The San Francisco County Board of Supervisors has backed down on a proposed ordinance that would make much of the city into a “gun-free zone” after the Second Amendment Foundation and California Rifle & Pistol Association promised legal action.
The proposal was championed by Supervisor Catherine Stefani, who essentially tabled the motion indefinitely after bemoaning the 2023 Supreme Court Bruen decision, which is giving gun control proponents fits while jarring the San Francisco Police Department to start issuing carry permits.
I’m running for State Assembly because it’s time we fix California. I’m a mom, I’m a passionate gun safety advocate, I’m not afraid to tackle big problems — and I will never give up.https://t.co/NW56Jht440 pic.twitter.com/IaZYXShl3p
— Catherine Stefani 司嘉怡 (@Stefani4CA) March 8, 2023
She referenced, perhaps as a face-saving maneuver, proposed state legislation that lawmakers in Sacramento may adopt later this summer, as a reason to stand down on the proposed ordinance.
“This happened after California Rifle & Pistol Association and SAF sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors explaining why the planned ordinance would be unconstitutional,” said CRPA President Chuck Michel, a longtime practicing attorney and gun rights authority in California. “It is truly unfortunate that San Francisco politicians refuse to respect the Second Amendment and can’t accept the new legal reality that people have a Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in public.”
“As soon as we were advised of this proposal,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “we took action. This is not the first time we’ve had to stop extremist gun control in San Francisco. We successfully sued the city twice over attempted handgun bans, and won both times. We’re prepared to do it again, but our letter to the Board of Supervisors evidently has made that unnecessary.”
“Our warning to the Board of Supervisors was direct and left little room for doubt about our intentions,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The letter clearly explained why the proposal was bad policy, and would result in another SAF-CRPA victory. We also reminded the Board it should wait to see whether the state legislation is adopted and how it fares under litigation. That appears to have had the desired impact.”
California Rifle & Pistol Association and SAF Letter to San Francisco’s County Board of Supervisors 2023
Second Amendment Foundation
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
I don’t give a rat’s behind how many taxes the people of San Francisco have to pay for these stupid laws. They elected these fools and continue to. When I saw trying to get the area back on track with the constitution was futile, I packed up my family and moved to Kentucky, a free state. I had already bought a house and had a legal address, so I took a trip to the fun store the day after I moved here. I haven’t left yet.
The clowns exhibit a little common sense but still have a homeless problem and drug problem and people crapping on the streets . Welcome too the liberal utopia
would be nice if these politicians would have to pay out of their own pockets for the costs of these unconstitutional laws when they lose. but they have the pockets of the taxpayers, whom also pay their exorbitant salaries, to pay for defending these cases. they will only stop when it hurts in some fashion.
I give a fair amount amount of money to these organizations every year, and my question is, why are these organizations continuing to mickey mouse around with this crap after bruen? The obvious case is to take a denied california (or any state)conceal carry permit apllicant’s case to federal court under bruen and make the state define their right as a state to modify federal law such that US citizens residing in california must comply with state law that is attempting to supercede federal law. And then make all states answer and define their right to pick and choose federal… Read more »