Court shot down voter-approved ban

[mattskramer]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL

The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

How do conservatives come to terms, intellectually and logically, with this? Conservatives, when debating policy issues like abortion and gay marriage (thinking that the general public is against it), would often claim that we should let the public decided. They would say that it is wrong for judges to legislate from the bench. Many would even say that the elected officials need not vote on some issues but let there be a direct vote from the public.

Well, unless I don’t understand the article, the public did vote on the gun issue. The citizenry decided to restrict gun rights. The courts overturned the will of the people. I’d like an explanation, particularly from pro-gun-rights groups. Yes-or-No: did the courts do the right thing by rejecting the voter-approved bad?

 

[Bern80]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL

The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

How do conservatives come to terms, intellectually and logically, with this? Conservatives, when debating policy issues like abortion and gay marriage (thinking that the general public is against it), would often claim that we should let the public decided. They would say that it is wrong for judges to legislate from the bench. Many would even say that the elected officials need not vote on some issues but let there be a direct vote from the public.

Well, unless I don’t understand the article, the public did vote on the gun issue. The citizenry decided to restrict gun rights. The courts overturned the will of the people. I’d like an explanation, particularly from pro-gun-rights groups. Yes-or-No: did the courts do the right thing by rejecting the voter-approved bad?

the vote against the measure was unanimous where the Supreme Court Justices were concerned. I don't really see where confusion of the position of conservatives is warranted. The stance of the judges in both cases was that such a proposition was over the states power.

While the judges were not in any way addressing the second ammendment I would say that such a proposition which states it ban all gun ownership in SF would quite clearly be a violation of the 2nd ammendment as it is currently interpreted. If SF doesn't want guns then they some how will have to change the constitution.

While most conservatives would indeed want to hear the people speak via their vote, we're also pretty staunch constitutionalists.

 

[hjmick]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL

The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

How do conservatives come to terms, intellectually and logically, with this? Conservatives, when debating policy issues like abortion and gay marriage (thinking that the general public is against it), would often claim that we should let the public decided. They would say that it is wrong for judges to legislate from the bench. Many would even say that the elected officials need not vote on some issues but let there be a direct vote from the public.

Well, unless I don’t understand the article, the public did vote on the gun issue. The citizenry decided to restrict gun rights. The courts overturned the will of the people. I’d like an explanation, particularly from pro-gun-rights groups. Yes-or-No: did the courts do the right thing by rejecting the voter-approved bad?

Did you read the article you linked? The answers to your question are contained in the body of the story:

Lower courts ruled that the measure interfered with a statewide system of gun regulation, which bars certain types of weapons and allows others.

The state courts recognized that "law-abiding citizens are part of the solution, not part of the problem of violent crime," said Chuck Michel, lawyer for the plaintiffs in the NRA suit. "The authority of local cities to over-regulate firearms is very limited."

But the courts said the ordinance was beyond the powers of local government.

Upholding a judge's June 2006 ruling, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said state law left room for some municipal gun control - such as bans on the sale or possession of firearms on public fairgrounds - but "when it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly."

In a 3-0 ruling Jan. 9, the appeals court said state law allows law-abiding Californians to possess handguns in their homes and businesses and lets them request a concealed-weapons permit or a judge's permission to carry guns in public - authority that leaves no room for a local handgun ban.

The court also said a 1999 state law banning the sale of the cheap pistols known as Saturday night specials, and setting safety standards for legal firearms, implicitly prohibited local governments from outlawing all handguns.

So, in answer to your question, "Did the courts do the right thing by rejecting the voter-approved ban?"

Yes, based on state law, they did the right thing.

 

[doeton]

more like because the majority should not have the ability to remove the rights of the minority.

but because the court said so or cause it's in the constitution are also answers i suppose ...

 

[hjmick]

more like because the majority should not have the ability to remove the rights of the minority.

Oh sure, there is that...

 

[Ravi]

more like because the majority should not have the ability to remove the rights of the minority.

That sounds right.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL

The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

How do conservatives come to terms, intellectually and logically, with this? Conservatives, when debating policy issues like abortion and gay marriage (thinking that the general public is against it), would often claim that we should let the public decided. They would say that it is wrong for judges to legislate from the bench. Many would even say that the elected officials need not vote on some issues but let there be a direct vote from the public.

Well, unless I don’t understand the article, the public did vote on the gun issue. The citizenry decided to restrict gun rights. The courts overturned the will of the people. I’d like an explanation, particularly from pro-gun-rights groups. Yes-or-No: did the courts do the right thing by rejecting the voter-approved bad?

