UPDATE: SF GUN BAN OPPONENTS SAY IT WOULD AFFECT THEATRICAL PRODUCTIONS
12/28/05 8:05 PST
SAN FRANCISCO (BCN)

An attorney for the National Rifle Association and other groups who are challenging San Francisco's handgun ban said today that it would affect theatrical and movie productions and result in a loss of revenue for the city.

Chuck Michel, a Long Beach attorney who represents five groups and seven individuals who are challenging Proposition H, a measure passed by San Francisco voters in the Nov. 8 special election, said it also would impact auction houses that sell antique guns.

But Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said Michel's statement "is just ridiculous" and alleged that "the NRA is grasping at pretty absurd arguments."

Dorsey said the law "won't be shutting down the opera because they use toy guns."

Michel and Dorsey traded barbs on a day when the city attorney and those who are suing the city reached an agreement that delays the implementation of part of the law and aims to streamline the process via which opponents are challenging the law.

The plaintiffs, who include the San Francisco Police Officers Association and the Second Amendment Foundation in addition to the NRA, agreed to refrain from seeking a temporary restraining order and agreed to a briefing schedule that assures a hearing on the merits of the law in mid-February.

Proposition H, which was approved by San Francisco voters by a margin of 58 to 42 percent on Nov. 8, had been scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.

But under the agreement announced today, part of the ordinance won't go into effect until March 1.

Herrera said the agreement will delay for two months the city's enforcement of Section 2 of the measure, which bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and distribution of firearms within the city and county of San Francisco.

Herrera said the measure's other substantive provision -- banning handgun possession by city residents other than peace officers and those requiring the weapons for professional purposes -- already gives residents until April 1 to turn in their weapons.

Michel said the ban against transferring firearms would affect auction houses and theatrical and movie productions.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the American Entertainment Armorers Association, which represents entertainment prop houses, armorers, prop masters, and related professionals and businesses that serve the entertainment industry, said it agrees.

The group said, "While the entertainment industry struggles to keep productions in the U.S., and cities like Los Angeles and New York are actively courting film production business, Proposition H appears to reflect the carelessness of certain San Francisco politicians who, in their desire to make a political statement, did not carefully study the effect of the ordinance on the entertainment industry."

The AEAA said its members provide film, television, and stage production companies with prop guns, which typically are real and regulated but are rigged to fire only blanks.

The group said weapons include handguns, rifles and shotguns, as well as more heavily regulated assault weapons, machine guns, destructive devices, short-barreled weapons and custom-built firearms.

The day after Prop H was approved, the NRA and the other plaintiffs brought a petition challenging the validity of the law directly in the California Court of Appeal, seeking to bypass the trial court altogether.

But Herrera said his office opposed the petition, arguing that the voters' decision to ban handgun possession by San Francisco residents is "of no significant interest to anyone outside San Francisco" and that the citywide ban on the sale of firearms was consistent with state law.

The Court of Appeal rejected the NRA's petition on Dec. 9, forcing the plaintiffs to file a new lawsuit in the trial court.

Michel said the plaintiffs filed a new suit late today.

Subject to approval by the court, the tentative briefing schedule to which the city and the plaintiffs have agreed would begin with the NRA's filing of a petition for a writ of mandate by Jan. 11, 2006. The city's opposition brief would be due by Jan. 25, followed by the plaintiffs' by Feb. 8.

A hearing on the merits of the law would take place in San Francisco Superior Court on Feb. 15.

The City will spend about $2 million to defend an undefensible lawsuit. That money could be better spent on paying the overtime by all agencies, or repairing potholes, or fixing the buses, or repairing the sewer, or stocking up on food for the zoo in case there's a food shortage (think meat for the predators), hiring more teachers, AIDS, TB, the arts, the library...  Nope, it's got to be wasted because the bozos of the Franco (can't call it San since that's a reference to a Saint and Saints are religious) want to waste their money.

I can't wait for the day when it is time to turn in the guns there and nobody shows up.  Are they going to go door to door?  

Can't we get thousands of backhoes to start digging along the eastern border of California (to speed up their eventual slide into the ocean) so we can just be done with all their stupidity?

i say give the sheeple what they want! i think they should disarm the police as well; just go totally gun-free and become the model for the classless victim society the gun grabbers so desperately want.

Let's kick California out of the union!

Maybe we ought to do an ARFCOM group mugging of all the people responsible for this ban on the 2nd. of April?

Quoted: Let's kick California out of the union!

STATES RIGHTS! fuck the union.

Quoted: I can't wait for the day when it is time to turn in the guns there and nobody shows up. Are they going to go door to door?

They did in New Orleans.

Didnt this same topic already go 3 pages?

That money could be better spent buying condoms for the gays....makes about as much sense!