Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the June 13th edition of my Weekly Check on the Bias of media regarding firearms and the 2nd Amendment. In case you haven't heard:

The San Francisco Gun Ban is Dead!

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

A judge struck down San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handgun possession Monday, saying local governments have no such authority under California law.

Proposition H, which passed with a 58 percent majority in November, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who need guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of guns and ammunition in San Francisco.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren agreed with the National Rifle Association, which argued that Prop. H exceeded the powers of local government and intruded into an area regulated entirely by the state. The NRA sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after the measure passed. Enforcement of the measure was suspended while the suit was pending.

Warren said California law, which authorizes police agencies to issue handgun permits, implicitly prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

That law "demonstrates the Legislature's intent to occupy, on a statewide basis, the field of residential and commercial handgun possession to the exclusion of local government entities,'' Warren wrote in a 30-page decision.

If the city were allowed to ban handguns within its borders, he said, nearby counties could be flooded by handguns no longer allowed in San Francisco. Such a possibility illustrates the need for gun ownership to be regulated on a state level, Warren said.

"California has an overarching concern in controlling gun use by defining the circumstances under which firearms can be possessed uniformly across the state, without having this statewide scheme contradicted or subverted by local policy,'' the judge said.

I don't think the outcome was ever really in doubt although with activist courts, these days you never really know. Judge Warren's decision is not only correct in that the state regulates guns but that IT SHOULD be the one to regulate guns since what San Francisco does regarding firearms affects other municipalities in the state.

Naturally, proponents of the gun ban are considering an appeal:

City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office defended Prop. H, will decide whether to appeal the ruling in the next day or two, said spokesman Matt Dorsey.

"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on the possession of handguns,'' Dorsey said.

Supervisor Chris Daly, a chief sponsor of Prop. H, urged Herrera to appeal and criticized Warren. The judge "sided with the powerful gun lobby against the safety of San Franciscans'' after showing "disregard for the voters of San Francisco'' by taking nearly three months to rule, Daly said.

You gotta' love how spokesman Matt Dorsey -- in common with so many anti-gun types -- refers to a total ban on handgun ownership as "reasonable" and a "narrowly tailored restriction". How is an outright ban somehow a "narrowly tailored restriction"? Jeez.

While the crunchy granola liberals of of San Francisco might be dissappointed by the ruling, it's important to remember that as the LA Times points out:

San Francisco's ban also was opposed by the San Francisco Police Officers Assn., which said the new law nullified "the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense purposes."

It's too soon for the main stream media to weigh in with their editorials of outrage at the judge's decision but I thought it might be interesting to see what moonbats on the left are thinking. You know what? Some aren't so "batty" after all! Most of the comments support the judge and not Proposition H, with notable exceptions from a "MrBenchley" and "BillBuckHead". From the Democratic Underground, here's a sampling from both sides:

MrBenchley
16. Since there is no individual right to RKBA in the US Constitution
except in the wet dreams of speciments like John AshKKKroft and Grover Norquist, it comes down to the willingness of Republicans to pander to the corrupt gun industry.

slackmaster
18. Whether there is or isn't one is irrelevant to this discussion

This is about the city of San Francisco going against the laws of the state of California. California has some of the toughest gun regulations in the country, and cities don't have the power to override state regulations. The situation with Proposition H is legally no different from a city in the Inland Empire deciding to legalize sales of "assault weapons" to its citizens.

MrBenchley
19. Of course, it's not irrelevant

"This is about the city of San Francisco going against the laws of the state of California."
No, it's about the corrupt gun industry thwarting the will of the people.

slackmaster
4. The will of the people of the state overrides the will of the people of SF
You are free to ban guns from your home or business or other private property, but not from your city. That is the law.

This decision is correct, and was fully expected by the people who pushed Proposition H.

ETA this was a terrible law in many respects, including its lack of due process - People who already owned handguns were supposed to turn them in to police without any kind of compensation. That would have failed Constitutional muster in the state courts even if the state preemption hadn't killed this misguided turkey.

billbuckhead
51. Ad hominem attacks?
Americans deserve the right to be as free as possible from guns like our brothers and sisters in the advanced world.

The rotting reichwing misinterpretation of the second amendment will still be standing after all America's real civil rights are long gone. Hell, even Saddam left gun sales pretty much open.

slackmaster
66. Non sequiturs, red herrings, and straw men?
San Francisco's gun ban was unconstitutional for the same reason those marriage licenses Mayor Newsome issued to gay couples last year were bogus. It has nothing to do with the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, or federal law in general. This is a state matter, not a federal one.

Why do you keep trying to make a Second Amendment issue out of it? Your post makes no sense, billbuckhead.

MrBenchley
68. The system is gamed by the corrupt gun industry
"the right to enact gun control laws that differ from those of the state has been curtailed"
On behalf of the scum of the earth.

slackmaster
76. MrBenchley has wandered off into the weeds
California's preemption of local firearms regulations has nothing whatsoever, historically or otherwise, to do with "gaming" by or on behalf of the gun industry.

Here is the applicable section of the California Government Code:

53071. It is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole
field of regulation of the registration or licensing of commercially
manufactured firearms as encompassed by the provisions of the Penal
Code, and such provisions shall be exclusive of all local
regulations, relating to registration or licensing of commercially
manufactured firearms, by any political subdivision as defined in
Section 1721 of the Labor Code.

53071.5. By the enforcement of this section, the Legislature
occupies the whole field of regulation of the manufacture, sale, or
possession of imitation firearms, as defined in Section 12550 of the
Penal Code, and that section shall preempt and be exclusive of all
regulations relating to the manufacture, sale, or possession of
imitation firearms, including regulations governing the manufacture,
sale, or possession of BB devices and air rifles described in
subdivision (g) of Section 12001 of the Penal Code....

It's a clarification of the scope of the California Penal Code, a consolidation of state legislative power and licensing authority; not some kind of underhanded nod to gun manufacturers or the NRA or GOP or the Illuminati.

Solo_in_MD
30.  No it would not
since those who buy guns legally via an FFL holder are very rarely the ones committing crimes with guns. Straw purchases and such are a minimal fraction of overall sales.

Gun laws are already pretty onerous in most places. CA and for that matter NYC do not need more, they need to enforce the ones they have. DC needs to restore basic freedoms to their residents, including the right to own rifles and handguns legally. Its one of many reasons I don't live there, though it would be more convenient in many respects.

hogwyld
27. What we need
Is for every Democrat/Green to move in to puke strongholds. Throw out the bums, and enact a statewide ban on ANY firearms. We'll go state to state, and hopefully, if '08 is good, we can ban them with an amendment. Friggin' blood sucking gun/NRA lobby. The will of the people must reign supreme!

D__S
37. And if the "Will of the People"...
decides to ban gay marriage or ban/place restrictions on abortion, where will you run to then?

NickB79
60. Why do you think every Dem/Green supports banning firearms?
Most Dems I know are fine with people owning firearms as long as they are not barred by law from owning them (ie felons, child molesters, wife beaters, etc).

Any constitutional amendment to ban firearms ownership nationwide would backfire so badly that the Democartic party would likely be crippled for decades. Can you imagine the field day the NRA would have with that one? Their enrollment would balloon virtually overnight and tens of millions of dollars would pour into their pockets. That would play right into their hands by proving true all the BS they've claimed so far about "liberal politicians out to get Dad's deer rifle, Grandpa's duck gun, or the .22 you have for keeping rabbits out of your garden."  

Solo_in_MD
63. Because all of the recent anti gun hysteria has started with Dems
here in the US, and there has been way too much of it.

NRA has argued that in some races, gun rights became the pivot point, or drew enough conservative voters to the polls that unrelated issues/people went down to defeat. While there are lots of way to interpret voting results, clearly it has had some effect, just ask Tom Bradley (Prop 15 which he supported was cited as one of the major reasons he lost. Some claimed racism, but clearly it brought out many more conservatives than normal who in turn voted for Bradley's opponent in the CA governors race)

Some of the noise being made by Wash DC pols is stupefying in its idiocy. Bloomberg is the first repuke I recall going over the top WRT to silly gun laws. Its much more common on our side of the aisle. Just look at some of the comments being made in this thread and in the Gungeon.

Pachamama
72. This was the right decision - I agree with this judge completely!

While I love my dear city of San Francisco and respect the desire of voters, I have to respectfully disagree with this ban and was glad to hear of this ruling today.

We can't pick and choose which of our Constitutional Amendments we will adhere to...I protect all the amendments and the entire Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and the right to arms are very important.

Maybe someday my fellow San Franciscans will who voted for this law as well as any American who opposes the right for someone to own a weapon for protection, will understand this - especially when they see how dangerous a fascist gov't is. Our founders understood this.

My purpose in showing this thread is to point out that not all liberals or Democrats are anti-gun or gun ownership. As blogger Pro-Gun Progressive demonstrates, even such lefties as Josh Marshall and Kos seem to support, or at least aren't against gun ownership.

I really think Democrats are missing the boat (and losing many elections) by beating their chests everytime one of our rights are threatened -- except when it's our right to bear arms. Trying to hide your real intentions behind labels such as "sensible gun control" and "narrow restrictions" and "common sense regulations" isn't going to cut it with gun owners anymore than trying to throttle the 1st Amendment cuts it with anyone in the media.

Crime on the rise. Reversing the trend of the past few years, violent crime is rising in parts (only in parts, mind you) of the U.S. From the AP:

Murders, robberies and aggravated assaults in the United States increased last year, spurring an overall rise in violent crime for the first time since 2001, according to FBI data.

Murders rose 4.8 percent, meaning there were more than 16,900 victims in 2005. That would be the most since 1998 and the largest percentage increase in 15 years.

Murders jumped from 272 to 334 in Houston, a 23 percent spike; from 330 to 377 in Philadelphia, a 14 percent rise; and from 131 to 144 in Las Vegas, a 10 percent increase.

Despite the national numbers, Detroit, Los Angeles and New York were among several large cities that saw the number of murders drop.

The overall increase in violent crime was modest, 2.5 percent, which equates to more than 1.4 million crimes. Nevertheless, that was the largest percentage increase since 1991.

The FBI data, compiled from reports by more than 12,000 law enforcement agencies, does not contain overall crime numbers in any category nor does it offer any explanation for the changes. The FBI's final annual crime report comes out in the fall.

Criminal justice experts said the statistics reflect the nation's complacency in fighting crime, a product of dramatic declines in the 1990s and the abandonment of effective programs that emphasized prevention, more police officers and gun control.

"We see that budgets for policing are being slashed and the federal government has gotten out of that business," said James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University in Boston. "Funding for prevention at the federal level and many localities are down and the (National Rifle Association) has renewed strength."

I'm sorry, what was that last remark? What does the NRA have to do with crime rates? How are they connected to federal funding of crime prevention? What an astonishingly gratuitous comment. I can understand how a liberal hack such as Fox would utter it. I just can't fathom why the AP reporter would repeat it.

I think that when the final report by the FBI is released, the media will understand what many of us, and almost everyone living in urban areas already know: Street gangs are out of control again. Membership declinded for a while but that has all changed. There are now violent gangs in almost every city and even many medium sized (30-60k population) towns. They are composed of drug dealing, unsupervised teens and young adults who have no compunction about stealing, mugging, and killing. They use illegal guns in those crimes, too. I guarantee that if you ask the average cop on the street, they'll agree with me.

The increase in the murder rate in cities such as Boston, Hartford, CT, and San Francisco are directly the result of street gang activity. That's the first problem. Ordinarily, the solution would be to arrest these punks and mutants. Cops are doing that. So why is crime still going up? Because the courts are refusing to mete out meaningful sentences. Even after arrests for violent crimes, these thugs are back out on the streets within days or weeks. A week, or a month in jail is NO DETERRENT. Got that? If anything, it gives them bragging rights!

I keep saying this (and yes, I know I'm preaching to the choir...) but until society decides to spend money to build more jails, and judges decide to put these mutants away forever, or nearly forever, we as a nation will find no relief from violent crime. Put a Punk in the Pokey Permanently (my new slogan for the day) and you'll see crime rates start to drop.

Update: USA Today says I'm right:

The nation's violent-crime rate increased in 2005 for the first time in five years, the FBI said Monday in a report that reflected in part what crime analysts say is a resurgence in gang activity, particularly in the Midwest.

[...]

Oklahoma City police cited fighting among rival gangs as a major factor in the jump in homicides there, from 39 in 2004 to 54 last year. As a result, police Sgt. Paco Balderrama says, the department is beefing up its anti-gang units: "We're working gangs every night."

Am I wrong to be thinking to myself, 'If it's just gang members killing gang members, who cares?', because that's how I feel. The badness comes when innocents are caught in the crossfire. More on the gang related nature of the increase here.

Justified Shooting Files. Today's comes from KTHV TV (Arkansas):

The Logan County sheriff says a homeowner who shot an alleged intruder was most likely justified in the shooting.

Sheriff Mark Limbird says Casey Steele Weber, 22, went to the home early Saturday and demanded to see a person who did not live there. The homeowner told Weber that no one by that name lived at the home but Weber insisted.

Two girls between ages 9 and 12, the homeowner's daughter and her cousin, were awakened and the homeowner hid them in a bathroom.

Limbird says that when Weber broke a window the homeowner fired a shotgun, inflicting a fatal wound.

The case is still under review but this shows exactly why misguided bans on law-abiding gun ownership can't work. What if this homeowner wasn't armed? What would have happened to him and the two girls? Do we really want to even think about that? That's exactly what the Brady Bunch would like you to do and that brings us to...

"Stand Your Ground" in Florida. With a hat-tip to blogger Say Uncle, I see the Orlando Sentinal is doing their best to paint the Castle Doctrine law there as flawed at best:

...Brady is one of at least 13 people in Central Florida who pulled the trigger this year under a new law that loosens restrictions on the use of deadly force in self-defense.

