NRA sues San Francisco over firearms laws

[Auggie]

San Francisco Chronicle, 5-19-09:

The National Rifle Association has filed suit against the city of San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom and Police Chief Heather Fong, taking aim at city laws it contends violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The NRA filed the lawsuit in federal court Friday on behalf of six residents and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association. It challenges three provisions of the city's police code that it says interfere with their right "to defend themselves and others ... within their own homes."

The provisions are:

-- A requirement that handguns in San Francisco homes be kept in a locked cabinet or disabled with a trigger lock.

-- A ban on the sale of fragmenting bullets - a particularly deadly type of ammunition.

-- A city ordinance that prohibits the discharge of firearms within city limits. The law has been on the books since 1938, and is seldom, if ever, enforced, according to city officials.

MORE: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/19/BAK417MPKC.DTL&hw=NRA&sn=001&sc=1000

[villager]

1. Everyone's favorite group of rightwing paranoiacs is at it again!

n/t

[paulsby]

10. support for civil rights against local encroachment = rightwing paranoia

how orwellian

[villager]

60. Paulsby! Back to defend your favorite political advocacy group, I see!

Well, at least you can't pretend they don't speak for you on the issues of the day!

[tridim]

2. F*ck off NRA.

[Junkdrawer]

3. The right of citizens to frag their fellow citizens shall not be abridged.

Surely that's clear to even Liberals.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. I suppose that third provision allows for self-defense and firing ranges, correct? -nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Point one is a slam dunk, it was specifically addressed in Heller

Point two is dumb. Pre frag is low penetration and safer for the neighbors. Can any local tell us if the ban includes hollow points?

Point 3 should go as well since it makes it illegal to discharge a firearm in self defense.

[malaise]

6. Did the founding fathers allow for

fragmenting bullets? :shrug:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. They used the equivlalents of the day, Expanding ones as well

[tridim]

19. At about half the muzzle velocity

and about 1/100th the loading speed.

[gorfle]

35. But equivalent to what the military used.

Civilian small arms of the Founders' day were equivalent to the small arms used by the military, just as they intended.

[TheWraith]

9. Of course. That was all that they ever used.

Bullets back then were, after all, plain soft lead which was very prone to fragmenting.

[RamboLiberal]

13. The musket balls used in that era were fairly deadly

If they hit a limb they shattered the bone and the limb would have to be amputated.

Not to mention the cannons.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. "Give them a wiff of grape shot!" --Napoleon Bonaparte

[Aristus]

24. Fragmenting bullets are for law-abiding target shooters.

They want to make sure those paper silhouettes never, EVER get up again! Why are they picking on poor, law-abiding target shooters? :sarcasm:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. The posts here are unclear on just what that means

For example there are frangible bullets are for range use designed to help meet environmental restrictions.

Hollow points, Glasers etc are actully safer for the neighbors since they do not penetrate like FMJs

[TheWraith]

33. Actually they're for home defense and hunting.

Fragmenting bullets or equivalent rounds are sometimes called "safety slugs" because they're designed not to overpenetrate. A typical handgun bullet could go through walls and possibly hit someone on the other side by accident. These wouldn't. They're also used for hunting big game like elks.

[spin]

44. Story about a Glaser 9mm safety slug and the results...

Years ago when my daughter was first married, she lived in a trailer park.

She wanted to acquire a firearm for concealed carry and for home self defense. I had a used S&W model 940 9mm J-frame with a 3" barrel which I gave her.


Realizing the dangers of firing pistol rounds in a trailer park, I advised her to buy Glaser safety slugs for the weapon. The Glaser is a frangible bullet and I thought it would be a choice in a trailer park.

One day I called her and during the conversation, she asked, "How do I clean this revolver?" She unloaded the weapon and listened to my instructions on how to field strip it. The conversation then went on to other subjects and she reloaded the weapon.

It occurred to me that she had taken the weapon to a gunsmith for some trigger work. I changed the subject back to the revolver and asked her, "Did the gunsmith make the trigger any smoother?"

Without thinking she picked the weapon up and fortunately pointed it at the baseboard in her kitchen and pulled the trigger.

Hearing the noise, I asked, "What was that?"

