It might just fly for awhile, but I can't see how it would last long under a constitutional challenge.

Look what wonderful things it's done for D.C. and Chicago...it's almost comical watching people cling to failed ideology in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's a bad idea. These people have a lot in common with Kim Jon Il and Fidel Castro: Don't confuse me with facts! We're living in a paradise, I tell you!!

Oh that can't happen they have a republican governor, he will come to the rescue. But then again....

Schwarzenegger Signs .50 Caliber Ban in California

Here is an NRO article on the situation in D.C. and Chicago, good review of the crime stats pre-ban and post-ban.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200409290839.asp

It sounds like this proposed law in S.F. is further reaching than D.C. or Chicago.

The devil is always in the details, so commenting without seeing the proposed ordinance may be asking for trouble on my part. Still, if the ordinance bans possession of all firearms in all homes in San Francisco, I would expect a 2nd amendment challenge to be brought by the NRA with ample $$$ backing. Such a ban would totally infringe the right of US citizens, guaranteed by the second amendment, to keep and bear arms.

For a VERY illuminating and stimulating read on the legal construction of the 2nd amendment, read the legal opinion on the question "Whether the second amendment secures an individual right" provided to the US Attorney General by high officers of his staff which you may find at:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Of particular interest to non-attorneys such as myself, is the immediate point raised in this opinion that the phrases "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," clearly constitute a preamble and hence may not legally limit or confine the following text. In legal language, preambles and prefatory language is not construed to limit the operative text. This is not a courtesey or quaint tradition, it is the accepted definition of how to write meaningful legal documents. In the world of patents (inventions etc) the legal portion of the patents are contained in "claims," and preambles in claims are well understood to not limit the operative claim language which follows. In the present case, the operative text is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and the stuff about "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is merely window dressing. Read the opinion.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if we the people should not have individual arms in our modern world, so different from that the framers lived in, than the legal and constitutionally provided remedy is to amend the constitution to strike the second amendment, not to lie and cheat on the interpretation of what the text clearly means and was intended for. Of course, this is not the route taken because we the people DO NOT WANT to be relieved of our arms.

I am hoping that GW Bush appoints two or more US supreme court justices who hold the cited legal opinion on the second amendment close to their hearts. We wouldn't have any more bullcrap of tyranical municipalities stripping citizens of their second amendment rights anymore.

The supreme court implied in the 30's that the second amendment does not grant the right to bear arms to individuals, but rather only to militias. This decision in the 30's is the legal precedence for which some gun control is allowed today.

The linked to opinion is just that, an opinion, it carries no legal weight because no court has ruled on it. It is even rather rare, as I understand it, for the justice department to take a position on an issue such as this....

That said, what I have read of it is good and I hope that the supreme court does eventually take up a case on this issue and explicitly states whether or not the 2nd amendment is for individuals. I believe it does. Here is a simple analysis (warning: linked site contains lots of profanity) which basically summarizes the 109 pages of the justice department memo.

For more on the context of the justice departments op-ed memo and the legal state of the 2nd amendment check out this recent article.

I'm not sure a Supreme Court precedent would make a whole lot of difference. I recently had a look at Newt Gingrich's new book, and a part that stuck out in the five minutes I read was where he said precedent is a one-way street for the left. To them, legal precedent only exists for liberal causes. Precedent favoring the right is dismissed as an aberration or error against humanity that must be corrected.

Were the Supreme Court to rule that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, you can bet that the left would scream bloody murder that Bush bought the Supreme Court . Yes, I know -- there hasn't been a Supreme Court judge appointed since 1994. But we're talking about the same people who came up with the same conspiracy theory alleging Bush control of the court before he even took office.

I'm actually curious to see what will happen in this administration. Rehnquist looks likely to step down soon -- will the Democrats stonewall Bush's Supreme Court nominations as they have his other judges? Will they go so far as to leave an open seat on the court?

Sorry for the twist off subject in this messages content. It's a couple of years old but still makes me get that warm fuzzy feeling deep down inside.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 11, 2002
Via Facsimile (213) 847-0676 and U.S. Mail

Chief William J. Bratton
Los Angeles Police Department
150 North Los Angeles Street

Re: LAPD 82A Rifle, Serial No. 1186
Point of Contact: Jim Moody
213 485 4061

Dear Chief Bratton,

I, a U.S. citizen, own Barrett Firearms Mfg. Inc., and for 20 years I have built .50 caliber rifles for my fellow citizens, for their Law Enforcement departments and for their nation's armed forces.

You may be aware of the latest negative misinformation campaign from a Washington based anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The VPC has, for three or so years, been unsuccessful in Washington, D.C. trying to demonize and ban a new subclass of firearms, the .50 caliber and other "too powerful" rifles. This type of nibbling process has been historically successful in civilian disarmament of other nations governed by totalitarian and other regimes less tolerant of individual rights than the United States.

