BELLEVUE, WA – The California Supreme Court made the right decision in rejecting an appeal by the City of San Francisco that sought to uphold its handgun ban, the Second Amendment Foundation said.
SAF was joined in a lawsuit against the handgun ban by the National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, California Association of Firearms Retailers and San Francisco residents. The lawsuit was filed just days after voters in the city passed Proposition H in November 2005.
“How many times must the courts tell the City of San Francisco that it cannot pass this kind of a Draconian measure,” wondered SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “This lawsuit essentially followed the same legal path as SAF’s earlier lawsuit against the city and then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, which also struck down a gun ban. We plowed this legal ground more than 20 years ago, and nothing has changed. We are proud to have been part of a team effort this time around that reinforces SAF’s original victory.
“The fact that the State Supreme Court unanimously decided to reject the city’s appeal will hopefully send a message that it cannot place the burden of crime reduction on the backs of law-abiding citizens,” he stated.
“Frankly, we were disappointed that this legal battle ever had to be fought,” Gottlieb continued. “We told the city early in 2005, before the measure was placed on the ballot, that this issue had already been decided by the courts, and that if they pursued this ban we would bring legal action. We weren’t bluffing, and neither were our friends at the NRA, LEAA and the California Retailers.
“This lengthy legal battle should not have been necessary,” he concluded. “It took up valuable time in an already-clogged California court system, and it wasted a considerable amount of public money and resources when the outcome was predictable. If the city truly is seeking solutions to a crime problem, we would be happy to sit down and work with them. Crime is everybody’s problem, and we should be working together, instead of fighting each other in court, because it accomplished nothing.”