Via Bitter, who links to this fine bit of hysterics on the part of Dennis Herrera, the San Francisco City Attorney:
â€œIn their apparent effort to maximize publicity for their pending challenges, the NRA lawyersâ€™ hastily drafted complaint made glaring legal errors, and asserted facts that are not simply unsupported â€” but actually contradicted by evidence contained in their own exhibits,â€ Herrera said. â€œTheir factually slipshod complaint makes plain that this case is a publicity stunt and a frivolous waste of judicial time and resources, which rules of court specifically prohibit. It is clear to me, and I believe it will be clear to the Court, that the NRA has improperly named the City in this action, and that this case is simply an effort to publicly harass their ideological foes.â€
One of the great pleasures of the Heller decision is watching all these people who have thumbed their noses at us for the past two decades become absolutely unhinged over the ruling.Â It’s better than any freak show.
8 thoughts on “The Hysterics Continue”
Mr. Herrera may have a point. I remember that HUD had tried (or succeeded?) to ban firearms in public housing. If Mr Herrera is correct on that point then the suit needs to be amended to file against HUD. Since Heller was specifically against a federal entity it applies to other federal entities such as HUD an hopefully National Parks. However SF city and county is till on the hook for their own gun bans. Considering that this is 9th Circuit area it would be a good idea if the NRA check this very carefully. We do not need a losing suit to derail the momentum.
The linked article reads like it was written in Mr Herrera’s office, but maybe it’s just the Sentinel’s bias against guns that makes them write that way.
That being said, if it’s true that the Housing Authority has no connection to the city, and further, that the law that the suit claims is the basis for the regulation didn’t go into effect until long after the regulation was implemented, then this indeed looks like a mistake.
Of course, I suppose that what they present as “facts” are actually “lies,” so all we can do is sit back and see what happens while we hope for the best.
If HUD needs to be added, they’ll just amend the complaint to make them one of “Does 1-10.”
Also, I don’t see in the body of the complaint that plaintiffs are alleging that the law inspired the lease restriction, as Herrera claims. I’m guessing Herrera’s office had to come up with something for public release. If that’s all they’ve got, they’re scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Whoops, okay found it. Still, I would imagine the complaint just needs to be amended.
On this point, I spoke with Gene Hoffman, Chairman of the Calguns Foundation at tonight’s (2 July 08) Independent Institute lecture by Stephen Halbrook and Don Kates. Gene laughed about Herrera’s argument that the city is not the legal owner or operator of the property. There’s a lot more ammo on our side of that particular argument that’s not yet been revealed. Seems like a bit of the old rope-a-dope is going on, with us in Ali’s role. Niiiice.
If it is really HUD that makes the rule, and not the City and County of Frisco, then why pick Frisco as a venue? Why not instead pick a federal court located in the most gun-friendly part of the country where the same rule is in force?
The same would go for challenging gun bans in Cali. The “assault” weapons ban would seem the most vulnerable, but again, there’s no point in bringing the challenge in the venue where you’re most likely to lose the first round. Frisco has no gun bans of its own; they’re all preempted.
Uh, when I said “no gun bans” I meant none that had any legal force, with or without the Second Amendment. Frisco has twice passed ordinances purporting to ban handguns, once in the early 1980s under then-Mayor Feinschwein, and more recently by voter initiative. Both were struck down as blatant violations of the preemption law, without addressing the Second Amendment.
Comments are closed.