NRA Targets San Francisco, Chicago

Following Supreme Court Ruling, Gun Advocates Sue To Overturn City Housing Gun Bans

(CBS/ AP)  The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its handgun ban in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital.

The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday's high court ruling.

"Thursday’s gateway ruling marks just a beginning, not nearly an end, to Second Amendment litigation," writes CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "We now will see dozens of challenges to existing gun laws, all designed to challenge the outer boundaries of the … ruling. And we quite likely will soon see another Supreme Court ruling on the topic. It’s inevitable."

---

Read Andrew Cohen's CourtWatch column on Thursday's ruling.

---

In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project as plaintiffs.

The gun owner, who is gay, says he keeps the weapon to defend himself from "sexual orientation hate crimes." He was not identified in the complaint because he said he fears retaliation.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the Supreme Court ruling didn't address gun bans on government property and that he was "confident that our local gun control measures are on sound legal footing and will survive legal challenges."

San Francisco also requires residents to keep guns in lockboxes or equip them with triggerlocks. That law, passed by the county supervisors last year, wasn't challenged in Friday's lawsuit.

A state appeals court has overturned a broader citywide gun ban passed by voters in 2005.

The Chicago lawsuit challenges its 1982 ordinance that makes it illegal to possess or sell handguns in the city.

NRA lawyer C.D. Michel said both lawsuits were necessary to expand the Supreme Court's ruling beyond Washington, a federal district, to states and cities.

"The Supreme Court decisions was very encouraging," Michel said. "But it is just a start."

[nodemotwit]

It is always amazing that liberals work so diligently to disarm the one segment of the society that represent the minimal threat of gun violence (ie: law abiding gun owners) while those that pose the majority threat of gun violence (ie: drug-dealing gangs, organized crime, career criminals of all ilk {murder, robbery, rape, etc}) have sworn a blood oath to ignore every law created by society.

Or how liberals single out one of the Bill of INDIVIDUAL Rights and try to morph - just that one - into a STATE right. And if the latter really was the intent of the founding fathers, how did they allow such a gross violation of the Constitution as ''self defense by firearm'' to propagate across America from day one ?

The following are two examples of people who would have died, in the liberal vision of America, w/o their 2nd Amendment right to self defense.

www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080214_lj_hawes.bfc57dff.html

www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7886169

Did anyone think a SC with common sense (ie: one NOT considering our Constitution as a ''living, breathing, interpret it on the whim-of-the-moment'' document) was going to deny the 2nd Amendment right of these law abiding citizens to defend their lives with a firearm when set upon by criminals ?

(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)

But in validating the lower courts ruling I hope their opinions also clarify/re-affirm that the Federal government does have the right to regulate the types of firearms that may be possessed. And, as a law-abiding gun owner, I would like to see the access to both firearms and ammunition by criminals and the mentally unstable minimized.

Personally, I''d like to see the Firearm part of the ATF take on some responsibilities that are similar to the Center of Disease Control (CDC). In the latter case, when someone contracts a population threatening disease (eg: tuberculoses), the CDC is, by law, notified by medical practitioners then acts A.R. to prevent the spread to the rest of the population. So, for the ATF, this would mean that :

** Medical practitioners would be required, by law, to report mentally unstable patients to the ATF in every case that they are deemed a threat to themselves or their family or the general population.

** The Armed services would be required, by law, to report any discharge from the service for serious mental problems.

Similarly, given the youth of many of these perps, a special case needs to be made wrt juvenile criminal records, specifically:

** Juvenile violent offenses would, by law, be reported to the ATF, and considered by the ATF until the age of 25, after which those records would be purged, unless those individuals developed an adult rap sheet involving more violent offenses by age 25.


(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)

THEN, the ATF, firearm dealers and gun show promoters would need to modernize their equipment such that both firearm and ammunition purchases are vetted by the ATF, online, w/128 bit encryption (ie: same security as CC purchases).

And for those conservatives worried about the ATF tracking ammunition purchases, every purchasers name/address could be submitted by the gun shops computer along with a pool of randomly picked local state residents, with the ATF computer on the other end quickly (less that 1 second) providing an electronic thumbs up/down for all of them, then the gun shops computer would filter out all but the intended buyer. If the ATF were to track in this scenario then it would appear, over time, that 100% of the states adult residents are purchasing ammunition.


Since we give medical data to the CDC to protect the general populace I do not think it is as big stretch to give similar data to the ATF to, again, protect the general populace.

=======================


(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)

Additionally, the ATF needs to set national standards within which the state governments can restrict the parameters of firearm ownership AND interstate transportation for travel/vacation purposes.

** The former: To avoid DC-like scenarios, where self defense becomes a non-option. Truly self-defense threatening restrictions, like requiring a firearm to be disassembled and scattered into 4 corners of a house in individually locked containers, or requiring a special tool to change a clip, like in CA, would be illegal per Federal law.

** The latter: To avoid the imbecilic hodge-podge of different state firearm transportation rules across the US.


Finally, the ATF could be empowered to take steps to make it more costly for individuals w/a history of violent misdemeanor convictions (but no felonies) to LEGALLY (key word) acquire guns. For example, for a period of time (5yrs ?) after their most recent violent misdemeanor conviction they could be required to adhere to NFA-like requirements (mug shot, prints, gun tax, gun registration, interstate transportation restrictions, etc.). That would be a way to try and dissuade these individuals from proceeding onto violent felony infractions, and make it easier to ID the ones that do. But to thwart the inevitable vindictive spousal units associated w/US divorce you would need some stiff penalties for staged events leading to false convictions.

(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)

But this only addresses part of the problem. Some other aspects are that :

** In certain states, liberals encourage illegal immigration and, by default, the illegal documentation industries that enable the former, and therefore the ''drivers license as ID'' for gun/ammunition purchases, as vetted in such an ATF system/responsibility upgrade as outlined above, would be much less robust. For this reason, National ID or similar protocols may be required.

** In certain states, human life has become too cheap. For example, the rap sheet of the perp Arthur Mann, who got life (2-28-08) in GA for shooting his ex-girlfriend, in public, shows that he was previously released after serving only FOUR years of a pathetic 10yr sentence for a prior murder in FL.

www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/06/shooter.suspect/index.html?iref=newssearch

I do not know if this is due to the liberal anthem of the ''perp is the victim'', or neocons who are too cheap to push for execution-or-life incarceration for murder, or maybe both, but FOUR years for murder ??
And even when these murderers are condemned to life in prison, what are they faced with ?


(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)

A lifetime of :
__free medical care,
__free food
__bed with fresh linen
__air conditioning and heat
__exercise, and
__reading materials.

All at taxpayer expense.
Wow.
I bet Arthur Mann was in that GA courtroom, just begging for the death penalty.


(As a side note, why is it OK to use DNA evidence to free a death row inmate, but not OK to use DNA evidence to put someone on death row ? And if DNA evidence can accelerate someone off death row quickly (and rightly so), why couldnt it also accelerate their execution, especially when multiple witness to the crime are also involved ? ).

** In certain states, conservatives have implemented what are known as Project Exile laws (eg: VA). Specifically, felons are already prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms (which, of course, does not prevent them from doing so when they leave prison, eg: Arthur Mann), but, with Project Exile, a felon even being caught jaywalking while in possession of a firearm will result in a 5yr incarceration w/o parole. This should be made into a Federal law applicable to all states, whether the sates want it or not, but it would have to be prosecuted in Federal courts to not financially burden states.

=======================

(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)

This would still leave states to restrict citizen carry laws off their property, outside of their autos, as the state sees fit. Keep in mind though, that still would leave the looney left entities to make their childish gun laws, like requiring law abiding gun owners to transport their firearms outside their homes in a locked container with the word ''GUN'' in big white letters on the case (eg: Boulder, CO, Jan 17, 2001). Presumably this was so that their non-gun owning neighbors could be alerted to such a heinous threat so that they could start running around their home interiors, in circular desperation, hands flailing in the air, shrieking, until their law abiding but obviously evil gun-owning neighbor drove out of sight.

