As a followup to my previous post, we have some commentary from someone on the other side of the debate, which comes near the end of this article:
Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office unsuccessfully defended the law before Warren, said the city was mulling whether it was going to appeal.
"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession," Dorsey said. "San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence."
This legislation was in no way reasonable, nor was it in any way narrowly tailored. It banned possession of handguns in the city, period. It banned the sale and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition within the city, period. No, it didn't ban the possession of rifles but, if I may be so bold, I'm willing to bet that such a ban was already in the planning stages.
I understand that the City Attorney is required to defend any legislation that is passed and then becomes the target of a lawsuit, regardless of the political views of the attorney and his staff. However, Mr. Dorsey is clearly a supporter of the legislation. Fortunately, it doesn't matter what he believes because he lost.
As a side note, while reading the article, this paragraph caught my particular attention:
The ordinance targeted only city residents, meaning nonresidents in the city or even tourists were not banned from possessing or selling guns here.
So it wasn't as complete a ban as I indicated above. It didn't apply to everyone in the city, just people who live there. Why this makes this legislation even more ridiculous I leave as an exercise for the reader.
Hat tip to The GeekWithA.45 for the link.
No comments:
Post a Comment