|
Municipalities can't ban people from owning handguns, court rules
 San Francisco's ban on handguns, blocked by a legal challenge since voters approved it in November 2005, suffered a possibly fatal blow Wednesday when a state appeals court ruled that local governments have no authority under California law to prevent people from owning pistols.The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco agreed with a June 2006 ruling by Superior Court Judge James Warren, who said state laws regulating gun sales, permits and safety leave no room for a city or county to forbid handgun possession. State courts have upheld some local restrictions, including prohibitions on the sale or possession of guns on public fairgrounds, Presiding Justice Ignazio Ruvolo noted in the 3-0 ruling. But in general, "when it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly," he wrote. San Francisco's ban was challenged by the National Rifle Association, whose lobbyist Chris Cox called Wednesday's ruling "a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA members of San Francisco." "Take that, hippies!" Alexis Thompson, spokeswoman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the ruling was disappointing, "particularly in light of the continuing plague of handgun violence here in San Francisco." The city could ask the state Supreme Court to review the case. History would not be on the city's side, however, as the state's high court refused to review a 1982 ruling by the same appeals court striking down an earlier San Francisco ordinance that prohibited handgun possession in the city limits. Drafters of the 2005 measure, Proposition H, sought to comply with the 1982 ruling by limiting the handgun ban to San Francisco residents. The ordinance allowed only law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes to possess handguns. It also prohibited the manufacture, sale and distribution of any type of firearms and ammunition in San Francisco. Prop. H was approved by 58 percent of the voters but was challenged by the NRA a day after the election in a suit on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers. The proposition has never taken effect. In Wednesday's ruling, the court said the city ordinance would interfere with an elaborate system of gun regulation enacted by the Legislature. State laws allow law-abiding Californians to possess handguns in their homes and businesses and let them request a concealed-weapons permit or a judge's permission to carry guns in public, the court said. In addition, the court said, a 1999 state law banning the sale of the cheap handguns known as Saturday night specials, and setting safety standards for legal firearms, implicitly prohibited local governments from outlawing all handguns. San Francisco argued that its measure was a legitimate response to violent crime. But Ruvolo said in the court ruling, "The ordinance will affect more than just criminals. It will also affect every city resident who has not, through some demonstration of personal disability or irresponsibility, lost his or her right to possess a handgun." The Legislature, Ruvolo said, has determined the statewide balance between the public's interest in being safe from gun violence and law-abiding citizens' right to buy guns "to deter crime, to help police fight crime, to defend themselves and for certain hunting and recreational purposes." A local government has no power to disrupt that balance, he said. The court also refused San Francisco's request to allow the city to enforce Prop. H's ban on the manufacture or sale of rifles and shotguns, saying the city must first rewrite the ordinance to narrow its scope. Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-01-10 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=218452 |