=======================


Otherwise, I have seen prior posts mentioning 30,000 US citizens killed by guns every year. This is true, for 2004, but only to the extent that well over half of them are suicides. Liberals would have you believe that this group of suicide-by-gun individuals posses a unique genetic trait, such that if they do not have a gun then they will not commit suicide, EVER. Here is the actual CDC US mortality data for 2004:

By gun:
Suicide ........- 16,750
Homicide .......- 11,624
Accident .......- 649
Undetermined ...- 235

By other than gun:
Suicide ........- 15,689
Homicide .......- 5,733
Accidents ......- 111,363

(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)

By Accident other than gun:
Auto/Truck/etc .- 48,053
Falls ..........- 18,807
Drowning .......- 3,308
Fire/Smoke .....- 3,229
Poisoning ......- 20,950
Unspecified ....- 17,016

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_19.pdf

Since almost 15,700 other individuals managed to commit suicide W/O a gun, liberals will have to provide genetic proof that these 16,750 individuals are a genetically unique group, somehow predisposed to ''Suicide-by-gun-or-Live''. Since they cant, I submit that common sense dictates otherwise, which leaves the honest number of 12,500, not 30,000.

So if you are worried about gun homicide you are over 4X more likely to die in a car accident than by gun homicide.
And if you are worried about a gun accident you are 5X more likely to die in a fire accident, 32X more likely to die of a poisoning accident, and 74X more likely to die in a car accident than by a gun accident.

=======================



But, that being said, I do not see why some common sense steps, possibly those outlined above, could not be taken to restrict access to both firearms and ammunition by criminals and the mentally unstable. The only problem is that all of this would require our liberal, conservative and independent representatives to come together and make it happen. Seeing all the other un-enforced laws they are already collectively responsible for, Im not holding my breath.

[patriot12436]

jlagot
I can personally say that education in Florida and Texas is excellent.
In Georgia, Alabama,Mississippi, Lousiana, and Texas there is a higher porportion of non whites than the norther states.Thereore the racial and cultural intolerance would average different deom other states.
I have found the southern states to be more religious than the northern states. Poor economic and infrastructure , in some but not all southern states. Heavy reliance on northerners for tchnological progression, welfare, and human development index, i would have to agree. And no i am not a southerner, i was raised in the north and lived in the south as well.

[patriot12436]

jlagot
At least they allow you to protect yourself, family and property.

[jlagat]

I can''''t believe some people say the south isn''''t good for anything.

Posted by patriot12436 at 08:24 AM : Jun 30, 2008

Some people don''t say the south isn''t good for anything.
It''s more along the lines of: the vast majority of people KNOW the south isn''t good for anything.

Let''s start:
Poor education of its citizens - check.
History of racial intolerance - check.
History of cultural intolerance - check.
History of religious intolerance - check.
Poor economy and infrastructure - check.
Heavy reliance on its Northern counterparts for technological progression - check.
Heavy reliance on welfare - check.
Its place on the Human Development Index lower than that of all Banana republics - check.

[patriot12436]

If someone attacks me or my family , rest assured i will remove them from the state and this planet.

[patriot12436]

kindrox
From a political point of view jon2012 might have a point.

[patriot12436]

Barbaram99
Laws vary from state to state. Never tell the police you intended to kill the perp. This gives the DA leverage to file for a charge of murder. Always say you were in fear of your life and fighting for your life. In Lousiana you can shoot a perp if he is on your property. I can''t believe some people say the south isn''t good for anything.

[patriot12436]

ubrew12
Tell me of one instance where a gun got up and killed someone by itself. For that mattr show me a base ball bat, a knife, hammer screwdriver, any inate object that got up and killed someone all by itself.

[patriot12436]

Who is Mark Foley ? I never heard of him.

[patriot12436]

closethippy
You keep running your mouth but have never given any facts to back up your beliefs. I have always stated facts. I am tired of your whining. If you want my gun let me know and i will let you come and try to take it. If not shut up and be quiet.

[kindrox]

* If the NRA really cared about its members, it would do everything it could to improve the ECONOMY! *

Keeping it legal to buy guns is not improving the economy?

[tryhonesty]

If the NRA really cared about its members, it would do everything it could to improve the ECONOMY! The ECONOMY determines the future and freedom of this country. I am a gun owner too. But there are real important priorities right now like fixing an economic meltdown, the distruction of jobs and freedom of the American working middle class! (The RepubliCONs have done everything they can think of to hurt the Hardworking Middleclass American Families...)

[patriot12436]

I agree. Bush has done more harm to this coutry than ben laden ever thought of doing.