They killed six men and wounded four more. All but one of the people shot were unarmed. So far, three of the shooters have been charged. Five have been cleared; the other cases are under review.

It is too early to tell whether the law makes Floridians safer or puts them at greater risk. There are no statistics on the number of self-defense claims statewide before or after the law took effect Oct. 1.

But an Orlando Sentinel review of five months of court records in Orange, Osceola, Lake, Polk, Seminole and Volusia counties shows widespread differences in the way claims are investigated and prosecuted.

The head of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association said the law has given people who are too quick to fire a weapon "another defense."

"In my mind, it was an unnecessary law," association President Bruce Colton said.

Critics of the "Stand Your Ground" law -- which created nationwide controversy -- predicted recklessness and a bloody outcome last fall when Florida became the first state to enact it.

[...]

With the changes, Florida dropped its longstanding requirement for anyone facing a threat of death or serious harm to try to retreat before responding with deadly force. Prosecutors and law-enforcement officials opposed the move.

[...]

In Washington, D.C., the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says every self-defense claim should be evaluated.

"What we're concerned about is that people heard about this new law and said, 'OK, the government is telling us we can stand our ground and never back off,' " said organization spokesman Peter Hamm. "Sometimes retreat really is the best reaction."

Really? No thanks. I will not retreat from attacks upon my life, my home, my possessions, my family, my children, my friends. I should not have to hide, or flea, or beg for my life. I will use every legal means to protect myself and if the Brady Bunch doesn't like it, they can go -- oops! I forgot, this is my Weekly Report and I try to keep it unranty. That's a new word I just made up.

Interesting that the Orlando Sentinal notes that -- in fact -- there ARE NO STATISTICS indicating whether the Stand Your Ground bill has had an actual affect on defensive shooting rates. But that doesn't stop them or the Brady Bunch from claiming there's a river of blood in the streets.

Notice how the Orlando Sentinal slants things right from the start by referring to people who used firearms to protect themselves as having "killed six". Incidentally, if the law is bad, then why are several of the cases under review, and some of the defenders under arrest? That would seem to belie the claim that the law gives people carte blanche to shoot first and ask questions later.

Special Privileges. Ordinarily, I'd enjoy the LA Times story about pistol-packing Los Angeles Councilman Dennis Zine:

Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine became a police officer in 1968. He was elected to the council in 2001, and these days his goal is to teach his colleagues how to shoot straight.

Zine, who represents the southwestern San Fernando Valley, still serves as a reserve Los Angeles Police Department officer two days each month, a job that means he's working for an agency that the council helps oversee. From his dual perspectives, Zine believes that too many of his council brethren know too little about guns.

"This is about educating my colleagues," Zine said. "I'm not trying to turn them into people who like guns. I want to show them the realities of guns because they have to vote on settlements on officer-involved shootings."

Several weeks ago, Zine took council President Eric Garcetti shooting at the Police Academy in Elysian Park. More recently, a Times reporter accompanied Councilman Kojak on a lunch-hour training session for Councilman Jose Huizar, bringing up the question …

Question: Will Huizar be joining SWAT anytime soon?

Answer: "For the record, I don't like guns," Huizar said as Zine pulled from the back of his SUV a duffel bag containing three handguns, including a snub-nosed .38, a .45 and a 9 millimeter. Zine made it clear that he sometimes brings a gun into City Hall and even council chambers.

Zine said he did so for reasons of protection and that he had received death threats in the past.

"It has been in chambers on occasion, but it's concealed — you couldn't tell I had it on me," Zine said. "You never know when something might happen. I don't want to have to run home or to the station to get my weapon. I'm not an NRA member. I consider myself very reasonable and use common sense."

Indeed, LAPD rules allow off-duty officers — and that includes reserve officers — to carry their weapons. ...

I'll tell you what's bothering me (aside from the usual slight that he's not an NRA member, he's "reasonable"). By virtue of his status as a reserve law enforcement officer, he is able to protect himself with a concealed carry handgun when he's at City Hall and "in chambers". Are ordinary citizens allowed the same privilege? No.

Folks, I am a firm believer that no one who makes or enforces our laws or determines how we have to live should have more rights than anyone else. Everyone, cop or not, councilman or not, should have the right to self-protection. If the laws and regulations are good enough for us, they should be applied to those who apply them as well. Any other arrangement is pure hypocrisy.

I guess I'll post this now. Naturally I'll be discussing it all this afternoon on the Cam Edwards - NRA News Show and as always, I thank you for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at June 13, 2006 07:29 AM