The VPC's most recent efforts directs this misinformation campaign at your state, attempting to get any California body to pass any law against .50 caliber firearms. In March 2002 the VPC caused the California State Assembly, Public Safety Committee to consider and reject the issue by a 5 to 0 with 1 abstaining vote.

Regrettably, the same material has been presented to your city council. I personally attended the council meeting in Los Angeles regarding attempts to bar ownership of the .50 caliber rifle in your city. I was allowed to briefly address the council. The tone of the discussion was mostly emotionally based, so the facts that I attempted to provide were ineffective to the extent they were heard at all. The council voted to have the city attorney draft an ordinance to ban the .50, and further, to instruct the city's representatives in Sacramento and in Washington D.C. to push for bans at their respective levels.

At that council meeting, I was very surprised to see an LAPD officer seated front and center with a Barrett 82A1 .50 cal rifle. It was the centerpiece of the discussion. As you know, there have been no crimes committed with these rifles, and most importantly, current California law does not allow the sale of the M82AI in the state because of its detachable magazine and features that make it an "assault weapon." This rifle was being deceptively used by your department. The officer portrayed it as a sample of a currently available .50 cal rifle, available for sale to the civilians of Los Angeles. One councilman even questioned how this rifle was available under current laws, but as I stated, facts were ineffective that day.

Your officer, speaking for the LAPD, endorsed the banning of this rifle and its ammunition. Then he used the rifle for photo ops with the Councilmen each of whom, in handling the firearm, may have been committing a felony. I was amazed.

Since 1968, with the closing of the U.S. Springfield Amory, all of the small arms produced for the various government agencies are from the private sector. Every handgun, rifle or shotgun that law enforcement needs comes from this firearms industry. Unless the City of Los Angeles has plans of setting up its own firearms manufacturing, it may need to guard the manufacturing sources it has now.

When I returned to my office from Los Angeles, I found an example of our need for mutual cooperation. Your department had sent one of your 82A1 rifles in to us for service. All of my knowledge in the use of my rifle in the field of law enforcement had been turned upside down by witnessing how your department used yours. Not to protect and serve, but for deception, photo opportunities, and to further an ill-conceived effort that may result in the use of LA taxpayer monies to wage losing political battles in Washington against civil liberties regarding gun ownership.

Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rifle for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms.

I implore you to investigate the facts of the .50, to consider the liberties of the law-abiding people and our mutual coexistence, and to change your department's position on this issue.

Sincerely,
BARRETT FIREARMS MANUFACTURING, INC.
Ronnie Barrett, President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its my understanding Ronnie Barrett ended up refusing to service or ship the rifle in question at the time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can only suppose recent actions in the state of California has eliminated options for state and local law enforcement agencies to obtain factory direct service or custom firearms from Barrett.

Back when banning of the AR-15 design was coming about, I purchased 2 pre-ban models. Admittedly my purchase was strictly spurred by the possibility of the ban. I have put them to great use while predator hunting in Alaska. I don't think I could have ever found a better firearm for the purpose and I am glad I have them. I now find myself toying with the idea of purchasing a AR-50 with the same reasoning driving my thoughts. Those thought are of the possibility of a ban altering the current design not predator hunting

I just can't imagine my thoughts and related actions are all that unique. This makes me wonder what the current rate of firearm purchases might be among the residents in the proposed to be effected area in California.
It's my guess there could be residents there that may have never before considered owning a firearm that are now in the market for one.
If these anti groups would considered basic human nature it seems they would realize they often create their own reality, making their own worst dreams come true with their own actions.
But then if they if they took much of anything into consideration they would never come up with their dumb assed ideas in the first place.

~Jeff~

Bitmasher:

I agree the opinion carries no legal weight. The value I see in the opinion, though there may be others unapparent to my limited understanding, is that it provides a road map to attorneys litigating second amendment matters. It is thoroughly documented, so the leg work is done for finding references. The arguments, to my mind, are soundly reasoned and not obviously flawed in some way.

As someone poinnted out, however, judges are rather free to go their own way and ignore precedent if they choose (liberal judges may ignore "right wing" precedent). The solution to this is to get judges in place who have their minds in order and are not corrupted by liberalism. Supreme court justices, of course, are at the top of the heap and provide a remedy for all ills below -- provided the ills are grave enough to rise to the level of supreme court consideration.

Personally, I'm hoping the consistent election of moderate-conservative republican presidents and the slant of our demographics to an older population will dispose us more generally to favoring conservative judges. We'll see what the future brings.

is that it provides a road map to attorneys litigating second amendment matters.

Yes I think that is right, from what I've read, it sounds like the supreme court may be getting close (next few years) to taking a case on the 2nd amendment. The memo helps whoever ends up making the case for an individual right before the justices.