It's an American Dream, Includes Gun Owners Too

Brian Doherty | January 30, 2008

A lawsuit from a gaggle of gun rights groups and citizens got some love from the California Court of Appeals, which decided this month that the city of San Francisco's ban on almost all handgun ownership and on any sale of guns or ammunition (known as Proposition H, passed in 2005) doesn't jibe with existing state law and is pre-empted by that state law. Excerpt from the decision:

...the key provisions of Prop H, prohibiting the sale of firearms and possession of handguns by City residents, were preempted by Penal Code section 12026, subdivision (b) [prohibiting localities from restricting handgun possession in an individual’s home, business, or private property], Government Code section 53071 [indicating an express intent by the Legislature to occupy the whole field of firearms licensing and registration] and the Unsafe Handgun Act, Penal Code sections 12125-12233 [establishing a protocol for designating which handguns may be sold in California]

Second Amendment Foundation press release.

The full decision.

Newsbusters is mad at how little play this story got.

Comments

The Wine Commonsewer|1.30.08 @ 1:56AM|#

Seems like good news but it may just be one of those any port in the storm kind of rulings. But we'll take it.

shecky|1.30.08 @ 2:52AM|#

I suppose if newsbusters is itching for a "conservative victory", they might be disappointed at the lack of play. The fact is the story is a bit of a yawn, as Prop H was pretty much doomed from the get go. In addition, it's not entirely clear how relevant the story is to folks outside SF at all.

Ventifact|1.30.08 @ 2:57AM|#

SF is one of those places lots of other folks revere. I'd rather not have them having a handgun ban so lots of other politicians and advocates can say 'If it's the right thing for SF, it's the right thing for us.' California knows how to export culture.

Ventifact|1.30.08 @ 3:29AM|#

...That's one reason it's such a quintessentially American place.

|1.30.08 @ 9:35AM|#

Maybe the California branch of the Second Amendment Foundation can call itself the Government Code section 53071 Foundation.

LarryA|1.30.08 @ 10:14AM|#

The excuse for this case was gun control, but the issue is whether a city can pass a law that conflicts with state government. (Or can state government pass a law a city can't override.)

This issue actually comes up fairly often in a number of issues, particularly in states like Illinois where Chicago's tail wags the state dog. Google terms like "home rule town"

|1.30.08 @ 10:55AM|#

Larry is correct.

For instance, Denver claimed at one point that they didn't have to recognize Colorado concealed weapons permits because they're a home rule city.

As I understand it, even after the state told them that they MUST recognize CO CCW permits, it's still not a great idea to carry in Denver.

Brian Sorgatz|1.30.08 @ 10:58AM|#

A-ha! It's from before I was born, but I know the inspiration for the post title.

lunchstealer|1.30.08 @ 1:12PM|#

Can they come to Texas and get state alcohol laws established at the state level in a similar way? The insane patchwork of laws that vary WITHIN MUNCIPALITIES is getting me down.

Paul|1.30.08 @ 2:54PM|#

California knows how to export culture

No, politicians in other states only know how to import the worst of it.