|
Post by lazarus on Jan 31, 2009 20:12:38 GMT -5
California: NRA Victory in San Francisco Lawsuit! Thursday, January 29, 2009 PUBLIC HOUSING OFFICIALS DROP ILLEGAL BAN ON FIREARMS POSSESSION IN PUBLIC HOUSING An NRA-led coalition of self-defense civil rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation and the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) has prevailed in a Second Amendment lawsuit challenging a ban on firearm possession in San Francisco public housing residences. “This success is further vindication of the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller ruling upholding the Second Amendment as protecting a fundamental, individual civil right for all law-abiding Americans,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. The San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) and the property management company that oversees San Francisco’s public housing projects have agreed to completely remove a lease provision banning guns in the residences. The City of San Francisco itself legally stipulated that its ordinance banning gun possession on county owned or controlled property cannot be applied to the public housing properties, even though Mayor Gavin Newsom announced at a May 2007 press conference that the new city ordinance would ban gun possession there. By excluding the application of the ordinance and removing the lease provision, the right of public housing residents to choose to own a gun to defend themselves or their families has been restored. The settlements bring a successful conclusion to the lawsuit, filed June 2008. The decision to repeal SFHA’s lease provisions banning firearms came despite initial claims by Mayor Newsom that the lawsuit would be “absolutely defended,” and comes after initial claims by the San Francisco City Attorney that the lawsuit was “frivolous” and that the City would seek sanctions. No sanctions were sought, nor could they have been. The San Francisco concessions follow similar gun ban repeals by several Illinois towns that also faced NRA lawsuits filed immediately after the Supreme Court confirmed in late June that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. NRA-ILA and CRPA will continue to pursue other cases to resolve the incorporation issue. In fact, a California case challenging a gun show ban ordinance that has been partially funded by the NRA for years (Nordyke v. Alameda County) was recently argued before the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a decision is forthcoming. NRA is preparing additional legal challenges in San Francisco and Los Angeles regarding gun control ordinances that were not challenged in the current lawsuit. In fact, NRA’s lawyers have already placed San Francisco and Los Angeles on notice of pending litigation concerning several other gun banning ordinances. The NRA-led coalition will likely also pursue civil rights actions against California itself as well as several other municipalities to challenge ill-conceived and unconstitutional state and local gun bans in the near future. "Today is an important victory and a step in the right direction for the residents of San Francisco and for the citizens of California," concluded Cox. “NRA will keep up the fight to make sure the Second Amendment is respected throughout the country." To view the stipulations and other related documents, please visit www.calgunlaws.com. www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4347
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Jan 31, 2009 21:12:32 GMT -5
I doubt that the Heller decision had much to do with it. Wasn't there a ruling years ago on firearms prohibition in public housing elsewhere? Was it Philadelphia?
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 1, 2009 8:55:55 GMT -5
Oh well. More dead Americans.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Feb 1, 2009 11:01:49 GMT -5
And, if you prevent a violent crime, more LIVE Americans....
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 1, 2009 11:16:14 GMT -5
Balancing the IF against the certainty makes it all pretty obvious.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 1, 2009 11:24:54 GMT -5
Oksar, who are you to claim one is a "certainty" and the other is an "if"?
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 1, 2009 11:41:34 GMT -5
Laz clalmed the IF, statistics claim the certainty.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 1, 2009 12:29:19 GMT -5
Whose statistics? Because I can pull up a pile of statistics from various sources that will claim certainty either way.
I think the most sane sources are probably the ones from the middle that say the results are inconclusive.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Feb 1, 2009 13:37:17 GMT -5
Once your stats agree with those of law enforcement, let me know. Until then, they are private studies and can either mean or not mean anything - depending on who is paying for them.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 2, 2009 0:01:26 GMT -5
When your statistics include everything law enforcement misses, then let me know. Until then they can either mean or not mean anything.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 2, 2009 4:13:00 GMT -5
When your statistics include everything law enforcement misses, then let me know. Until then they can either mean or not mean anything.
