PDA

View Full Version : NRA challenges SF's firearm ban



Knimrod
02-23-2006, 10:25 PM
NRA challenges SF's firearm ban
February 23, 2006
http://www.sfgate.com/templates/brands/chronicle/images/chronicle_logo.gif

(2-23) 17:19 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The National Rifle Association pressed its case against San Francisco's voter-approved ban on firearm sales and handgun possession in court today, arguing that the ordinance flouts state law by requiring law-abiding residents to surrender their pistols.

The city's lawyer countered that a local government is entitled to protect its residents from handgun violence.

The hearing ended without Superior Court Judge James Warren ruling on the validity of Proposition H, which was approved by 58 percent of the voters Nov. 8 and was challenged by the NRA, three other organizations and seven gun owners the next day.

Warren asked the city to delay enforcement until he rules, which could be as late as mid-June. Deputy City Attorney Wayne Snodgrass said city officials would probably accept some postponement.

Prop. H prohibits handgun possession by San Francisco residents and bans the sale, manufacture and distribution of firearms and ammunition within city limits. It exempts law enforcement officers and others who need guns for professional purposes.

Two other major U.S. cities, Chicago and Washington, D.C., have outlawed handguns. Gun-rights advocates in Congress have been trying for years to scuttle Washington's ban. A constitutional challenge to a handgun ban in the Chicago suburb of Morton Grove, Ill., was rejected by a federal appeals court in 1982.

The suit against Prop. H contends that such local measures conflict with California law, which authorizes police agencies to issue handgun permits and prohibits gun possession by certain categories of people, including convicted felons and the mentally ill.

State laws are designed to "keep guns away from the bad guys while trying to give the good guys some means to protect themselves,'' Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the NRA and the other plaintiffs, told Warren.

Michel noted that an earlier San Francisco ordinance banning handgun possession in the city, by residents and nonresidents alike, was overturned by a state appeals court in 1982. That court declared that "the field of residential handgun possession'' is regulated by the state Legislature, not local governments.

Prop. H, sponsored by Supervisor Chris Daly, sought to sidestep the 1982 ruling by prohibiting only San Francisco residents from owning handguns. Snodgrass, the city's lawyer, argued today that the city's "home rule'' powers include the right to keep guns out of homes, and that California does not give anyone the right to own or buy a gun in violation of local ordinances.

"State law and the fairly modest level of protection it imposes simply is not protecting San Franciscans enough'' from increasing gun violence, Snodgrass told Warren.

The judge gave little indication of his views, although he asked Snodgrass at one point why Prop. H, if intended to address gun violence, banned handgun possession only by city residents. "People coming from outside with guns are creating terrible havoc, and they're not touched'' by the ordinance, Warren said.

Snodgrass replied that the city was entitled to concentrate on the problem of guns in homes, and feared that a broader prohibition would exceed its legal authority.

Even if the handgun ban is struck down, the city lawyer said, the prohibition on firearms sales should be upheld. Snodgrass noted that the state Supreme Court has upheld a ban on gun sales on Alameda County property, and that a state appeals court has affirmed West Hollywood's prohibition of the sale of cheap pistols known as Saturday-night specials.

But Michel argued that if the handgun provision, the centerpiece of Prop. H, is overturned, the entire measure should fall.

The ban on gun and ammunition sales was originally scheduled to take effect Jan. 1 but has been moved back to March 1 in an agreement between the city and the NRA. The handgun ban is due to take effect April 1, the deadline for residents to turn in their guns without penalty.

Warren said Thursday he was unlikely to rule by April 1 and suggested a further delay in enforcement so that residents and the city's sole gun shop, High Bridge Arms on Mission Street, aren't subjected to fluctuating legal obligations. He said he hopes to issue a written decision well before the mid-June deadline set by court rules.

Link to story (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/23/MNGVOHDK5B6.DTL)