Thursday, February 27, 2014

NRA Loses: Federal Judge Rules San Francisco Can Limit Sales of High-Capacity Magazines

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has lost its first legal battle against the City by the Bay over the banning of high-capacity magazines in city limits.
San Francisco’s mayor, Edwin Lee, approved an ordinance last November that prohibits residents from possessing firearms with clips that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Individuals owning such weapons must turn them into police, sell them to licensed gun dealers, or remove them from the city by April 7.
The NRA filed suit on behalf of the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, retired officer Larry Barsetti, retired U.S. Navy master chief Arthur Ritchie, and city residents Rainerio Granados, and Randall Low to stop the law from going into effect.
They argued before U.S. District Judge William Alsup that the ordinance violates the Second Amendment by limiting Americans’ right to defend themselves.
But Alsup rejected the plaintiffs’ claim and let the law stand.
“Although there will be some occasions when a law-abiding citizen needs more than ten rounds to defend himself or his family, the record shows that such occasions are rare,” Alsup wrote in his ruling (pdf).

19 comments:

  1. I guess they were going for some broader precedent by challenging it on second amendment grounds. If they just want the law gone, they can challenge it on state preemption law- you know, that law that clearly states what SF did is illegal.

    It’s wonderful that this Judge finds that if something is “rare” it’s constitutional:

    “Although there will be some occasions when a law-abiding citizen can’t vote because they don’t have an ID, the record shows that such occasions are rare,”

    “Although there will be some occasions when a law-abiding citizen gets spied on by the NSA without a warrent, the record shows that such occasions are rare,”

    “Although there will be some occasions when law-abiding Japanese citizens get rounded up by the government and put into camps, the record shows that such occasions are rare,”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, screw what the law says--gun control trumps petty things like laws that say you can't do that. Just like in other cases such as the illegal aggregation of NICS records into databases you advocate for and the ATF's demand for multiple long gun sale reporting in the border states--in contradiction of the authorizing statute.

      Delete
    2. Mike is a "bad laws be damned" kind of guy.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, but only when it's the government ignoring the law and undermining its own legitimacy. If it's people doing it for conscience's sake...

      Delete
  2. FYI, your title is wrong. San Francisco didn’t limit the sale of these magazines, they banned the possession. Another crime. The state of California already limits the sale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds like a nit you're picking there.

      Delete
    2. "Ban on the sale" and "ban on possession" are synonymous to you?

      Do you want to give people the impression that they can pass through San Francisco with their legally bought magazine? There is a huge difference.

      Delete
    3. I didn't say synonymous, did I? I said you're nit picking.

      Delete
    4. By calling it nit picking, you are saying it is fine to call something a ban on the sale, when it's really a ban on possession. To you, it is not worth distinguishing between the two. Is that right?

      Delete
  3. Yet another example of a confiscation that we were promised would never happen. But San Fransisco is notorious for violating rights--and for sending violators to the Senate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, a violation of the state's grandfather clause on magazines that were owned before the state banned their acquisition.

      Delete
    2. How is this an example of confiscation? Has that happened yet?

      Delete
    3. You missed the part about how anyone who can't store the magazines outside the city has to turn them in?

      Delete
    4. Greg, didn't you notice above--it's a nit-pick to point out the difference between banning sale and possession. This isn't a "confiscation" it's a voluntary turn in with teeth.

      Delete
    5. Getting past your sexist rant, exactly what are you suggesting we could do that would be sufficiently "manly"?

      And Mike, can we expect a denunciation of POed Lib for his statements demeaning women as a lesser sex and suggesting that one set of genitalia are superior to the other?

      Delete
    6. Yes, his comment was deleted and one more like it will force me to put the moderation back on.

      Delete
    7. Isn't it like CT? Confiscations have not happened yet?

      Delete
    8. When a law bans the continued possession of an object, and when people like you are demanding the confiscation of said objects to enforce said laws, it's disingenuous to argue that there's no confiscation going on just because they haven't started attempting it yet.

      Delete