>SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT REJECTS GUN BAN --

>SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT REJECTS GUN BAN --
>SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!
>
>This week, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren struck down
>the San Francisco handgun ban, asserting that under California law,
>local officials do not have the authority to ban firearms from
>law-abiding citizens. NRA-ILA opposed the ban from its inception, both
>at the ballot box and in court.
>
>NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre stated, "This ruling is a
>major victory for freedom and for the National Rifle Association.
>Proposition H was an ill-conceived gun ban scheme that would have
>violated the rights of only the law-abiding in San Francisco. We fought
>this outrageous attack on the constitutional rights of the good guys and
>we prevailed. We are determined not to see this gross injustice happen
>again and will fight any effort by politicians to resurrect this faulty
>proposal."
>
>The San Francisco gun ban would have prohibited law-abiding city
>residents from purchasing firearms - rifles, shotguns and handguns - for
>any lawful reason, whether for self-defense, hunting or recreational
>shooting. In addition, current law-abiding gun owners would have to
>surrender their registered handguns to the police.
>
>NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox stated, "We are pleased with the
>decision of Judge James Warren of the California Superior Court. In
>today's ruling, Judge Warren ruled California law prohibits a city or
>county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults. This
>ruling supports the premise of NRA's argument. The NRA filed it's
>lawsuit soon after Proposition H passed arguing that the proposition was
>in violation of California preemption laws that say firearm laws are
>regulated by the state."
>
>The San Francisco Police Officers Association also opposed the ban,
>stating that the new law nullified "the personal choice of city
>residents to lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense purposes."
>
>Cox continued, "It seems evident that the authors of this measure either
>intentionally misled voters during the election or authored this
>proposed measure with gross disregard of California law. Regrettably,
>the biggest losers were the voters in this municipality who had to bear
>the considerable financial burden to satisfy the careless political whim
>of their elected officials."