Knimrod
06-19-2006, 02:49 AM
Right decision, wrong reason
June 17, 2006
by Erik Gable
The Daily Telegram
A federal judge earlier this week slapped down a law enacted last fall by San Francisco voters that made it illegal for any resident of that city to keep a handgun. But although the ruling led to celebration by gun-rights advocates, it was far from being a major victory for Second Amendment rights.
That's because Superior Court Judge James Warren's ruling was the right decision, but for the wrong reason.
The San Francisco ordinance couldn't possibly be a clearer violation of the constitutional guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” But the judge's ruling hinges instead on a conflict between San Francisco's law and a state law that gives the California state government exclusive authority to regulate the sale and possession of handguns.
Warren's reasoning is legally sound, but it's also unfortunate, because a ruling against the San Francisco gun ban on constitutional grounds would have sent a strong message to other states, counties and cities considering overly restrictive anti-gun legislation. It might have discouraged other cities from following in the footsteps of San Francisco, Chicago and Washington, D.C., the only cities to have passed such comprehensive anti-gun laws. But as it stands, the ruling just encourages them to work harder to find loopholes and new ways of getting around the Second Amendment.
San Francisco plans to appeal the judge's ruling, arguing that because the ban applies only to San Francisco residents - a previous measure overturned in 1982 attempted to bar both residents and nonresidents from having guns in San Francisco - it's a legitimate subject for local control.
“Gun violence is a grave problem in this city, and our citizens have a right to do what they can legislatively to reduce it,” city attorney Dennis Herrera told the San Francisco Chronicle after the Monday ruling. San Francisco's handgun ban was approved by 58 percent of the voters in November's election.
Usually it's conservatives rather than liberals who can be found complaining about “thwarting the will of the people” whenever a judge overturns a law that tramples on individual rights, but on this particular issue, the tables are turned.
The reversal of San Francisco's ill-advised gun ban should serve as a reminder that popular sovereignty is no excuse to override the individual liberties enshrined in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, because the judge's decision was based on a conflict with state law rather than on San Francisco's clear violation of the Second Amendment, that battle will have to wait for another day.
Erik Gable is news editor of The Daily Telegram. He can be reached at 265-5111, ext. 265, or at erik@lenconnect.com.
Link to article (http://www.lenconnect.com/articles/2006/06/17/news/news08.txt)
June 17, 2006
by Erik Gable
The Daily Telegram
A federal judge earlier this week slapped down a law enacted last fall by San Francisco voters that made it illegal for any resident of that city to keep a handgun. But although the ruling led to celebration by gun-rights advocates, it was far from being a major victory for Second Amendment rights.
That's because Superior Court Judge James Warren's ruling was the right decision, but for the wrong reason.
The San Francisco ordinance couldn't possibly be a clearer violation of the constitutional guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” But the judge's ruling hinges instead on a conflict between San Francisco's law and a state law that gives the California state government exclusive authority to regulate the sale and possession of handguns.
Warren's reasoning is legally sound, but it's also unfortunate, because a ruling against the San Francisco gun ban on constitutional grounds would have sent a strong message to other states, counties and cities considering overly restrictive anti-gun legislation. It might have discouraged other cities from following in the footsteps of San Francisco, Chicago and Washington, D.C., the only cities to have passed such comprehensive anti-gun laws. But as it stands, the ruling just encourages them to work harder to find loopholes and new ways of getting around the Second Amendment.
San Francisco plans to appeal the judge's ruling, arguing that because the ban applies only to San Francisco residents - a previous measure overturned in 1982 attempted to bar both residents and nonresidents from having guns in San Francisco - it's a legitimate subject for local control.
“Gun violence is a grave problem in this city, and our citizens have a right to do what they can legislatively to reduce it,” city attorney Dennis Herrera told the San Francisco Chronicle after the Monday ruling. San Francisco's handgun ban was approved by 58 percent of the voters in November's election.
Usually it's conservatives rather than liberals who can be found complaining about “thwarting the will of the people” whenever a judge overturns a law that tramples on individual rights, but on this particular issue, the tables are turned.
The reversal of San Francisco's ill-advised gun ban should serve as a reminder that popular sovereignty is no excuse to override the individual liberties enshrined in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, because the judge's decision was based on a conflict with state law rather than on San Francisco's clear violation of the Second Amendment, that battle will have to wait for another day.
Erik Gable is news editor of The Daily Telegram. He can be reached at 265-5111, ext. 265, or at erik@lenconnect.com.
Link to article (http://www.lenconnect.com/articles/2006/06/17/news/news08.txt)