Support Denmark, Defend Freedom

Thursday, June 15, 2006

"Warren court" overrules SF gun ban

A San Francisco Superior Court judge showed uncommon sense in shooting down a citywide ban on handgun possession that had been voted in by San Francisco voters last November:

Proposition H, which passed with a 58 percent majority in November, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who need guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of guns and ammunition in San Francisco.
Judge James Warren ruled that handgun possession is a matter properly handled at the state level, and that California law "implicitly prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults. "

And now we see the violence inherent in the system:

City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office defended Prop. H, will decide whether to appeal the ruling in the next day or two, said spokesman Matt Dorsey.

"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on the possession of handguns,'' Dorsey said.

Supervisor Chris Daly, a chief sponsor of Prop. H, urged Herrera to appeal and criticized Warren. The judge "sided with the powerful gun lobby against the safety of San Franciscans....''

Yes, in the best Orwellian tradition, a total ban is a "reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction." I can only imagine what an unreasonable restriction would be. (Actually, no I can't.)

And what does "sided with the powerful gun lobby" mean? Judge Warren didn't rule that gun ownership was Constitutionally protected, or that San Francisco had trampled on the civil rights of its residents: he simply said that the authority to deal with gun ownership resides with the state of California rather that with individual municipalities, and therefore that PreparationProposition H violated the state constitution. And beyond that, saying that a judge sided with a lobbying group sounds suspiciously like complaining about an activist judiciary, which last I checked was something liberals derided conservatives about. If I were the cynical type I might think that "activist judges" means nothing more than "judges I don't agree with." And I'm the cynical type.

(Sidenote: how come we never hear about the "powerful abortion lobby" or "powerful free speech lobby"?)

Fact is, for all its liberal rhetoric, for all its gay weddings, for all its "progressive" policies, at the end of the day San Francisco is among the US cities least tolerant of dissent from its political orthodoxy. And don't get me started on the unwarranted and unearned "too cool for school" attitude of a large number of its residents. (I've always said that San Franciscans have the attitude of New Yorkers without the reason.) When I lived in Los Angeles I always got a laugh out of how so many San Franciscans looked down on LA, not realizing the extent to which their pseudointellectual snobbery was a pathetic joke.

And now that I've offended an entire city, I believe my work here is done.

Good night, San Francisco!

Blogger Gun-Toting Liberal said...

This is one of the main reasons the Democrats keep on losing elections. They keep insisting upon trying to grab our guns. They do not understand for the life of them that when the Government goes for your guns, it's time for you to beat them to the trigger. What gets me is, the Dems are trying to disarm themselves by force when they might need those guns the most in order to prevent the far right from grabbing each and every last remaining civil liberty they are clinging to.

That's why we have guns. So we can shoot far right wing wackos when they try to enforce a "Nazi America" upon us. And the frigging DEMS are too freaking stupid to see that.


Blogger The Cranky Insomniac said...

Dude, what's up with triggering Godwin's Law in the FIRST COMMENT??

Yer killin' me..

Anonymous fmragtops said...

Do I need to import my comments on how Nazis were liberals? Sheesh.

Please tell me the title "Proposition H" is a joke.

Anonymous fmragtops said...

Okay, I went and clicked the link to the story at SF Gate, and they called it "Proposition H." Who wrote this bill? Dr. Evil?

I guess San Francisco voters wanted a big bowl of ass cream.

Blogger The Cranky Insomniac said...

I couldn't make this stuff up...

Well, maybe I could, but we'll never know, since I don't have to.

Blogger Nicki said...

"They do not understand for the life of them that when the Government goes for your guns, it's time for you to beat them to the trigger." -- I wish more Democrats thought the way you do.

And the nazis weren't exactly liberals -- not in the classical meaning of the word. They were socialists, however.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home