NRA Sues to Overturn S.F. Gun Ban in City Housing

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

NRA sues to overturn S.F. gun ban in city housing

By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer
23 minutes ago
SAN FRANCISCO - The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its ban on handguns in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital.

The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday's high court ruling.

In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project.

The gun owner, who is gay, says he keeps the weapon to defend himself from "sexual orientation hate crimes." He was not identified in the complaint because he said he fears retaliation.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_re_us/gun_ban_reaction

---

[bluestateguy]

1. Evidently the city seems to believe that poor people should not have the right to have guns

Of course all of these politicians and bureaucrats I'm sure either live in expensive neighborhoods with little crime or live in pricey apartment buildings with many layers of security, or armed guards.

Newsom needs to shut up and start complying with the court's ruling.

[salin]

10. have you ever lived in a very high crime, urban area

where drug and gang violence is a daily occurence? I worked in Detroit during the crackwars, and lived in East Palo Alto (before the gentrification) where there was a murder in front of my apartment, and one down on the corner, the crackhouse /apartment complex across the street was finally shut down and cleaned out - and I had to quickly learn to discern between the sound of backfiring cars (common in a desperately poor area), fireworks and gunfire. Of local interest was which of the gangs was going to take control of the street.

That existence is a reality for many - and to just declare that public safety in public housing may not include gun bans - without trying to offer other policy solutions for residents is just as elitist and out of touch as those you decry in your post.

Seriously, I believe in gun rights (the bushera has shifted that for me) but I also know from first hand experience the reality of high crime areas (urban) living - and that those concerns are very real. There is a vast difference in perceptions in this country that, IMO, has to be bridged before we will ever come up with sane comprehensive policies related to guns. Those with anti-gun views borne out of urban violence experiences do have to understand the realities of more rural experiences and others and embrace that there is a history (and constitutional right) to gun ownership. On the otherhand, those advocating a completely laisez fairre approach to gun ownership have to begin to understand and accept the very serious public safety issues - esp in high crime areas. When folks stop being reflexively on one side or the other, and begin to try to address the concerns (policy wise) of all sides, we will find very different and probably much more effective policy solutions.

[Thothmes]

18. Read "black" in place of "poor "people and you will get the picture.

[SlipperySlope]

2. I'd prefer to have the NRA back down on this case.

I think Gura is going to do a great job in Chicago. The NRA had nothing to do with Heller, and they shouldn't try to ride Gura's coattails. He has a plan, he is going things in a certain order, and the NRA is just pissing in the wind.

At least the NRA can't completely screw things up for Gura with this case, given as it is in a different circuit and all.

[Paladin]

6. "The NRA Had Nothing To Do With Heller"

Oh, please. That decision reads as if Fat Tony Scalia took dictation from Wayne LaPierre---while Ted Nugent provided background music. The NRA's political stooges prevented a decisive 2nd Amendment case from being heard for decades, until they had the exact court they wanted in place. Don't let your triumphalism blind you to reality....

[slackmaster]

11. Paladin, I don't like Scalia either but I think your ethnic slur is over the top

Seriously.

[Paladin]

13. When And If I Use An Ethnic Slur, I'll Apologize

"Fat Tony Scalia" constitutes a nice juicy insult, just the sort of thing that Scalia deserves. But it is not an ethnic slur, and the term is in common use throughout DU, in case you haven't noticed. I find it extremely telling that, after proclaiming your libertarian (as opposed to Democratic)credentials for so long, you now appear to have saddled up with the Politically Correct Enforcement League on Fat Tony's behalf. Did he just happen to do something recently that you're really, really happy about?

[slackmaster]

14. I take it you've never heard of Anthony "Fat Tony" Salerno

That's what comes to my mind when I read or hear "Fat Tony"; not the lovable negative Italian mobster stereotype on The Simpsons.



It's clearly an implication that Scalia's Italian heritage is what makes him a dirtbag. No, his abominable positions on MOST issues (and I do disagree with him about 90% of the time) is what makes him a dirtbag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Salerno

Calling Scalia "Fat Tony" is on the same shaky ground as posting a cartoon of Condoleeza Rice with exaggerated African-American facial features.

I'm sure you've read a lot of my posts. If I have ever used a racial or ethnic slur against ANYONE, I regret it. I think that kind of thing has no place among this group. My policy is to attack the content of what people say when they are wrong, and don't criticize people for personal traits they have no control over.

[Paladin]

16. I May Have Heard A Reference To Salerno In The Past...

...but I promise you that it played no direct part in my use of the Fat Tony Scalia term, nor do I think it influenced the other DU posters who are using the term. I regard Scalia as a vicious thug with a law degree and black robes, intent on destroying as many constitutional protections as possible---with the obvious exception of the Second Amendment. His ethnic heritage has nothing to do with it; if he were Armenian-American, I think I'd be using the same insult, and justifiably so. Quite frankly, if I owe anybody an apology here, it's Mr. Salerno, for inadvertantly equating him with an evil, bottom-feeding motherfucker like Scalia; whatever Salerno's sins, they pale to insignificance compared to the damage that Scalia is inflicting on this country.

Slack, I hardly ever agree with you, but I do respect you; unlike most of the gun militants here at DU, you seem to have a detectable amount of intellect. But I think you're wrong on this one, and your comparing my Fat Tony term with an ugly racial taunt of Condeleeza Rice is particularly off-base, needlessly hurtful to a life-long Democrat and civil rights supporter like me. If you want to refer this matter to the moderators, please feel free to do so; I'll abide with their judgment.....

