State Supreme Court ruling ends San Francisco gun ban move

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by telecaster90, Apr 14, 2008.

  1. telecaster90

    telecaster90 Smokestack Lightning Contributor

    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    311
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    State Supreme Court ruling ends San Francisco gun ban move

    :yesway:
     
    ibznorange and drshock like this.
  2. drshock

    drshock Street-good guy

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    14
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    rochester ny
    Yeah I heard about this, I'm glad that's over with. Now onto repealing the gun-ban in D.C.
     
  3. Lozek

    Lozek Desk Magnetic Contributor

    Messages:
    1,792
    Likes Received:
    322
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    London
    Shame
     
  4. 7 Dying Trees

    7 Dying Trees Forum MVP

    Messages:
    10,052
    Likes Received:
    1,867
    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    7th Ethereal Plane of interstellar hell, Innit Bru
    A huge shame, i mean, the people decided, voted for it, and so democracy gets stomped on yet again.
     
  5. Durero

    Durero prototyping... Contributor

    Messages:
    4,214
    Likes Received:
    378
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Location:
    Bowen Island, Canada
    +1 :agreed:
     
  6. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes Received:
    930
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    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
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2008
  7. Mastodon

    Mastodon Songs about My Cats

    Messages:
    6,698
    Likes Received:
    261
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Location:
    Bizurke

    ^ What he said.

    Democracy wasn't stomped on at all.
     
  8. forelander

    forelander you fail me

    Messages:
    1,485
    Likes Received:
    59
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    Shame it didn't go through.
     
  9. Infused1

    Infused1 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    261
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Location:
    Castle Rock, CO
    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.

    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.
     
  10. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes Received:
    930
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    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
     
  11. noodles

    noodles Contributor

    Messages:
    18,493
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Woodbridge, VA
    Sorry, but that is just completely wrong.

    The purpose of the second amendment was NOT to allow a private citizen any old weapon they wanted. It was to encourage the private citizen to own and maintain a rifle, and ensure that the states could not endanger the whole by not being able to turn out a militia. Nowhere does this San Francisco law outlaw gun ownership--it simply outlaws handgun ownership.

    Why does everyone think that Constitution was this big document designed to grant all these freedoms to private citizens? That is simply not true. It was a compact between states that practice the principals of self-government. Go read that again. A federal court interfering with the states self-governing--in this case, a city legally passing an ordnance governing itself--is exactly the sort of tyranny that the framers of the Constitution were so afraid of.

    As Joe said, this is a trampling of democracy by a federal power. Unfortunately, it is also par for the course. :noway:
     
  12. BigM555

    BigM555 I SS.org Salute You! Contributor

    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    192
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    No offence Noodles, ya know I respect you dude but didn't the OP say that is was the State supreme court that rejected the appeal? What does the Federal level have to do with that?

    :scratch:
     
  13. telecaster90

    telecaster90 Smokestack Lightning Contributor

    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    311
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Yeah, it was the state supreme court.
     
  14. Infused1

    Infused1 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    261
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Location:
    Castle Rock, CO


    This had nothing to do with the Federal Government, it had to do with our States constitution and a city blatantly defying the laws and constitution of our state. Also, if any one reads again, our Country is a Democratic Republic, California is also The Republic Of California, so our State is also set up as a Democratic Republic, just most people dont know that.
    The problem is, City ordinances cannot supersede State Law, it was the state that told them no way, you are in violation of the States Constitution and law. So what you are talking about is what actually is going on, the Feds are not involved in this, it was a State matter.

    We can also all go into the Right To Bear Arms debate, plain and simple, they didnt want government having more power than its citizens and did not want the government to be able to disarm citizens. I dont see how it can be skewed so far off by people as to if it included handguns or not, its a general and simple statement, ARMS, meaning Swords, guns, weapons etc. So I see it as a very open statement so for someone to say it was only to protect rifles baffles me.
     
  15. noodles

    noodles Contributor

    Messages:
    18,493
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Woodbridge, VA
    A state supreme court, by it's very nature, cannot rule on federal matters. They have no jurisdiction to make decisions based upon the US Constitution.
     
  16. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes Received:
    930
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    Sorry, you're wrong and you're just parroting common anti-gun rhetoric. A little bit of basic grammar/logic:
    That is an introductory phrase, and it's truthfulness has no bearing on the rest of the statement. It could just as easily started, "Given that ice cream has no bones, ..." or "On this day, the ninth Tuesday of the month Daveuary, ...". It's irrelevant to the validity of the rest of the statement.
    Banning the right of residents to possess handguns, as well as prohibit the manufacture, sale or distribution of any type of firearms or ammunition in the city, is definitely infringement on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

    In addition, it is pointless to have rights (enumerated or not) protected by the Federal government, if the state and local government can just take them away. I cannot think of a case when that has not been upheld.

    Even if the concept of the states suppressing rights guaranteed to The People as logical, 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.
    throw a monkey wrench in that idea too, because it says states or people. In that case, you need to consult the state constitution, charter, articles of incorporation, etc. to see what Rights the people have surrendered to the state government.

