[telecaster90]

State Supreme Court ruling ends San Francisco gun ban move

(04-10) 05:04 PDT San Francisco, CA (AP) --

A ruling by the state Supreme Court has brought an end to San Francisco's attempts to ban handguns in the city.

In a ruling Wednesday, the court unanimously rejected the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

The ruling deals a final blow to Proposition H, an initiative voters passed in November of 2005.

The ordinance would have forbidden San Francisco residents to possess handguns, as well as prohibit the manufacture, sale or distribution of any type of firearms or ammunition in the city.

Only law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes would have been exempted.

The National Rifle Association had opposed the measure, suing on behalf of gun owners and dealers a day after the measure passed.

[drshock]

Yeah I heard about this, I'm glad that's over with. Now onto repealing the gun-ban in D.C.

[Lozek]

Shame

[7 Dying Trees]

A huge shame, i mean, the people decided, voted for it, and so democracy gets stomped on yet again.

[Durero]

Originally Posted by 7 Dying Trees

A huge shame, i mean, the people decided, voted for it, and so democracy gets stomped on yet again.

+1

[ElRay]

Originally Posted by 7 Dying Trees

A huge shame, i mean, the people decided, voted for it, and so democracy gets stomped on yet again.

No, not at all. Local law can't trump The Constitution. That's why the framers of The Constitution specifically spelled-out Ten Civil Rights that were specifically reserved for The People because through their analysis of History, they saw these rights most often trampled upon by governments, and most often foolishly given away by the population. There was a big disagreement over this because The Federalists actually believed that The Constitution would be followed, so the fact that the government wasn't granted these powers, it would never take them away. The anti-Federalists wanted these basic human rights spelled-out so that the government would have a harder time taking them away from the citizens.

This is a wonderful example of The Constitution and the courts protecting the right of a minority group. It may be ideological and not racial, but gun owners are still a minority in the city. The San Francisco law is just as much an example of tyranny of the majority as were the Jim Crow laws in The South.

If anti-gun folks want to ban guns, they need to work within The Constitution and work to get the 2nd Amendment repealed.

The real shame is that the same vigor is not consistently applied. No where in The Constitution does it say, "U.S. Citizens ONLY" or "Within the US Borders", yet the government feels that the fourth through seventh Amendments don't apply to people (Citizens or not) entering the country, nor the folks at "Gitmo", nor certain other groups, etc.

Also, the government time and time again uses the Interstate Commerce Clause as an end-run around the ninth and tenth Amendments:

• Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
  
• Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Yet, we rarely see anybody taking the federal government to court over these issues, and the rare times someone does, the Supreme Court refuses to hear the cases.

Ray

[Mastodon]

Originally Posted by ElRay

No, not at all. Local law can't trump The Constitution. That's why the framers of The Constitution specifically spelled-out Ten Civil Rights that were specifically reserved for The People because through their analysis of History, they saw these rights most often trampled upon by governments, and most often foolishly given away by the population. There was a big disagreement over this because The Federalists actually believed that The Constitution would be followed, so the fact that the government wasn't granted these powers, it would never take them away. The anti-Federalists wanted these basic human rights spelled-out so that the government would have a harder time taking them away from the citizens.

This is a wonderful example of The Constitution and the courts protecting the right of a minority group. It may be ideological and not racial, but gun owners are still a minority in the city. The San Francisco law is just as much an example of tyranny of the majority as were the Jim Crow laws in The South.

If anti-gun folks want to ban guns, they need to work within The Constitution and work to get the 2nd Amendment repealed.

The real shame is that the same vigor is not consistently applied. No where in The Constitution does it say, "U.S. Citizens ONLY", yet the government feels that the fourth through seventh Amendments don't apply to people (Citizens or not) entering the country, nor the folks at "Gitmo", nor certain other groups, etc.

Also, the government time and time again uses the Interstate Commerce Clause as an end-rung around the ninth and tenth Amendments:

• Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
  
• Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Yet, we rarely see anybody taking the federal government to court over these issues, and the rare times someone does, the Supreme Court refuses to hear the cases.

Ray

^ What he said.

Democracy wasn't stomped on at all.

[forelander]

Shame it didn't go through.

[Infused1]

Originally Posted by 7 Dying Trees

A huge shame, i mean, the people decided, voted for it, and so democracy gets stomped on yet again.

Just for informations sake also to people who are not from our Country. Our country is a Democratic Republic, not a democracy. Meaning Free democratic elections. Ive been getting really tired of hearing that word. Democracies can strip the rights of people to no end, where we as a Republic have constitutional protections and this is a big and common example. If our country was run like a Home Owners Association and there was 1 neighbor the community did not like, they could vote to have the person kicked out of the community, regardless if that person purchased that home, it just takes the majority. Now its just an example and the Home Owners ASsoc is Private so they can do that. That is an example of how a democracy works, just imagine our government being like that? All minorities would have no rights because the majority who disagrees with the minority would and vote those rights away because they disagree.

Originally Posted by ElRay

No, not at all. Local law can't trump The Constitution. That's why the framers of The Constitution specifically spelled-out Ten Civil Rights that were specifically reserved for The People because through their analysis of History, they saw these rights most often trampled upon by governments, and most often foolishly given away by the population. There was a big disagreement over this because The Federalists actually believed that The Constitution would be followed, so the fact that the government wasn't granted these powers, it would never take them away. The anti-Federalists wanted these basic human rights spelled-out so that the government would have a harder time taking them away from the citizens.

This is a wonderful example of The Constitution and the courts protecting the right of a minority group. It may be ideological and not racial, but gun owners are still a minority in the city. The San Francisco law is just as much an example of tyranny of the majority as were the Jim Crow laws in The South.

If anti-gun folks want to ban guns, they need to work within The Constitution and work to get the 2nd Amendment repealed.

The real shame is that the same vigor is not consistently applied. No where in The Constitution does it say, "U.S. Citizens ONLY" or "Within the US Borders", yet the government feels that the fourth through seventh Amendments don't apply to people (Citizens or not) entering the country, nor the folks at "Gitmo", nor certain other groups, etc.

Also, the government time and time again uses the Interstate Commerce Clause as an end-run around the ninth and tenth Amendments:

• Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
  
• Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Yet, we rarely see anybody taking the federal government to court over these issues, and the rare times someone does, the Supreme Court refuses to hear the cases.

Ray

Pretty much agree with this with some fine lines with the detainees. Depending on how they were captured etc. Thats another subject though. We have been teaching my 15 year old stepdaughter about this, bought her a little book about the constitution because the school is feeding her some far from the truth crap about our constitution. I think all our citizens should go back and read it to refresh or inform them of what it really is and means.

[ElRay]

Originally Posted by Infused1

Democracies can strip the rights of people to no end ... it just takes the majority ... That is an example of how a democracy works ... All minorities would have no rights because the majority who disagrees with the minority would and vote those rights away because they disagree.

Right. A pure democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for diner.

People forget (in the US, folks outside may never have known) that The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not define what rights are given to The People by the government. The Constitution outlines the specific rights surrendered by The People and the specific Rights and Responsibilities granted to the Federal government by it's citizens. Similarly, The Bill of Rights enumerates a core set of "basic human rights" that are so important that they must be spelled-out to reinforce the fact that the Federal government is restricted in it's actions against it's own citizens. In other words, both documents are intended to limit the Federal government.

This "It's implied!" vs. "It needs to be spelled-out!" issue was one of the big beefs between The Federalists (They thought the government would always follow The Constitution and any enumeration would be interpreted as a limited list.) and The anti-Federalists (They felt that government would grow, become more invasive and a specific list of "basic human rights" needed to be included.) Unfortunately, they were both right in the least favorable way: The government has grown to be more invasive and regularly exceeds the limits outlined in The Constitution, and the people treat the Bill of Rights as a list of the only rights provided to The People by the government.

How many times have you heard people (especially of my parents' generation) say, "That's a privilege, not a right." when you argue against more pervasive federal legislation?

Ray