NRA, CRPA, & SAF Win in San Francisco Gun Ban Case.

City of San Francisco

City of San Francisco

An NRA-led coalition of self-defense civil rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation(SAF) 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.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 stipulated legally (admitted the application of the ordnance to private citizens homes was illegal) 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.

Democrats will say that returning the God given right to self protection to the people who live in these public housing projects will cause violence.  IT WILL NOT!  Criminals are the source of violence.  It will allow peaceful decent people of limited means to stop gang bangers, robbers, and thugs from entering their homes and injuring or killing them.  The right to be safe in your home is universal and not limited to rich folks on the upper side of town.

This settlements brings a successful close to the lawsuit, filed on behalf of poor inhabitants of public housing projects, in 2008. The repeal SFHA’s lease provisions banning firearms came in spite of initial boasts by Mayor Newsom that the lawsuit would be “absolutely defended,” and comes after preliminary claims by the San Francisco City Attorney that the suit was “frivolous” and that the City would seek sanctions. No sanctions were sought, since there were no grounds for any.  The City chose to stipulate rather than have a decision entered against them in court. 

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under politics, Second Amendment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s