Wow. I can only shake my head at that one. :ack of evidence is now evidence.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Feb 2, 2009 6:16:53 GMT -5
That seems to be an interesting way to say don't confuse me with the facts....they are inconvenience and do not support what I want the numbers to say
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 2, 2009 9:39:48 GMT -5
"That seems to be an interesting way to say don't confuse me with the facts....they are inconvenience and do not support what I want the numbers to say"
And that's exactly what I got out of your reply.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 2, 2009 9:49:51 GMT -5
Law enforcement tracks numbers of crimes, injuries and deaths. They don't have any way of knowing the number of crimes that don't happen because they are prevented or stopped. Even those incidents that are reported are not tracked when crimes are prevented.
So you to stand there and tell me that the facts are "inconvenience"? No doubt the facts are inconvenient for you because the fact is there are a number of crimes that are prevented or stopped each year by armed people. Just because we don't have a reliable method to track those facts, that does not mean that those facts do not exist.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 2, 2009 9:52:50 GMT -5
"Evidence proves guns prevent violent crimes."
"I can show you statistics that says guns cause more deaths than they prevent."
"Evidence on how guns are used is unreliable, so can't be used to prove anything."
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 2, 2009 10:04:06 GMT -5
Ok. So, let's say there is a burglar who breaks into a home and the homeowner uses a firearm for self defense. Are you seriously expecting me to believe that the homeowner doesn't call the police?
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 2, 2009 10:39:04 GMT -5
"Ok. So, let's say there is a burglar who breaks into a home and the homeowner uses a firearm for self defense. Are you seriously expecting me to believe that the homeowner doesn't call the police? "
And is that the only situation in which someone defends themselves?
I've been in the situation of preventing a crime that wasn't reported. I know for a fact it happens, because it has happened to me. Of course the only one who knows for sure is me and the guy who was sneaking up behind me at the ATM. Even had I called the cops, what are they going to report? A robbery? It didn't happen. That I used my gun? I didn't shoot him, so it wouldn't have been recorded in their statistics anyway.
|
|
|
Post by rnrbill on Feb 2, 2009 11:11:12 GMT -5
IMO this is just more pandering from the anti gun crowd. The aticle is speaking to illegal guns, not legally owned weapons. Just because a person lives in Public Housing, is poor, etc shouldn't mean he/she is economically precluded from hunting or legal lossession of firearms. This , also IMO is aimed at attempting to keep firearms away from the residents of Public Housing, who in any major city I have visited and I've been to plenty are mostly black and hispanic, the perpertrators and victims of most of the gun violence.
Here is a novel idea; instead of all the bulls--t about passing anti gun legislation lets enforce the current laws by arresting, conviciting and sentencing those who already possess illegal firearms. In other words, enforce the existing laws instead of trying to pull the wool over our eyes by passing newer laws.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 2, 2009 11:13:19 GMT -5
Sure, Wayne. Robberies don't get reported because if the were there would be proof that guns deter more frequently than they cause harm but they don't get reported because if the were there would be proof that guns deter more frequently than they cause harm but they don't get reported because if the were there would be proof that guns deter more frequently than they cause harm but they don't get reported because if the were there would be proof that guns deter more frequently than they cause harm but they don't get reported because if the were there would be proof that guns deter more frequently than they cause harm but they ..............
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 2, 2009 11:14:41 GMT -5
BTW, Wayne, aren't you folks supposed to report crimes/attempted crimes as a matter of law?
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Feb 2, 2009 12:19:17 GMT -5
Just because we don't have a reliable method to track those facts, that does not mean that those facts do not exist
Yes, true wayne - in part...but you have no idea what that is either. And the dead keep mounting.
Should we go with your guess, or that of the NRA when making important decisions? Or should the NRA stop sharing stories and start tracking this information (that has always been my choice - I am happy to be pr oven wrong that guns save more lives than they take....it is the NRA and gun owners who have taken no steps to illustrate that)
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 2, 2009 12:30:01 GMT -5
it is the NRA and gun owners who have taken no steps to illustrate that
Perhaps they have a very good reason (that involves self-interest) for not doing so.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 2, 2009 12:46:45 GMT -5
"BTW, Wayne, aren't you folks supposed to report crimes/attempted crimes as a matter of law? "
No. Best case scenario I call the police and there's nothing they can do because the guy didn't actually commit a crime. The worst case scenario is the scumbag says I pointed a gun at him (I didn't but I'm sure he wasn't the kind of guy who tells the police the truth) while he just happened to be wandering around the bank parking lot at 3 am, and I end up going away for aggravated assault.
