Posts Tagged san francisco

San Fran Sheriff Failed Gun Qualification

From SFGate:

A sergeant under San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi who oversaw the department’s shooting range was transferred after he questioned whether the sheriff could take a marksmanship test in light of his domestic violence case, The Chronicle has learned.

Mirkarimi then took the test and failed it, preventing him from carrying a gun, department employees said.

Sheriff’s Department officials strongly denied Thursday night that the sergeant had been transferred because he potentially stood in the way of Mirkarimi’s being granted permission to carry a gun. They described his transfer as a budgetary move and said Mirkarimi had nothing to do with it.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Last Gun Store In San Fran

From Chris Cheng:

Earlier this week, San Francisco’s last gun shop, Highbridge Arms, announced that it is closing its doors in October 2015. Here’s an excerpt from their Facebook page.

As Highbridge Arms was my home gun shop, I will be very sad to see it go. There is no official word if they are relocating or simply going for good. I hope they will relocate to somewhere in the Bay Area so we can ensure that San Franciscans can exercise their Second Amendment right.

It will be interesting to see if any viable lawsuits come up in the future which argue that San Francisco has a de facto gun ban since it will (soon) have zero gun shops, or something along those lines. I’m not a lawyer, but I sense potential for legal action by some organization down the line.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Gun People Are Second Class Citizens

From Huffington Post:

The Court’s widely-noted failure to clarify the scope of Americans’ Second Amendment rights is shocking and inexcusable. Justice Thomas ruefully observed that the Court has granted review in decisions “involving alleged violations of rights it has never previously enforced” and involving rights claims that are “expressly foreclosed by precedent.” And yet, in the Second Amendment context, the Court has refused to give law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their rights the certain protection they deserve.

, , , , ,

No Comments

SF Gun Laws Don’t Trump My Safety

From David French of National Review:

If I lived in San Francisco, I would violate that law. San Francisco’s anti-gun ideology is simply not worth risking my family’s safety. I do not have confidence that — even with practice — my wife and older children would be able to unlock a safe as quickly as necessary, under extreme stress (nor am I completely confident that I could do it). In fact, it’s hard to see a clear downside to violating the law. Yes, there are criminal penalties for noncompliance, but San Francisco isn’t doing house-to-house searches for gun safes. It simply doesn’t have the resources to systematically enforce this law, and it never had any intention of systematically enforcing the law. Instead, it’s counting on the least dangerous gun owners in America (the law-abiding cohort) to voluntarily render themselves more vulnerable. I would dissent. In fact, I have dissented in other, similar jurisdictions in years past.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court Declines To Hear San Fran Gun Case

By declining to hear the case the Supreme Court has essentially given the “thumbs up” to this law and signaled to other cities that they may do the same.

From Yahoo News:

By declining to hear an appeal filed by gun owners and the National Rifle Association, the court left intact a March 2014 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the measure.

The regulation, issued in 2007, states that anyone who keeps a handgun at home must either store it in a locked container or disable it with a trigger lock.

 

 

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court Debates Taking San Francisco Gun Control Case

From Reason.com:

Will the Supreme Court allow the 9th Circuit to openly flout one of its precedents? We may soon find out. Today the justices are meeting in private conference. Among the items scheduled for consideration is a petition filed by conservative lawyer Paul Clement seeking review of the 9th Circuit’s Jackson opinion. “The decision below is impossible to reconcile with this Court’s decision inHeller,” that petition observes. “The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that San Francisco may venture where this Court forbade the District of Columbia to go is so patently wrong that summary reversal would be appropriate.”

 

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Judge Upholds San Francisco Magazine Ban

From Guns.com:

“The judge’s ruling completely flies in the face of what the Heller case says, “said Michel. “The Heller case said that the handguns at issue were protected because they were commonly used by law abiding citizens for self-defense. The judge in San Francisco seized on the word ‘used’ to say that magazines were holding more than ten rounds were hardly ever used for self-defense i.e. people never fired more than ten rounds, they weren’t protected.”

, , , , , ,

No Comments

San Francisco To Confiscate/Ban Magazines That Hold 10+ Rounds

From SF Gate:

Under the new regulations, people already possessing a large-capacity magazine will have 90 days to turn it in to police. The proposal exempts members of law enforcement and armored car personnel, among others. Violations of the ban would be punishable as a misdemeanor.

, , , , ,

No Comments