Not sure if this can be read without registering with this newspaper, so I quoted the article. I think this is pretty sad. San Francisco has banned ownership of handguns and the sales of firearms in the city. Their logic is that it will curb violence.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3451020
Quote:
Nov. 9, 2005, 9:23PM
San Francisco gun ban draws fire from NRA
By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO - The National Rifle Association sued Wednesday to overturn an ordinance voters here overwhelmingly approved a day earlier that bans handgun possession and sales of firearms in the city.
A state appeals court in 1982 nullified a similar gun ban largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law, which allows for the sale and possession of handguns and ammunition.
The NRA filed its lawsuit Wednesday asking the same court, the 1st District Court of Appeal, to nullify the ordinance, which demands that city residents surrender their handguns by April.
"Cities do not have the authority under the state law to ban the possession of handguns," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA president.
The NRA also contends the new ordinance unfairly puts San Francisco residents at a disadvantage by denying them the means to protect themselves. The measure does not bar nonresidents from possessing handguns within city limits.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera said his office will vigorously defend the ordinance, which was approved by 58 percent of voters.
"The electorate sent a strong message that local governments have a strong role in curbing violence in our streets," Herrera said.
He said the 1982 measure was overturned because it applied to all people within city limits, regardless of whether they lived there.
Mayor Gavin Newsom has said the measure probably won't withstand legal scrutiny, but has symbolic value.
The NRA is not alleging the ordinance violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but it would in federal court if it loses the state case, LaPierre said.
|