"Yes, true wayne - in part...but you have no idea what that is either."
I know. I didn't say I did. From the beginning, I said there is no hard conclusive evidence either way. I can't prove the number of defensive gun uses in a given period of time is the highest of the estimates and you can't prove it's the lowest of the estimates, either. I will say it would be awful hard to pretend they don't exist at all.
"Should we go with your guess, or that of the NRA when making important decisions? Or should the NRA stop sharing stories and start tracking this information (that has always been my choice - I am happy to be pr oven wrong that guns save more lives than they take....it is the NRA and gun owners who have taken no steps to illustrate that)"
They have taken plenty of steps. Pro-gun organizations and people have done the studies but all people want to do is get in a pissing contest on what the actual exact number is.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Feb 2, 2009 12:54:14 GMT -5
If a study was done that met standard criteria, the pro-gun politicians would be crowing from the roof tops. They know they do not have anything to go on that meets any standard criteria or reporting. It is not a pissing contest when one one side there is hard facts and on the other is John Lott (or should I say Mary Rosh?)
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 2, 2009 13:25:59 GMT -5
"It is not a pissing contest when one one side there is hard facts and on the other is John Lott (or should I say Mary Rosh?)"
Which side is using "hard facts"?You can hardly call police reporting to be hard facts when it ignores a large part of the activity that factually takes place.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 2, 2009 14:22:12 GMT -5
Let me get this straight. In your particular case, you claim you defended yourself from an attempted robbery using your gun, don't report said attempted robbery and then blame the police for not having the statistics that would prove that you defended yourself using your gun.
LEMME OUTTA HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 2, 2009 16:34:18 GMT -5
Where did I blame the police?
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 2, 2009 16:35:55 GMT -5
Let you out of here? You are free to drop out of the discussion at any time. No one's holding a gun to your head. (pun intended)
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 2, 2009 17:21:27 GMT -5
Yikes...
If you actually injure or kill a would-be robber, even in self-defense, with your gun, you HAVE to report it.
If you simply threaten the robber and he runs away, and you don't report it, he will not only simply go rob and/or kill someone else, he's also encouraged in crime by knowing that he at least won't have to worry about cops getting on his ass relating to the times he was unsuccessful.
Not very civic-minded. Irresponsible, even.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 2, 2009 19:10:13 GMT -5
"If you actually injure or kill a would-be robber, even in self-defense, with your gun, you HAVE to report it."
Sure. And an incident like that is usually reported- if nothing else, by the attacker.
"If you simply threaten the robber and he runs away, and you don't report it, he will not only simply go rob and/or kill someone else, he's also encouraged in crime by knowing that he at least won't have to worry about people reporting it."
How will reporting a crime that didn't happen change anything? There isn't any evidence any crime happened. The suspect will be slightly inconvenienced by the police- if they find him- and I risk being arrested, myself. Then the robber may go on to rob someone who is a better victim. Or he may may be slightly discouraged by the fact the next guy might actually shoot him. Personally, I'd go with the former- criminals are stupid.
A police officer in Fort Lauderdale related a story for our CCW class- he was off duty and in a convenience store around noon sunny summer day when a couple of young punks in raincoats walked in. They walked to the back of the store and hung out, waiting for everyone to leave. It was pretty obvious what they were up to. The officer opened his fanny pack and put his hand on his gun and stared at them. They walked out of the store. That was the end of it.
We all know why they were really there. And that incident was prevented before it even started. Walking around in a raincoat in the middle of July is hot and uncomfortable, but not a crime. Neither is hanging out in a store as long as it looks like you're shopping. So what crime was committed? What would a jury convict them of?
So this is another non-statistic in which a robbery would have probably happened had no one in the store been armed. No shots were fired, no crime committed, no one injured or killed. The best kind of self defense situation, by the way. However, there's nothing to report to the police, so incidents like these fly under the radar every day.
|
|