Tuesday - April 01, 2014

Not In My America

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed San Francisco’s tough gun control laws Tuesday, ruling that they fall within the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

At question was the city’s requirement to lock up firearms and ban the sales of hollow-point ammunition.

“San Francisco’s regulations do not destroy the Second Amendment right,” wrote Judge Sandra S. Ikuta for the three-judge panel in a 35-page decision filed Tuesday.  The other judges on the panel were Dorothy W. Nelson, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., who concurred with Ikuta. Two of the judges were Bush appointees while the third, Nelson, was a Carter appointee.

The case, Jackson v. San Francisco, has been winding its way through federal courts since 2009. It challenged the City and County of San Francisco over local laws implemented in 2007 that compelled gun owners to secure guns either locked inside a container or disabled with a trigger lock.

Further, it took exception with the blanket ban on selling ammunition with “no sporting purpose,” which in effect took self-defense-based rounds off the local shelves. Plaintiffs in the case included Espanola Jackson, the National Rifle Association, and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officer’s Association.

Concerning the locking requirements, the court stated that, while the law, “burdened the Second Amendment because storage regulations were not part of a long historical tradition,” they were “not a substantial burden on the Second Amendment right itself because it did not prevent an individual from possessing a firearm in the home.”

The 2007 San Fransisco laws forbid the sale or transfer of hollow-point ammunition in the city or county.

On the subject of self-defense ammunition, the court again stated that while the requirement, “may burden the core of the Second Amendment right of self-defense,” it was a, “reasonable fit to achieve [San Francisco’s] goal of reducing the lethality of ammunition.”

It ain’t none of backdoor jamming San Franswishco’s effing business whether ammunition is more or less lethal. Storage regulation be damned; you own a gun, it’s your right to keep (or bear) the thing any way you choose. Granted, should you do so in a matter that actually causes harm to someone else - not “made them uncomfortable”, but real harm - then you’re subject to liability. Aside from that, sod off.

And excuse me, but where and in what invisible sub-atomic penumbra do you find “trap and skeet, competitive target shooting, deer hunting, and pest control” and other “sporting purposes” in “a well regulated militia” or any “right of the people”? It ain’t about sporting purposes. Well, not only about. This is blanket infringement, pure and simple. So San Fran and the whack-a-doodle leftard lunatics on the 9th should all strap on rubber wings, drop trou, and take a flying F at the moon.

PS - what the bleep-bleepity-bleep makes you think that a “not substantial” burden to the 2A is ok in the first place? Are you that retarded? Any burden. ANY. BURDEN. is an infringement. Period.

From now on, all citizens of San Francisco and all members of the 9th circuit court of appeals are allowed full and complete free speech. As long as they use ONLY the 1776 words that I personally select for them as their vocabulary. 1776 words is quite a lot; I can’t see that being a “substantial burden” on their 1st Amendment rights. I’ll also let them practice whatever religion they want ... as long as it’s on my list of approved faiths ... which I haven’t written yet. But WTF, if they sign off on bullshit like this case, they ought not to have any trouble accepting ex post facto. Obviously they don’t know our Constitution from a bucket of hog slop, so what difference could it make at this point in time?

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right– that’s is what the Supreme Court says– but that’s not how the intermediate courts are treating the Second Amendment,” said [primary counsel Chuck] Michel. Jackson v San Francisco is not finished, however. Michel advised Guns.com that he will be seeking en banc review of the case by the 9th Circuit.

Posted by Drew458     on 04/01/2014 at 02:53 PM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner