San Francisco Declares Handgun Ban Legal Despite Supreme Court Ruling To The Contrary

2a_flag-copy

In June 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down their decision in DC v Heller (by the way Dick Anthony Heller is a Special Police Officer at the DC Federal Judicial Center) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensures an individual citizens’ right to possess firearms for private use.

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the majority opinion of the Court,

….. the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The [DC] handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family” would fail constitutional muster. (emphasis added)

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

As far as the statement,“where well-trained police forces provide personal security,” is concerned most anti-Second Amendment people love to try and hang their hat on that concept as a reason for banning firearms. However that argument was blown out of the water when the very same Justice Scalia wrote in 2005 a majority opinion which basically stated law enforcement personnel in this country have absolutely no Constitutional obligation to protect individual citizens from harm or attack.

That’s right folks, the responsibility for saving your own rear end is entirely up to you.

Sponsors... article continues below...

Unfortunately the Supreme Court decision in DC v Heller, while a very important ruling and legal precedent, applied only to the plaintiffs in the case and was somewhat limited in scope. The relief sought by the plaintiffs was to direct the city to acknowledge the individual right of DC residents to own and possess firearms was in fact guaranteed by the Second Amendment and allow them to register their handguns and be allowed to have them available inside their homes for defensive purposes, which was granted. However DC, using a ridiculous provision of the city code which says any gun that can fire more than 12 rounds without reloading is a “machine gun,” continues to deny Heller the ability to register his handgun. Now more taxpayer money will be wasted by DC trying to defend flipping their middle finger to the Supreme Court.

Because the court’s ruling was immediately applicable only to the District of Columbia, the National Rifle Association filed suit against San Fransisco due to that city’s similar draconian handgun ban ordinances.

From today’s San Francisco Chronicle,

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. (snip)

Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for the city attorney’s office, said the NRA’s real goal is not to strike down the specific city laws but to win court rulings that expand the reach of the Second Amendment. (emphasis added)

“It’s more about pushing the envelope of the Second Amendment and setting new precedents and policies,” he said.

Expanding the reach and pushing the envelope of the Second Amendment? What in the hell is Mr. Dorsey taking about? The Second Amendment SHOULD be expanded throughout every corner the country, it’s part of the United States Constitution for crying out loud!

Interestingly Dorsey the spokesman accuses the NRA of having an agenda of setting new precedents and policies yet this city had declared itself a “sanctuary city” for illegal aliens years ago, refusing to cooperate with federal authorities who have jurisdiction over immigration policy in this country.

Because of San Francisco’s so called sanctuary city designation the family of a man and his two sons, who were allegedly murdered by an illegal alien with a violent criminal past that the city was well aware of, have sued claiming this stupid policy of sheltering people in this country illegally is directly attributable for their deaths.

So much for pushing the envelope of policies and precedents Matt Dorsey.

From Fox News.com,

The family of a father and two sons allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant last year reportedly is suing the city of San Francisco, claiming its “sanctuary city” policy contributed to their deaths.

Anthony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, were returning from a picnic when they were gunned down on June 16, allegedly by Salvadoran national Edwin Ramos, 22.

The case prompted public outcry after it emerged that Ramos was convicted of two gang-related felonies when he was 17, but local officials did not contact federal agencies to determine his immigration status.

The Bologna family filed a lawsuit Tuesday alleging that the city’s sanctuary policy shielding illegal immigrants from questions about their citizenship status — even those charged with a crime — was to blame, KCBS San Francisco reported.

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment.

Leave a Reply