Calmly she replied, "An accidental discharge."

I asked her to check the damage and go outside and make sure that she had not shot into her neighbors trailer.

She told me that there was a 9mm sized hole in her baseboard and a fist sized hole in the metal siding on the outside of the mobile home. A metal fragment had traveled to her neighbors trailer and scratched the siding.

The round functioned as advertised and was far safer in the trailer park than a normal 9mm round would have been.

I learned a lesson. If I'm on a phone and I'm discussing anything involving handling a firearm, I tell the person to be sure it's unloaded.

She also learned a lesson. If a firearm leaves your hands, check to see if it's loaded the when you pick it up again.

[Iktomiwicasa]

65. A frangible bullet

is about the last projectile one would want to use for elk. A heavy expanding bullet that holds together and penetrates deeply is a must for this critter. Elk are large of body and very tenacious of life and it is pretty damn hard to have too much gun when hunting these animals.

[east texas lib]

46. Frangible ammunition is used any time over-penetration is a concern...

The Dallas Police Department uses it in their AR-15s issued to street patrols, for example. It may
help prevent lawsuits resulting from bullets going through the intended target and striking
something or someone downrange but they perform very poorly against automobiles, body armour, etc.
"Deadly ammunition" my ass!

[Simply_Green]

55. Musket balls were huge

...compared to the size of modern pistol or rifle bullets. Even the flintlock pistols of the day fired a relatively large and heavy ball. They didn't have to fragment; they just blew very big holes in enemy soldiers, creating nasty, bleeding wounds and shattering bone.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. The original .50 cal. And .57, .59, .60, .70, .74 caliber, etc etc

[Taitertots]

61. Not really that much bigger

Compared to modern .50 cal pistols, modern shotguns (over .700), and such.

[TheWraith]

7. On the face of it, SF seems likely to lose.

The Ninth Circuit just incorporated the Second Amendment under the 14th, and combined with the precedent set by DC vs. Heller, they're probably going to lose at least on the first two provisions.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. You surely mean "last two." -nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. I think SF will lose on 1 & 3 and 2 is a toss up

[TheWraith]

17. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing they're going to win on point 2.

Since fragmenting bullets are under common lawful use for things like home defense and hunting, banning them would probably meet the definition provided in Heller of unreasonable restrictions.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. That is why I asked if hollow points were covered under the law

Its seems dumb to ban Glasers and the like

[TheWraith]

16. Nope. The trigger lock thing was specifically struck down by the SCOTUS in Heller.

DC had a similar law, which was overturned as unconstitutional.

Point three, though, I think could stand if it's determined to have reasonable exceptions.

[Statistical]

23. Exactly. #1 is guaranteed to lose.

The wording & purpose is almost identical to DC requirements.

Heller clearly threw that out. Self/home defense is a legitimate use of firearms. Requiring trigger locks precludes that right and per Heller is in violation of the 2nd.

[paulsby]

12. excellent to see the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association

on the correct side of the issue (the plaintiffs)

[Statistical]

20. Now that is unusual. While most LEO are pro RKBA sadly most LEO higher ups are not. n/t

[paulsby]

22. i agree

most LEO administrators (ie cop-o-crats) are among other things, lackeys for the city govt. who controls them.

especially, in the case of a police chief, who often works solely at the pleasure of the mayor, they are not going to come out in favor of RKBA if the mayor opposes it.

they are also completely insulated from the realities OF the street, unlike real cops.

i have never heard of the SF Veteran PO's group, so i have no idea if they are composed of line officers, or admin's or what.

ime, a couple of decades in law enforcement, line cops (ie real cops) support RKBA in significant majority.

this is contrary, among other things, to hollywood's portrayal. even shows like law and order, generally portray that cops as being anti-RKBA.

[jmg257]

21. Good for them. Hope they keep up the pressure against infringments on secured rights. nt

[X_Digger]

25. Second one just shows how little they know gun tech..

.. yet feel competent to legislate on the subject.

Fragmenting bullets have a lower chance of over-penetrating and ending up in a bystander or a neighboring house. They're actually safer for city residents than full metal jacketed rounds.

[depakid]

27. THe NRA might find that they've overreached- and shot their sorry selves in the foot

which is typical of obsessives- they can't help themselves.

