Redstate

United States Constitution only applies OUTSIDE OF San Francisco.  Obviously, if the Founding Fathers had intended to include San Francisco in their right to "keep and bear arms" they would have named it specifically.

I'm going to move to San Francisco and start committin home invasion 211's.

This should be pretty easy to defeat in court (I'm assuming, of course that it will make it to the US supreme court)... but first we have to make sure we have the right proportion of non-activist judges who will actually examine the constitution instead of pursuing illegal legislation...

If it was that easy... why hasn't it happened in DC and Chicago?

Mayor of SF - Gavin Newsome doesn't pay attention to the State Constitution either. No biggie that the United States Constitution is dismissed as well.

He stated that it would most likely be overturned by the courts as unconstitutional.

You may disagree with Newsome on some issues, but he is a brilliant pol.

The gay marriage thing, got him in the national press. He has brought back biz to sf, and increased the tax base. He has an 80% approval ratiing. The pols he supported all got elected.

He is young, exciting, and not afraid of confrontation.

A few weeks ago, a local liberal talk show host was ripping him on the radio. In 20 minutes, Newsome called in, and then went on the air for 1 hour of debate. That is a breath of fresh air.

He may be socially liberal, but his policies are fiscally conservative, and he has cleaned up the gov that Willie Brown corrupted.

  Given the other things I have heard about local harrasment of the Navy and Naval people there, the Navy needs to close that base.

  Let them remember Puerto Rico and the Naval gunnery range there.

Nothing that San Francicso does surprises me. Back in August the city fathers voted 8-3 to block bringing the decommissioned battleship USS Iowa to the city. I guess they felt it presented the "wrong image", you know warship and all, nasty military stuff.

no liberal 9th Circuit or State judge is going to find an individual right within the text (or penumbras or emanatations for that matter) of the 2nd amendment or the 14th amendment or anything in the Constitution.

Unless state law says you can't do this, or there is a federal law preempting this ban, there is no legal basis for overturning it without finding that the 2nd amendment prevents it.

Also, don't give the SCOTUS so much credit. Everyone and their mother said McCain-Feingold would be overturned because it was so obviously in violation of the First Amendment, and look how that turned out.

the homeless, liberal hippies, enviro-whackos, homosexuals, liberal elites and communists in SF would agree with you... hey I think we are up to 80% already!

They new that after Proposition H they would have to rip off the gun turrets off the Iowa.

Don't forget that Proposition I* passed!. They most likely would have had to sink the Iowa out of SF territorial waters.

*Proposition I, calls on the city to oppose military recruiters' access to public schools and to consider funding scholarships that could provide an alternative to military service.

Any thought concerning whether this new law can be challenged should take into consideration Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983).

I agree that San Francisco has done the wrong thing, but what can you expect from a bunch of people who continually have their hands out to government with the expectation that manna will be forthcoming?

Everybody reading this should know the truth here: The people in San Francisco who voted for this are generally the type who expect every sort of service from government, and that includes police protection 24/7/365. And, if they don't get that, then you can bet that taxes =will= be raised until either the city goes broke, or the dullards who voted for this hidious nonsense finally get a life - which will likely be never.

Maybe when the next 'big one' hits the city of hills, and the people are disarmed, the gangs will rule the roost and make a point. Maybe.

But likely not.

In the interim, the very best anyone can do is move from there, and reduce the tax base so that only leaches are left.

And finally, Edgar Cayce had a good idea: Let the whole area sink into the sea. Inland Ca. needs new beachfront property!

The law won't be challenged on Second Amendment grounds. Silveira v. Lockyer 328 F.3d 567 (2003) is clear that individuals in the Ninth Circuit have no rights under the Second Amendment that are enforceable against the government, and thus lack standing to sue.

(By the way, Alex Kozinski's dissent in that case is a thing of beauty.)

No, the law will be challenged as a violation of California's firearms pre-emption statute, which largely prohibits municipalities from regulating firearms sale and possession.

Judge Kozinski's dissent isn't with the panel decision, but with the denial of the motion for en banc rehearing.

by the bay.

But not all the residents are liberal, which include my parents, who feel Newsome is doing a great job.

Take a look at his record, before you start throwing stones.

He has indeed cleaned up the corruption of the prior administration.

As for the homeless, he changed the procedure of just handing out cash, to providiong residences...and the homeless problem has diminished signficantly.

"the city fathers", they are more like children.

Another reason why term limits are bad.

They have allowed the wackos and extremeists to take control of the board.

Which is why you get props like H and I on the ballot.  

But your parents have been duped. All Gavin cares about is pandering to the the Gay community and his hair.

http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2005-05-0506-002.shtml

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. - May 6 (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) -- In his article "Snake Oil in San Francisco, the Significance of Doing the Math of Care Not Cash" (www.sfsnakeoil.info), Dr. Eugene Dong reveals that San Francisco's Care not Cash program did not reduce homelessness or provide ongoing services to this population as promised. Instead, the bulk of the 14 million dollars taken from the county welfare fund under this Program has been used to line the pockets of San Francisco property owners.

My favorite quote from this (if true):

http://www.sfsnakeoil.info/pages/snakeoil.pdf

SF supposedly spends 100 million dollars on homeless services annually.

How about the ambulance for homeless debacle? I hope your parents don't need a ride to the hospital anytime soon.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/05/MNGB5F2OBR1.DTL


...Clarence is important because, among other things, he is one of 362 individuals -- most of them drunk and homeless or marginally housed -- whom paramedics have to pick up repeatedly. Between March 2004 and August 2005, they were picked up a total of at least 3,869 times, according to city records that track everyone riding an ambulance four or more times a month.

Based on the city's estimate that each ambulance ride and emergency room visit costs up to $3,000, the price of picking up the frequent riders could have been as high as $11.6 million during that period.

Have you heard that Gavin wants to provide free wireless in SF AND laptops to the homeless? Ask your parents how they feel about that one.

the ninth C of A won't overturn it... they already cast their vote on a similar decision. But then, they're so stupid we need a new word for it. The second amendment (unless you can't read or are an idiot... like the ninth) rather plainly states that the government cannot outlaw gun ownership.

If what your saying is all true, he should be the dream candidate for democrats.