[slackmaster]

21. Thanks for the reply, I have never thought it rose to the level of Moderator fodder

I just find it a bit troubling that DUers rely so heavily on personal attacks and poll results, when Scalia's near-perfect record of authoritarianism provides ample ammunition on which to oppose him.

The biggest problem with Scalia is he's only 66 years old and in reasonably good health. He's likely to be with us for a long time.

[stimbox]

3. Valencia Gardens is 3 blocks from a police station.

Response time is not that slow here.

[bossy22]

4. leave it to gura

i think the NRA stigmatizes the case and sometimes there rhetoric can be taken as extremism (though i dont think so)

i think gura has a better media profile than the NRA when it comes to more liberal leaning areas

[-..__...]

5. The shoe is on the other foot for a change.

The gun control rabble is/was wrong about a lot of things, but they were right about one hing... they accurately predicted that if the court ruled in favor of heller, that the floodgates would be open to challenge and overturn many state and local gun-control laws.

Gun owners have been on the defensive for decades fighting back foolish gun control laws at both the state and federal level.

Well... now it's our turn.

Unfortunately... it could take 3-5 years (or longer), for any of these newly filed cases to reach the SCOTUS (assuming they even agree to hear the case(s) ).

Hell... we've waited 69 years for this decision, I guess we can wait 5 more.

[beevul]

8. Yup.

"Well... now it's our turn."

Yup.

And I expect that those on the other side of the issue will be at least as disgusted as we on this side were over the AWB and several handgun bans, before its done. Its their turn.

We'll just see how fair they think turnabout is.

[iamjoy]

7. Breaking: Guns Allowed In Federal Buildings

In a 6-3 ruling today, the Supreme Court determined that the federal government does not the authority to prohibit citizens from carrying guns in federal buildings. Gun activists are enthused about the ruling. "The Second Amendment should not end at the Capitol building" one was quoted as saying, "There's a reason its called a Sargent-At-Arms."

The Supreme Court has other cases pending, ones in which they will likely rule in favor of gun owners. One of these pending cases involves the ban ("zero tolerance policies") may schools have on students bringing guns to campus. Claimed the eleven year old at the center of the lawsuit, "Just because I'm a kid doesn't mean I shouldn't have the same Constitutional rights guaranteed to all citizens. I'm forced to go to school, if I want to bring a gun to defend myself, I should be allowed."

[salin]

9. thank goodness

that we can now have a safe and armed fifth grade! ;-)

[Dimensio0]

19. Do you have a rational argument to offer,

or is your position merely predicated upon insubstantial hyperbole?

[slackmaster]

12. The Heller decision actually will come into play in this case

Now that owning a gun has been ruled to be a basic civil right, putting a "no guns" condition on public housing residents would be the moral and legal equivalent of making them sign a pledge to waive their right to a jury trial, or agreeing never to engage in political speech in public.

I've always thought it violated California's preemption law anyway.

At the end of the day it won't make much difference. People who live in public housing can't afford to buy guns.

[depakid]

15. Just a note re: Australian success with removing handguns from society and lowering homicude rate

The vast majority of the population supported the gun buyback as a rational solution to repeated mass shootings and other sorts of senseless violence in the US that they read about with some frequency in their papers.

That, I think was the key to its success- a success that is now well rooted in popular culture where almost no one either feels the need for (or would ever want) the sorts of guns that have become commonplace in the states. They consider that nuts- and the typical reaction would be one of disgust.

I suspect that a majority of Americans also support reasonable restrictions on a national level- though the dysfunctional libertarian streak and the corrupt nature of US politics will prevent anything positive from ever being done (in the same way that the US will never have universal healthcare or other elements of the social contract that are all but taken for granted in most western nations).

My guess is that as the American economy sinks alongside the inexorable rise of petrol prices, America will see a corresponding rise in gun violence, perhaps a dramatic rise- dictating and even larger, more expensive prison system that states can already ill afford.

It's apparently a tragic price that many (particularly a very vocal minority) will have no problem inflicting on their fellow citizens- and themselves in pursuit of their obsession.

[Pavulon]

17. Holden HSV should be banned..

I mean there is no reason a citizen should have a car with a 427ci 7litre motor. That is only needed to break the law right?

American violence has nothing to do with guns, all to do with drug violence..

broke on broke crime is a phrase used here.

[Dimensio0]

[deleted]

[Dimensio0]

20. Please explain

what you believe would be "reasonable restrictions". Show that they are, in fact, reasonable.

[colonel odis]

22. are gun sales down so much that the NRA has to get just about every restriction

lifted?

the NRA isn't about second amendment rights. the NRA is about making sure gun mfrs can make as much profit as possible. the way to do that? make sure nothing impedes their ability to put guns into the marketplace.

aligning that with the second amendment and wishes of the framers and scaring the crap out of people is nothing but marketing. brilliant marketing, but marketing nonetheless.

[slackmaster]

23. How about some verifiable facts to back up your assertion?

In this case it makes very little sense. Most people who live in places like Valencia Gardens can't afford a gun, ammunition, and a state-approved storage device or trigger lock. They're much more likely to be concerned about putting food on the table, or where their next tank of gasoline is going to come from.

I suspect that the NRA is going to spend a lot more money pursuing this case than gun makers are going to see in revenue as a result.

I think people on a liberal board should be glad to see a fundamentally classist, perhaps racist law being challenged.