[tammywammy]

28. How so?

#1 will clearly be overturned, it was part of the Heller decision.

[depakid]

29. By the time this winds its way to the Supreme court (if it gets that far)

The court may well use the case to limit (or even overrule) the 5-4 decision in Heller- and bring the US more in line with other civilized nations.

This is especially true if the make-up of the Court changes. At that point, I sure wouldn't want to be the attorney arguing against responsible storage requirements if I had to worry about my one and only precedent being on the line as well.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. There is a difference between responsible storage and inoperable

Locking it up while operable in and easy to get to safe was illegal under DC law and was struck down.

[depakid]

31. Maybe, maybe not

If and when the Supreme Court- or even the 9th Circuit revisits the issue, they may well find the justification of keeping gun out of the hands of kids (or from being stolen) to be more than a compelling enough state interest to outweigh any right conferred in Heller.

And this is interesting, because we don't have a standard of review- only some vague dicta that suggests that the rational basis standard might not be enough (for 5 justices). Moreover, the core facts in Heller involved an outright ban. One can easily see the court leaving that in place, while upholding San Fransisco's regulations.

[Statistical]

32. So the court will decide that trigger lock requirement...

is unconstitutional in DC but constitutional in San Fransisco?

Right....

You are aware that Supreme Court has directly overturn less than 0.1% of the cases it has heard.

That cases in many cases justices have indicated they did not agree with previous decisions but felt that precedent should stand.

That historically the highest court has only directly overturned previous SCOTUS decisions in cases of extreme miscarriage of Justice.

So you are saying Heller is in the same league (regardless of your personal opinion on guns) as Dredd Scott decision or Plessy vs Ferguson.

Even in cases where SCOTUS has overturned previous precedent it didn't happen in a year or even a decade.

Dred Scott was never directly overturned by SCOTUS ruled that the 14th amendment made the decision incorrectly decided but that recognition took 16 years.
Brown v Education overturned Plessy 58 years later.

You seem to think that the SCOTUS acts like House of Reps with personal feelings and political (re-election) pressures resulting in conflicting laws every couple years.

[depakid]

34. Unlike you- I actually know how constitutional jurisprudence works

and how courts use standards of review to change bodies of law in conformity with their interpretations of where public policy ought to be moving.

So, please spare us the broad pronouncements (and go take a look at how the law has been modified in the the Roe v. Wade line of cases- or the result in Lawrence v. Texas).

[Statistical]

40. Sure SCOTUS routinely "fine tunes" precedent to keep relevent

however you are seeming to advocate that in less than a few years SCOTUS will go from:

mandatory trigger lock = unconstitutional to mandatory trigger locks = constitutional.

The court clearly indicated that the ruling on trigger locks was independent to the ruling on gun ban.
i.e. BOTH are unconstitutional separately.

That is nothing like the evolution of court cases over the period of decades stemming from Roe v Wade.

Simply put the court hasn't done anything like what you seem to think they will (on a whim) ever in the last 4 or 5 decades.

Period.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. You're not up to speed on CA state constitutional jurisprudence

AKA section 53071 of the CA state laws, as referenced in post #38.

The NRA is being smart on this one, if they win they can use it to help undercut the draconian CA state gun laws.

After all, the State of California can hardly file an amici brief on behalf of San Francisco
asking the Feds to ignore their own (CA) constitution, can they?

[depakid]

42. Draconian! LOL

Sometimes, the hyperbole coming from the gun obsessed just cracks me up.

Why you don't realize that around the world (an even here at home) statements like that make you look like petty (and frightened) little laughingstocks- what, with your huge prison systems and weekly mass and family shootings. No, I think NRA might be about to get a well overdue comeuppanc down the line on this.

[slackmaster]

43. The law is the law, depakid

SF is going to lose this one, as they have lost every other challenge to their un(state)constitutional gun restrictions.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. He's right- I should have used "Byzantine and stupid" instead of "draconian"

But I've also noticed a lot of "sitting on the end of the bed, telling us the NRA will get its comeuppance
someday".

If shouting and handwaving alone could bring it about, maybe.

