Lawsuit Filed after San Fran Ban Passes
by Dave Workman
Senior Editor
Less than 24 hours after San Francisco voters passed, by a 58-42% margin, a ban on handguns and the sale of firearms and ammunition in that city, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), National Rifle Association (NRA), Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) and seven individual plaintiffs were in court to stop it.
It is the second major case this year in which the NRA and SAF joined forces. Earlier, both organizations took the city of New Orleans to court over illegal gun seizures there and in the surrounding parishes following Hurricane Katrina.
SAF Founder Alan M. Gottlieb recalled to Gun Week that his organization went to court two decades ago to successfully stop an earlier gun ban in San Francisco. When the gun ban proposition was announced several months ago, Gottlieb had vowed to fight it in court if it passed, and he said SAF “is keeping its promise.”
“If you ban firearms, criminals will not obey the law and only law-abiding citizens will be victimized, first by the ordinance, which we believe violates state statute, and then by the outlaws,” Gottlieb said. “In addition to all the gun rights organizations and various other groups, the San Francisco Police Officers Association opposed the ban and so did the media. Mayor Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and others have acknowledged that the measure is pre-empted by state law.”
“We are disappointed, but this fight is just beginning,” explained NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “Lawful residents of San Francisco are being stripped of their freedom because of an illegal measure that defies common sense. We will fight this outrageous assault on the rights of law-abiding San Franciscans and I believe that we will prevail.”
Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist, called the passage of Proposition H “a hollow victory for the gun control lobby” and asserted that “this scheme is in clear violation of California law.”
“We will . . . fight this to the highest courts in the country until good sense prevails once again in San Francisco,” Cox vowed.
Gottlieb had warned that passage of the measure would make San Francisco “a magnet for criminals.”
“That’s a high price to pay for law-abiding San Franciscans, just so the city’s social Utopians who pushed this ban can feel good about themselves,” Gottlieb observed, “because that’s really all this ban amounts to; a feel-good act of symbolism without substance.”
California attorney Chuck Michel told Gun Week that “a number of groups” are apparently contributing to the lawsuit, including the California Rifle & Pistol Association and Gun Owners of California, although they are not parties to the lawsuit.
Proposition H was authored by San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, who insisted that the law is necessary to reduce the number of firearms in the city. The law prohibits sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city and bans possession of handguns. Handguns will have to be turned in to the police by April 1, 2006 under provisions in the measure, which makes this the most strict municipal gun control law in the nation.
Local, state and federal law enforcement and certain other persons, such as security and military personnel, are exempt from the measure while on duty.
Yet even in the wake of its passage, Daly was quoted by The San Francisco Examiner, acknowledging that “Prop. H isn’t going to solve violence in San Francisco.” He insisted, though, that the measure is “one part that we can do to get a handle on this epidemic of violence, most of it handgun-related.”
“This is sensible gun control,” Daly insisted to the newspaper.
However, Hollywood may not think so because under terms of Proposition H, the firearms ban means an end to the filming of action movies in the City by the Bay. San Francisco was the backdrop for Dirty Harry and several sequels starring Clint Eastwood.
The American Entertainment Armorers Association (AEAA) opposed the ban for this very reason. In a statement issued by AEAA, President Mike Gibbons noted, “Many films and television productions made today involve firearms. If this law passes, those TV, film, and theater productions cannot be done in San Francisco.
“While the entertainment industry struggles to keep productions in the United States,” Gibbons continued, “and cities like Los Angeles and New York are actively courting film production business, it is unfortunate that certain San Francisco politicians have carelessly proposed such a drastic anti-entertainment industry scheme.”
Daly also told The San Francisco Chronicle that the proposition was drafted to only prohibit residents of the city from owning handguns, not anyone else.
This prompted Gottlieb to note that Daly “must consider San Francisco residents to be second-class citizens of California.” He suggested that Daly, in his zeal to trample on the Second Amendment for San Franciscans has also overlooked their rights under the 14th Amendment.
In their lawsuit, plaintiffs assert that Proposition H violates several state laws. They ask that the court declare the ordinance invalid and issue a writ ordering San Francisco not to enforce it. They also seek attorneys’ fees.
Return to Archive Index