I just don’t understand lawyers sometimes.
Judge overturns SF weapons ban
A state trial judge on Monday overturned a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco, siding with gun owners who said the city did not have the authority to prohibit the weapons.
Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by a rising number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. San Francisco recorded at least 94 murders last year, a 10-year high.
The National Rifle Association sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.
In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.
As much as I like it when an unconstitutional gun ban is overturned, regardless of the majority that voted for it, I have to wonder at the reasoning behind the NRA’s agrument and the Judge’s decision. Shouldn’t the argument have been that the 2nd Amendment was the overriding law in this case?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also is considering a challenge to a similar handgun ban in the District of Columbia that alleges the law violates a Second Amendment right of individuals to bear arms.
The NRA lawsuit here avoided those allegations.
I would love to know the reasoning behind the strategy, and why it worked. After all, this is San Francisco, Calfornia, and the 9th
Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office unsuccessfully defended the law before Warren, said the city was mulling whether it was going to appeal.
“We’re disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession,” Dorsey said. “San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence.”
But the law speaks more loudly. If you want to give up a right, at least do it the way the Constitution specifies. Amend it, don’t try and do an end-run around person A’s rights just because you are threatened by the abuse of said right by person B.
Better yet, throw person B in jail, where he belongs.