But shouting, handwaving, and ignorance of the relevant constitutional issues by
self-proclaimed experts certainly won't do it.

[slackmaster]

39. The state of California has no trigger lock requirement

Therefore San Francisco cannot impose one.

The case will be a slam-dunk for the plaintiffs, as have all previous suits over SF's attempts to ban guns and harass gun owners.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. You sure? Saw some recent pistol delivieries here and locks to meet CA rules were included

[slackmaster]

51. Clarification: California has no law mandating the use of trigger locks in one's home

That is the subject here.

Gun dealers do indeed have to include a trigger lock with the sale of any firearm to a person who does not attest to owning a state-approved firearm storage container.

The Astute Buyer(TM) who does not need a trigger lock can simply return them unused to the dealer.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. Thanks for the clarification. Dealer said he they came with the pistols and he had provide them

It all makes sense now

[one-eyed fat man]

58. Federal law

Federal law now requires that a trigger lock accompany any handgun transfer. Some dealers even have you sign a form certifying you received it.

[Statistical]

62. What federal law is that? n/t

[X_Digger]

63. 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

[bossy22]

64. and the court may use the case

to expand the right in heller

this isnt a liberal vs conservative issue anymore...there is no better evidence of this then in the 9th circuit where numerous democratic appointees (judges) have come out in favor of an individual right. I agree with Sanford Levinson when he said that after heller he foresees the complete death of the collective rights argument (and onto the standard of review argument)

the only reason the collective rights argument got so far was because of the confusing, questionable ruling in Miller that has been read to mean more that it really means. There have been a few articles written just on the "inadequacy" of the miller ruling.

[slackmaster]

38. You seem to be uninformed about California law in general, and applicable case law

From the Government Code:

53071. It is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole
field of regulation of the registration or licensing of commercially
manufactured firearms as encompassed by the provisions of the Penal
Code, and such provisions shall be exclusive of all local
regulations, relating to registration or licensing of commercially
manufactured firearms, by any political subdivision as defined in
Section 1721 of the Labor Code.

Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=53001-54000&file=53060-53087.6

Every San Francisco city firearm ordinance that has been challenged in court has gone down in flames. The most recent memorable example is Proposition H, a November 2005 ballot initiative which attempted to ban handguns in the city. The NRA and several other organizations and individuals sued on the basis that the ordinance violated GC 53071.

San Francisco ended up having to pay $380,000 to the NRA and other plaintiffs to cover their litigation costs. They don't seem to have learned their lesson yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_H

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Hope springs eternal, huh?

I may not like the NRA much, but this looks like pretty much a slam dunk.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. Wondered how long it would be before this thread was banished to the Gungeon

[east texas lib]

47. Par for the course isn't it? nt

;-)

[slackmaster]

37. I thought those had already been made moot because of the state's preemption law

The state regulates firearms here. Counties and municipalities and localities can't make up their own rules.

The city should have repealed them voluntarily. Now they will be forced to, and it will cost the taxpayers money.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. State premeption has in each case required a suit filed by an individual to be enforced

State won't do it. Jerry Brown is our current AG and is another anti gun bigot

[slackmaster]

52. The people of SF are letting their councilclowns piss away significant amounts of money on this

Sooner or later they may realize it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. I doubt it, any town that votes in WIllie Brown for mayor...

[DonP]

59. The NRA just cashed the check from SF for $350,000 in legal bills; for their last lawsuit

San Francisco ponied up $350,000+ about 6 months ago (?) for the last handgun ban lawsuit they lost to the NRA to compensate for their legal costs.

DC still owes the Heller lawyers $3.6 million in legal fees, and our own mayor Daley keeps fighting the inevitable but refuses to provide any data on how much his losing lawsuits against gun companies have cost the citizens over the last two decades. But hey, it's only taxpayer money and you can always demand more for your personal vendettas.

It's ironic that the biggest single contributors to the NRA-ILA are probably not people like Springfield Armory, Smith & Wesson or an individual member, but the anti-gun cities.

Maybe they should start sending the Joyce Foundation thank you notes for the contribution every time they lose another lawsuit.

[aikoaiko]

50. This is the NRA at its best -- just looking out for gun owners and the RKBA.

:applause: