NRA Settles Lawsuit Challenging SF Housing Authority Gun Ban - News Story - KTVU San Francisco
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association to challenge a San Francisco Housing Authority ban on gun possession in public housing has been settled.
The NRA sued the housing authority the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2008, that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives individuals the right to possess guns.
Under the settlement, signed by U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson on Monday, the agency will no longer enforce a 2005 rule that prohibited the otherwise legal possession of guns and ammunition in public housing units.
It’s going to take a while, but here is another response to those who contend that Heller did not have any effect.
This is right in the gun-hating, gun-banning belly of the San Francisco beast. At this rate, I’m beginning to think that lower courts are acting as if Heller has already been incorporated.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
As I noted before, I’ll wait until ordinary schmoes actually have firearms in hand before I celebrate. Call me cynical…
Are you kidding me? Everybody in the projects has firearms in hand - and in the car, the house, the pocket, whatever. It’s just that the ones in the house are legal now.
Er, yah. I kinda phrased it badly. (Again.) (In my defense, my attention was split in trying to get Knucklehead to sleep.)
What I should have written is: I’ll wait until an ordinary schmoe, not a friend of a bigwig but with a reasonably clean criminal record, can file a non-burdensome amount of paperwork, pay non-burdensome fees, take a non-burdensome amount of safety training which is held with reasonable frequency, then legally obtain a pistol with a non-burdensome waiting period, and keep it in his dwelling, carry it on his person, or do whatever thing the struck-down regulation prohibited.
Though all of the above is bullshit anyway. “The right … shall not be infringed” leaves no room for regulation, no matter how “reasonable” and “non-burdensome”.
What does it mean they will “no longer enforce” the rule? Why didn’t they rescind it outright? Or are they planning to re-enforce the rule at some later date under different circumstances, or in certain specific cases? Why would the NRA agree to THAT?