    You're falling into the same pit that The Federalists thought would happen if The Bill of Rights was published, but at the state level. America was founded on the principal that all rights are retained by the people, except those that they relinquish to the government. It's not any control not provided to the federal government belongs to the states.

    You're also missing that it was the STATE Supreme Court, not any Federal court that made the decision and that the City of San Francisco was appealing the decision of a lower state or local court. So, even if this was at the federal level, and even it the US Supreme Court actually decided to hear a 2nd Amendment case (for the past decade+ all gun control cases have either been ignored or heard on non-2nd Amendment grounds), it would still have been a decision to uphold local and state decisions that San Francisco already lost.

    The only way banning the right of "residents to possess handguns, as well as prohibit the manufacture, sale or distribution of any type of firearms or ammunition in the city" becomes arguable under any real circumstances (out side of repealing the 2nd Amendment) is if you can somehow tie the mere possession of a handgun and the manufacture, sale or distribution of any type of firearms or ammunition to the 2nd Amendment equivalent of fraudulent speech.

    Ray


    P.S. While, we're dissecting the 2nd Amendment and before anybody chimes in about "well regulated" and "militia": Using the terms of the day, "well regulated" meant "well trained" and "the militia" is defined in the Unite States Code as "all able-bodies males between the ages of 17 and 45". So, even if you want to enforce the 2nd Amendment under the misguided impression that it limits "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" to members of The National Guard, you'd still have to allow "all able-bodies males between the ages of 17 and 45" to have weapons, if they so choose.
     
  17. Infused1

    Infused1 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    261
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Location:
    Castle Rock, CO
    They violated California's Constitution by implementing the ban. Oh, I forgot on that also, They did not violate an amendment about guns for California, they violated and amendment that states all people have the right to protect themselves and property, so the argument went 2 fold, 1 for peoples protection rights and state law that cities and counties cannot supersede state law which states that Only state law is valid when it pertains to firearms. Lot of States in this paragraph. HAHAH LOl.
     
  18. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes Received:
    930
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    Two final points on this:
    Actually, it was. The point of the 2nd Amendment was to affirm that the citizens retained their right to bear arms. The Constitution and The Bill of Rights gave no rights to the citizens. The Constitution enumerated what powers had been granted to the federal government by The People and the Bill of Rights enumerated a specific subset of the rights retained by the people that were of the utmost importance.

    The 2nd Amendment exists to remind government that The People retain the right to defend themselves from each other and the government. Look at pretty much every government up to that point. Look at every totalitarian government since then. The first two steps prior to oppression setting in was to control the press and disarm the population. In semi-recent history: Pre-WWI Germany, pre-WWII Germany, The Taliban, Communist China, occupied Poland, occupied France, Feudal Japan, North Vietnam (killed over 1 million of their own citizens), Pol Pot's Cambodia (killed over 8 million of his own people), Stalin's Russia (slaughtered 25 million of his own people), etc. the list goes on. ALL of these were preceded by the government disarming The People.
    Because they don't understand what The Constitution does. It grants powers to the Federal government.
    You've got it wrong. Go back and read The Federalist Papers. Go back and read the writings, speeches, etc. of the framers of The Constitution that pushed for what became The Bill of Rights because they did not trust government to stay within the limits placed upon it.
    So, given your assertion that The Bill of Rights and other amendments don't trump local law, Maryland, D.C. and Virginia could all ban (by a simple majority of voters -- not a majority of registered voters, not a majority of residents) the use, possession or transmission of any speech that any person might find offensive. That means any song that might offend somebody couldn't be played over the radio, owned on CD, MP3, AAC, etc. or performed in public or private. Guess how long Jaxx will stay in business as a venue. Guess how many national headliners will visit the area. Guess how long Division will continue to exist as a band in the area.

    The same "tools" that gave the Federal government the authority to stop slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, etc. are the same tools that have to be used to protect other minorities (including the ideological ones) and you can't insist that they be used only to support the rights and the types of speech you find comfortable.

    If you grant the government the tools suppress the speech you don't want to hear (abortion protests, "republican" talk radio, radical "Islamist" speeches, etc.), you've given the government the tools to suppress what you like, when your group is no longer pulling the strings. If you give-up your freedoms for connivence, or a false sense of security (we have to do "something!") because they don't seem important to you, you've got nothing left when they try to take away what is truly important to you. The government is not supposed to be a tool to force your will on others. The government is supposed to be a structure to protect the rights of all, not just the popular, the majority, etc.

    I'll close with the words of Martin Niemöller:
    and George Santayana:
    Ray
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2008
    Durero likes this.
  19. noodles

    noodles Contributor

    Messages:
    18,493
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Woodbridge, VA
    I stand corrected. If the ordinance was in violation of California state law, then the state supreme court made the right decision. As I said, our states were made the seat of power by our Constitution, and while I personally feel that handguns serve no purpose outside of military and law enforcement, I see nothing legally out of line.
     
  20. SevenatoR

    SevenatoR Seven String Slinger

    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    16
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Location:
    South of Heaven
    (/derail)

    I guess nobody else got a chuckle out of this thing being called "Proposition H".....

    (/derail over)

    carry on.
     

Share This Page