High-Water Mark

San Francisco gun ban struck down in court:

The ordinance targeted only city residents, meaning nonresidents in the city or even tourists were not banned from possessing or selling guns here.

Warren's decision was not unexpected. In 1982, a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law.

By the way, commenters - hold the inevitable "Wow - a conservative praising an activist judge!" snark. This ruling enforces existing law; it doesn't write new law from the bench; unlike Judge Finley's decision that delayed the Minnesota Personal Protection Act for most of a year, it doesn't ignore vast swathes of inconvenient fact. It enforces state law; the voters of San Francisco do not pre-empt the voters of the rest of the state.

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.

I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.

But at least the stress level for San Francisco's criminal element has risen at least incrementally.

(Note: Most of us consider that a good thing).

Posted by Mitch at June 14, 2006 07:07 AM | TrackBack