Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/29/2005 1:30:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 1:30:44 PM EDT by motown_steve]

SAN FRANCISCO - The city of San Francisco and the National Rifle Association reached a deal Wednesday under which city officials will delay enforcement of part of a voter-approved handgun ban.

ADVERTISEMENT

Voters on Nov. 8 approved banning the sale and possession of handguns in the city. Residents must get rid of their weapons by April 1. But the NRA and city agreed to extend from Jan. 1 to March 1 the deadline for banning sales.

In exchange, the NRA agreed to drop its bid for a temporary restraining order and will instead have the issue litigated in court, which should resolve it more quickly.

The measure was put on the ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, which was frustrated by the number of gun-related homicides. About 58 percent of voters approved it.




link


Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:33:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 1:35:34 PM EDT by lordtrader]
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:34:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lordtrader:
NRA loves to make deals with CA law makers.



Ya there getting rather damn good at it!
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:35:05 PM EDT
I'd like to say something pithy like: "This is chess, not checkers."

But, I'm feel more depressed, so I'll say "I'm glad my EPL payment is going to good use."
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:35:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:36:25 PM EDT
Dealing with the Devil only benefits the Devil, San Francisco is a lost cause.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:37:41 PM EDT

In exchange, the NRA agreed to drop its bid for a temporary restraining order and will instead have the issue litigated in court, which should resolve it more quickly.


Did you guys miss that part?

Seems the NRA wants to take this to court. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:39:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:41:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:42:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:42:35 PM EDT
For Pete's sake, read the article.


The "deal" is this: the city will delay enforcement of the ban, and in "return" the NRA will not seek a temporary injunction, but will proceed directly to final resolution of the issue. If the NRA had pursued the injunction and won, the result would have been

. . . . <drum roll for people who confuse knee-jerk cynicism with intelligent insight> . . . .

delay of enforcement of the ban until final resolution of the issue.

The result is that neither side has to pay lawyers to litigate entitlement to the temporary injunction. The NRA gets what it would have gotten had it won at the preliminary stage, and the city won't be enforcing the ban unless it wins a final judgment.

Good grief! What the hell is wrong with you people?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:43:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 1:43:20 PM EDT by redfisher]
I really hate hearing this and I don't live in Kali

It doesn't matter though, because if politicians think Kali's law works, it will spread like a bad case of the clap.

I cannot decide which visual aide belongs with this post.........

This one........



or this one!

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:46:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
For Pete's sake, read the article.


The "deal" is this: the city will delay enforcement of the ban, and in "return" the NRA will not seek a temporary injunction, but will proceed directly to final resolution of the issue. If the NRA had pursued the injunction and won, the result would have been

. . . . <drum roll for people who confuse knee-jerk cynicism with intelligent insight> . . . .

delay of enforcement of the ban until final resolution of the issue.

The result is that neither side has to pay lawyers to litigate entitlement to the temporary injunction. The NRA gets what it would have gotten had it won at the preliminary stage, and the city won't be enforcing the ban unless it wins a final judgment.

Good grief! What the hell is wrong with you people?


The probelm is that too many people don't have the first clue in hell about how our legal system works, they suffer a severe lack of reading comprehension skills, and have an attention span no longer than 10 seconds.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:47:01 PM EDT
All those of you who think you know how to deal with this better than the NRA's lawyers, step up to the plate.

Any takers?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:47:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
For Pete's sake, read the article.


The "deal" is this: the city will delay enforcement of the ban, and in "return" the NRA will not seek a temporary injunction, but will proceed directly to final resolution of the issue. If the NRA had pursued the injunction and won, the result would have been

. . . . <drum roll for people who confuse knee-jerk cynicism with intelligent insight> . . . .

delay of enforcement of the ban until final resolution of the issue.

The result is that neither side has to pay lawyers to litigate entitlement to the temporary injunction. The NRA gets what it would have gotten had it won at the preliminary stage, and the city won't be enforcing the ban unless it wins a final judgment.

Good grief! What the hell is wrong with you people?


The probelm is that too many people don't have the first clue in hell about how our legal system works, they suffer a severe lack of reading comprehension skills, and have an attention span no longer than 10 seconds.



Exactly.

And, it's a lot more fun to holler "The NRA isn't doing anything!!!", than it is to actually understand what's going on.

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:47:52 PM EDT
Maybe somebody can find a copy of the Constitution. It is doubtful anybody there can read, so it should be on a cd. Refer them to the silly part, since we are in the land of sillies, that says something about some creator, oops, they don't have creators there, and protecting those rights...oops again, only THEY have rights. On the other hand, maybe we could just vote away their right to vote...naaaaah!
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:48:21 PM EDT
Sounds like the NRA made a smart move to me, and saved a buch of money.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:48:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
For Pete's sake, read the article.


The "deal" is this: the city will delay enforcement of the ban, and in "return" the NRA will not seek a temporary injunction, but will proceed directly to final resolution of the issue. If the NRA had pursued the injunction and won, the result would have been

. . . . <drum roll for people who confuse knee-jerk cynicism with intelligent insight> . . . .

delay of enforcement of the ban until final resolution of the issue.

The result is that neither side has to pay lawyers to litigate entitlement to the temporary injunction. The NRA gets what it would have gotten had it won at the preliminary stage, and the city won't be enforcing the ban unless it wins a final judgment.

Good grief! What the hell is wrong with you people?


The probelm is that too many people don't have the first clue in hell about how our legal system works, they suffer a severe lack of reading comprehension skills, and have an attention span no longer than 10 seconds.



Thanks FLAL1A.

I heard this on the radio this AM and I KNEW people would freak out over it without justificaiton.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:49:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:50:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:51:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:54:55 PM EDT
Shall not be infringed my ass!
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:57:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 2:23:05 PM EDT by JohnTheTexican]

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

In exchange, the NRA agreed to drop its bid for a temporary restraining order and will instead have the issue litigated in court, which should resolve it more quickly.


Did you guys miss that part?

Seems the NRA wants to take this to court. Sounds like a good plan to me.




I have to agree with Old Painless on this. A temporary restraining order is, as the name implies, temporary, and their deal with the city gives them temporary relief. Regardless of whether they get their temporary relief from a TRO or a deal with the city, they're still going to have to go to court and get a permanent injunction.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:57:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
For Pete's sake, read the article.


The "deal" is this: the city will delay enforcement of the ban, and in "return" the NRA will not seek a temporary injunction, but will proceed directly to final resolution of the issue. If the NRA had pursued the injunction and won, the result would have been

. . . . <drum roll for people who confuse knee-jerk cynicism with intelligent insight> . . . .

delay of enforcement of the ban until final resolution of the issue.

The result is that neither side has to pay lawyers to litigate entitlement to the temporary injunction. The NRA gets what it would have gotten had it won at the preliminary stage, and the city won't be enforcing the ban unless it wins a final judgment.

Good grief! What the hell is wrong with you people?



60 days. They got a 60 day extention on sales of handguns and in return San Francisco doesn't have to go into court with an injunction already slapped on them. The NRA should not have made this deal. They should not have given the San Francisco city attorney one inch of wiggle room. They should have held the enemy's nose to the fire and not let up until they had total victory. Now, the City of San Francisco doesn't have to spend it's money fighting the injunction and the trial and they can focus all of their efforts on preparing for the trail itself. I don't think that it was worth it. An injuction would have been a small legal victory, a huge PR victory and it would have put San Fran on worse footing.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:59:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 2:01:01 PM EDT by lordtrader]
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:00:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
All those of you who think you know how to deal with this better than the NRA's lawyers, step up to the plate.

Any takers?



Yeah, where are all the other firearm advocacy groups?



There are gun advocacy groups who have joined this suit, along with about half a dozen individuals. The NRA was the only group going after the injunction though (probably due to the fact that they have the most money).
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:01:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

SAN FRANCISCO - The city of San Francisco and the National Rifle Association reached a deal Wednesday under which city officials will delay enforcement of part of a voter-approved handgun ban.

ADVERTISEMENT

Voters on Nov. 8 approved banning the sale and possession of handguns in the city. Residents must get rid of their weapons by April 1. But the NRA and city agreed to extend from Jan. 1 to March 1 the deadline for banning sales.

In exchange, the NRA agreed to drop its bid for a temporary restraining order and will instead have the issue litigated in court, which should resolve it more quickly.

The measure was put on the ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, which was frustrated by the number of gun-related homicides. About 58 percent of voters approved it.




link






Ya know, I am too.....at the NRA for wasting more money in CA instead of states where there is a better chance of getting some return on the money. Such as federal law requiring all state to recognize CC permits.


Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:06:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
The deal is that the city agreed not to enforce the ordnance and the NRA agreed not to push for the temporary injunction. The net result is that this will go to trial faster and the NRA is on solid legal ground since California has a pre emption law prohibiting cities from doing what SF did. In short, they saved alot of time and money to get to the final conclusion that is inevitably in favor of gun owners.


What he said. ^
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:11:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 2:20:43 PM EDT by red65]

Gun owners that HATE the NRA are... beyond words.

I cannot understand this. It's completely senseless in every way.

Can you guys comprehend that you can support the NRA even if the NRA is not perfect?

Don't you realize that not joining the NRA is self-defeating?

Did you know that you can disagree witht the NRA without wanting to see it destroyed?

Are you aware that the NRA is the most powerful pro-gun organization on earth and is a feared opponent of liberal scum in washington?

Did you ever take a chance and see what happens if you stick junk mail directly into your trash can?

Apparently not!

WTF
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:13:44 PM EDT
IF, when the city and the NRA first went to court over the injunction, the city made an offer to the court to delay the date the law becomes effective, accepting it was probably the only thing the NRA could do without incurring the wrath of the judge who would have seen it correctly as accomplishing the same thing without the court time.

True, an injunction could have been a positive but it's nearly certain this will be thrown out. The city will not put a lot into this via legal time. They've gotten the "message" out that people in SF don't want guns in their city and damn it......they FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:21:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 2:22:48 PM EDT by El_Abogado]

Originally Posted By lordtrader:
NRA loves to make deals with CA law makers. They make a deal then write to the members and say we did our best. We need more money please to help fight these tyrrants. BASTARDS!!



Did you comprehend the words in the post on the suit, numbnuts? The NRA's deal was a smart litigation move. If you don't like the NRA, good for you, but think through what you type before you post next time. . . .

ETA: What law school did you go to again?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:24:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By red65:
Gun owners that HATE the NRA are... beyond words.

I cannot understand this. It's completely senseless in every way.

Can you guys comprehend that you can support the NRA even if the NRA is not perfect?

Don't you realize that not joining the NRA is self-defeating?

Did you know that you can disagree witht the NRA without wanting to see it destroyed?

Are you aware that the NRA is the most powerful pro-gun organization on earth and is a feared opponent of liberal scum in washington?

Did you ever take a chance and see what happens if you stick junk mail directly into your trash can?

Apparently not!

WTF



I'm a member of the NRA and I support them. However, I think that this was a terrible decision.

The "with us always or against us always" types can go take a long walk off a short pier!
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:53:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By red65:
Gun owners that HATE the NRA are... beyond words.

I cannot understand this. It's completely senseless in every way.

Can you guys comprehend that you can support the NRA even if the NRA is not perfect?

Don't you realize that not joining the NRA is self-defeating?

Did you know that you can disagree witht the NRA without wanting to see it destroyed?

Are you aware that the NRA is the most powerful pro-gun organization on earth and is a feared opponent of liberal scum in washington?

Did you ever take a chance and see what happens if you stick junk mail directly into your trash can?

Apparently not!

WTF



I'm a member of the NRA and I support them. However, I think that this was a terrible decision.

The "with us always or against us always" types can go take a long walk off a short pier!



I'm not any particular type of NRA guy.

Disagree with the NRA all you want. That's healthy for any organization. Give them a call. Raise hell. get involved.

But these gun guys who hate the NRA and want everyone to quit... what can you say? It is literally stupid beyond words.

It simply is amazing that anyone can be that dumb. I'm not trying to insult people, I'm just calling the idea what it is. Amazingly dumb.

I walked into a store yesterday, legally carrying a concealed pistol. People in other countries cannot even own guns. And you guys want the NRA to die because of a few screw ups or some annoying junk mail.

That is a totally stupid idea.

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:57:07 PM EDT
I am a life member of the NRA. I support whatever they think will work for our rights in the long run, although I hate compromises.

That said, where is our Fed Gov. in defending the 2nd amendment? Shouldn't the Feds be wire tapping these SF idiots and maybe send in troops to defend the CA's constituitional rights? How is the NRA going to do it all? I guess treason of the Constitution is ok in cities now?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:05:52 PM EDT
I don't know which is worst. San Franciso(Sodom) or Los Angeles(Gomorrah) .

Each have their owns issues and problems, and Society gets its coruption from these two..

But Its OK.. When that big chunk of land on the big island of Hawaii slips into the ocean, both will cease to be a problem just like Sodom and Gomorrah. Lets just let nature take her course.

As for the NRA. I stopped beinga member and donating to the legal division when the top members screwed over the owners of AR-15's, SKS, AKS , and high volume target shooters. The California division seems like a bunch moderates.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:14:24 PM EDT
Sadly, this thread shows how many folks here read only the subject line before posting their comments.

This move was a legal victory by the NRA for the gun owners in San Francisco. Please read the article before going off half-cocked.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:15:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:25:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Win_88:
I don't know which is worst. San Franciso(Sodom) or Los Angeles(Gomorrah) .

Each have their owns issues and problems, and Society gets its coruption from these two..

But Its OK.. When that big chunk of land on the big island of Hawaii slips into the ocean, both will cease to be a problem just like Sodom and Gomorrah. Lets just let nature take her course.

As for the NRA. I stopped beinga member and donating to the legal division when the top members screwed over the owners of AR-15's, SKS, AKS , and high volume target shooters. The California division seems like a bunch moderates.



And this helped the situation exactly how?

Think it over, I believe that your complaint is justified but your response to the problem is self-defeating.

The end of the NRA will be a total disaster for us, no matter what the circumstances.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:29:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Fat_McNasty:

Originally Posted By lordtrader:
NRA loves to make deals with CA law makers.



Ya there getting rather damn good at it!



Ummm, I read this.

In exchange, the NRA agreed to drop its bid for a temporary restraining order and will instead have the issue litigated in court, which should resolve it more quickly.

Don't see how that is any kind of a sell out.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:35:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

In exchange, the NRA agreed to drop its bid for a temporary restraining order and will instead have the issue litigated in court, which should resolve it more quickly.


Did you guys miss that part?

Seems the NRA wants to take this to court. Sounds like a good plan to me.




+1 sounds like the NRA did a good thing to get it resolved faster. And it will save them money right?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:47:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By red65:

Originally Posted By Win_88:
I don't know which is worst. San Franciso(Sodom) or Los Angeles(Gomorrah) .

Each have their owns issues and problems, and Society gets its coruption from these two..

But Its OK.. When that big chunk of land on the big island of Hawaii slips into the ocean, both will cease to be a problem just like Sodom and Gomorrah. Lets just let nature take her course.

As for the NRA. I stopped beinga member and donating to the legal division when the top members screwed over the owners of AR-15's, SKS, AKS , and high volume target shooters. The California division seems like a bunch moderates.



And this helped the situation exactly how?

Think it over, I believe that your complaint is justified but your response to the problem is self-defeating.

The end of the NRA will be a total disaster for us, no matter what the circumstances.




Would you give your hard earned money to a group that betrays your confidence in them?

Hey.. If you have that much money to throw away , I'm willing to bet that other members here can use it.
If the National division isn't rolling their eyes over that wimpy agreement by the California NRA representatives, they deserve more criticism.

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:50:53 PM EDT
I don't see what the NRA did wrong. They could have gone to court to get a temp. injunction at a great cost for lawers etc... and in the end the judge could have ruled agenst the NRA and the law would take effect. Or the NRA could agree not to go to court and save lots of money, and they are assured they get the law put off untill this can go to court and be resolved. It is a win win situation for the NRA anyway you look at it. It couldn't be farther from a sell out in any way.

Way to go NRA!
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:29:01 PM EDT
The NRA going to California is like the Fire Department going to a house fire after the owner has already let his neighbor burn it to the ground while he stood by and watched.

I'd prefer the NRA didn't spend a dime of my money on a lost cause.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:32:21 PM EDT
HERE I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE LARGER SO PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY READ IT


Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
For Pete's sake, read the article.


The "deal" is this: the city will delay enforcement of the ban, and in "return" the NRA will not seek a temporary injunction, but will proceed directly to final resolution of the issue. If the NRA had pursued the injunction and won, the result would have been

. . . . <drum roll for people who confuse knee-jerk cynicism with intelligent insight> . . . .

delay of enforcement of the ban until final resolution of the issue.

The result is that neither side has to pay lawyers to litigate entitlement to the temporary injunction. The NRA gets what it would have gotten had it won at the preliminary stage, and the city won't be enforcing the ban unless it wins a final judgment.
Good grief! What the hell is wrong with you people?

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:35:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lordtrader:
NRA loves to make deals with CA law makers. They make a deal then write to the members and say we did our best. We need more money please to help fight these tyrrants. BASTARDS!!



What have you, personally, ACCOMPLISHED in the Second Amendment fight in California?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:52:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By red65:

Originally Posted By Win_88:
I don't know which is worst. San Franciso(Sodom) or Los Angeles(Gomorrah) .

Each have their owns issues and problems, and Society gets its coruption from these two..

But Its OK.. When that big chunk of land on the big island of Hawaii slips into the ocean, both will cease to be a problem just like Sodom and Gomorrah. Lets just let nature take her course.

As for the NRA. I stopped beinga member and donating to the legal division when the top members screwed over the owners of AR-15's, SKS, AKS , and high volume target shooters. The California division seems like a bunch moderates.



And this helped the situation exactly how?

Think it over, I believe that your complaint is justified but your response to the problem is self-defeating.

The end of the NRA will be a total disaster for us, no matter what the circumstances.



I don't think so, there are many suporters of the second that would be looking for a place to hand thier dollars to, next up in clout would be the GOA, a much better 2nd ammendment org IMHO.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:57:11 PM EDT
the only "deal" the NRA should have agreed to was the nullification of the law altogether on grounds that it violates the 2nd Amendment



although sometimes compromise results in a fair balance, it never does when dealing with anti-gun laws
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:01:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sharky30:
the only "deal" the NRA should have agreed to was the nullification of the law altogether on grounds that it violates the 2nd Amendment

www.upalliance.org/comprom.jpg

although sometimes compromise results in a fair balance, it never does when dealing with anti-gun laws



LMAO, how much time did you spend making that chart? It doesn't make any sense.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:04:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sharky30:
the only "deal" the NRA should have agreed to was the nullification of the law altogether on grounds that it violates the 2nd Amendment

www.upalliance.org/comprom.jpg

although sometimes compromise results in a fair balance, it never does when dealing with anti-gun laws



What have you, personally, ACCOMPLISHED in the Second Amendment fight in New York?

Besides making charts, I mean.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:06:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Riotgun:

Originally Posted By sharky30:
the only "deal" the NRA should have agreed to was the nullification of the law altogether on grounds that it violates the 2nd Amendment

www.upalliance.org/comprom.jpg

although sometimes compromise results in a fair balance, it never does when dealing with anti-gun laws



What have you, personally, ACCOMPLISHED in the Second Amendment fight in New York?

Besides making charts, I mean.



You keep moving the goalposts.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:06:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
For Pete's sake, read the article.


The "deal" is this: the city will delay enforcement of the ban, and in "return" the NRA will not seek a temporary injunction, but will proceed directly to final resolution of the issue. If the NRA had pursued the injunction and won, the result would have been

. . . . <drum roll for people who confuse knee-jerk cynicism with intelligent insight> . . . .

delay of enforcement of the ban until final resolution of the issue.

The result is that neither side has to pay lawyers to litigate entitlement to the temporary injunction. The NRA gets what it would have gotten had it won at the preliminary stage, and the city won't be enforcing the ban unless it wins a final judgment.

Good grief! What the hell is wrong with you people?



Glad I wasn't the only one left thinking "So what" when I read this 'horrible' news.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top