Dude, what the heck are you doing living in Texas? You need to move to San Fran...you'd fit right in.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do conservatives come to terms, intellectually and logically, with this? Conservatives, when debating policy issues like abortion and gay marriage (thinking that the general public is against it), would often claim that we should let the public decided.

Simple.
The public, directly or indicrectly, cannot decide to violate rights protected by the Constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL

The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

How do conservatives come to terms, intellectually and logically, with this? Conservatives, when debating policy issues like abortion and gay marriage (thinking that the general public is against it), would often claim that we should let the public decided. They would say that it is wrong for judges to legislate from the bench. Many would even say that the elected officials need not vote on some issues but let there be a direct vote from the public.

Well, unless I don’t understand the article, the public did vote on the gun issue. The citizenry decided to restrict gun rights. The courts overturned the will of the people. I’d like an explanation, particularly from pro-gun-rights groups. Yes-or-No: did the courts do the right thing by rejecting the voter-approved bad?

Not having read the thread I will respond that the 2nd Amendment applies. The people do not have the right to vote in total bans or excessive restrictions on things covered by the Bill of Rights. Unless you think it is ok if Joyce gets a majority in his town to vote that Blacks should be banned.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It sure is great living down here in gun loving Texas where we don't have to worry about our guns being banned. If some moronic judge tried to even introduce legislation to ban guns the hounds of hell would be unleashed upon him or her.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It sure is great living down here in gun loving Texas where we don't have to worry about our guns being banned. If some moronic judge tried to even introduce legislation to ban guns the hounds of hell would be unleashed upon him or her.

Did you hear? In Florida you can take guns to work, if that was signed like I heard it would be.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Did you hear? In Florida you can take guns to work, if that was signed like I heard it would be.

Yeah, I saw that a couple of weeks ago. I conceal mine in the truck sometimes when I go to work.



Another thing on this SF thing, why did they even need to have a proposition to vote on. If they didn't want guns, then they simply didn't have to carry one. A law is not needed for that. It's not going to affect the thugs anyway. They're laughing at the gullible dumbasses that voted for banning guns. Its hysterical how stupid these folks are.

 

[Bern80]

Another thing on this SF thing, why did they even need to have a proposition to vote on. If they didn't want guns, then they simply didn't have to carry one. A law is not needed for that. It's not going to affect the thugs anyway. They're laughing at the gullible dumbasses that voted for banning guns. Its hysterical how stupid these folks are.

That is an excellent point. I guess they thought if they passed a law banning guns the criminals would be cooperative and just hand them over.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That is an excellent point. I guess they thought if they passed a law banning guns the criminals would be cooperative and just hand them over.

Liberals do not pass bans on guns to disarm criminals, they do it to disarm law abiding citizens whom they do NOT trust. Liberals do NOT trust the people at all. Given the ability they would oppress us in a heart beat, all the while telling us it was for our own good.

 

[Taomon]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL

The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

How do conservatives come to terms, intellectually and logically, with this? Conservatives, when debating policy issues like abortion and gay marriage (thinking that the general public is against it), would often claim that we should let the public decided. They would say that it is wrong for judges to legislate from the bench. Many would even say that the elected officials need not vote on some issues but let there be a direct vote from the public.

Well, unless I don’t understand the article, the public did vote on the gun issue. The citizenry decided to restrict gun rights. The courts overturned the will of the people. I’d like an explanation, particularly from pro-gun-rights groups. Yes-or-No: did the courts do the right thing by rejecting the voter-approved bad?

I would have to read the legislation being voted on. But the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution and the NRA are a very powerful lobby.

It is funny how that is over-turned and yet anything that violates our first and fourth amendment rights is completely ignored.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BARB102OFQ.DTL

The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

How do conservatives come to terms, intellectually and logically, with this? Conservatives, when debating policy issues like abortion and gay marriage (thinking that the general public is against it), would often claim that we should let the public decided. They would say that it is wrong for judges to legislate from the bench. Many would even say that the elected officials need not vote on some issues but let there be a direct vote from the public.

Well, unless I don’t understand the article, the public did vote on the gun issue. The citizenry decided to restrict gun rights. The courts overturned the will of the people. I’d like an explanation, particularly from pro-gun-rights groups. Yes-or-No: did the courts do the right thing by rejecting the voter-approved bad?

I don't think it matters whether or not one is "pro or con" gun. It's a matter of law.

Can a concentrated group of voters in one area/state vote for a law that countermands the US Constitution? If so, then States Rights would supercede the Constitution. The US Civil War decided THAT issue for us.

You might want to consider the consequences of your question in terms of abortion, illegal aliens, civil rights, religion ....