage Act' Makes It A Crime To Not Secure Guns dc dalton 13 1,542 12-20-2013, 12:32 AM
Last Post: ExcelToExcel



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.