Appeals court won't reinstate S.F. handgun ban

[Bombard]

Appeals court won't reinstate S.F. handgun ban

San Francisco Chronical
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer


(01-09) 11:53 PST SAN FRANCISCO - A state appeals court refused today to revive a ban on handgun possession in San Francisco, saying the measure that city voters approved in November 2005 conflicts with state law.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco agreed with a June 2006 ruling by Superior Court Judge James Warren, who said local governments in California have no authority to prohibit handguns. Warren said a California law that authorizes police agencies to issue concealed-weapon permits implicitly forbids a city or county to ban handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

The San Francisco measure, Proposition H, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of any type of firearms and ammunition in San Francisco.

Prop. H was challenged by the National Rifle Association, which sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after voters passed the measure, 58 percent to 42 percent. Enforcement has been suspended since the suit was filed.

In today's 3-0 ruling, the appeals court cited its own 1982 decision overturning a San Francisco ordinance that prohibited handgun possession within city limits.

Sponsors of Prop. H had hoped to comply with that ruling by drafting a narrower measure that applied only to San Francisco residents. But the court said the 1982 decision properly interpreted state law as "depriving local entities of any power to regulate handgun possession on private property."

The court declined San Francisco's request to allow the city to enforce the ban on the manufacture or sale of rifles and shotguns, saying the city must first rewrite the ordinance to narrow its scope.

Noting the existence of state gun laws, Presiding Justice Ignazio Ruvolo said, "When it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly."

The ruling can be read at http://links.sfgate.com/ZCAF.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

[WKC]

The text of the ruling is here.

Some quotes from the ruling which I found interesting:

As the trial court noted, “[t]he statute books contain almost one hundred pages of unannotated state gun laws that set out a myriad of statewide licensing schemes, exceptions, and exemptions dealing with the possession and use of handguns.”

While the City emphatically argues that Prop H is a proper response to crime because it is aimed at criminals who use handguns in the commission of their unlawful acts, the City’s arguments fail to acknowledge that the ordinance will affect more than just criminals. It will also affect every City resident who has not, through some demonstration of personal disability or irresponsibility, lost his or her right to possess a handgun. Although a precise assessment of the impact of this ordinance is difficult to gauge because the ordinance has never been enforced, at a minimum, Section 3 of Prop H would invalidate all licenses possessed by City residents to carry a concealed weapon issued under Penal Code section 12050, and it would prohibit the possession of handguns by City residents even if those residents are expressly authorized by state law to possess handguns for self-defense or other lawful purposes.

A literal interpretation of the transfer/distribution ban could lead to absurd results, such as prohibiting law enforcement agencies from distributing firearms and ammunition to their officers.

[YankeeDog]

Hooray for the state appeals court!!!

YD

[BonoVox]

Originally Posted by YankeeDog

Hooray for the state appeals court!!!

YD

And state law.

[THE Gimper]

Section 3 of Prop H would invalidate all licenses possessed by City residents to carry a concealed weapon issued under Penal Code section 12050

All 8 of them!

I knew this stupid ban would be overturned. As the article mentioned, they've tried it before and it was overturned.

[IAmASensFan]

Sounds like the pesants are revolting




Sorry, all I could find was a French Revolution reference

[Bombard]

You said it, they stink on ice.

[Archer]

Does this mean it is safe to carry in San Francisco with a CCW yet? This question is based on one of many famous stories I heard in my CCW renewal class. Right now I carry the "less expensive" firearm during trips to the Bay Area.

[Norseman]

This is the press release from NRA ILA on thte SF issue:

California Appeals Court Strikes Down San Francisco Handgun Ban

Friday, January 11, 2008

On January 9, the California Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court ruling that struck down San Francisco's handgun ban as a violation of California's state preemption law. The ruling was in response to an NRA-led challenge to the ban.

The city law, passed as Proposition H on the 2005 ballot, prohibited handgun possession, as well as firearms and ammunition manufacturing or sales. For law-abiding residents, the law was even more severe than the handgun bans in Washington, D.C. or Chicago. Unlike those cities, San Francisco had no "grandfather clause," so San Francisco residents would have had to dispose of handguns within 90 days.

The case underscores the importance of NRA-backed state preemption laws. Forty-three states have preemption statutes. California's version prohibits local governments from banning handgun possession, and from establishing their own licensing and registration systems. In its decision, the court noted that California already has nearly 100 pages of state gun laws, and that "the state and local acts are irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation."

San Francisco's last try at banning handguns, led by then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, also ran afoul of the state's preemption law according to the Court of Appeals in 1982. In the current case, the appeals court noted that there was "no subsequent case which has overruled, disapproved of, or even sought to limit or clarify [the 1982] decision."

San Francisco claimed that the gun ban was necessary as an anti-crime measure. The court rejected that idea, noting, "[T]he City's arguments fail to acknowledge that the ordinance will affect more than just criminals. It will also affect every City resident who has not, through some demonstration of personal disability or irresponsibility, lost his or her right to possess a handgun."

The idea that there is a right to possess a handgun at all would be news to San Francisco's district attorney, Kamala Harris. Sworn in for a second term the same day the Court of Appeals decision was announced, Harris announced that her office would join other cities to file a "friend of the court" brief defending the District of Columbia handgun and self-defense ban.

Coming just as Supreme Court briefs are being filed in the Washington, D.C. case, the San Francisco decision is an important reminder that the Second Amendment isn't the only basis for challenging even the most extreme anti-gun laws. While it's unknown at press time whether the city will appeal to the California Supreme Court, NRA's legal team will continue the practical approach that has brought victory, so far, for the long-suffering gun owners of San Francisco.