States Right, vs. Second Amendment

Funny how Teabaggers scream about states' rights, but are critical of states who put on restrictions like: you cannot purchase a firearm if you are a felon. Yes, those are federal laws, but laws more specific like in California: You are only allowed to purchase one pistol a month or as many rifles or shotguns but there is a waiting period. A cooling off period. This law was not covered under federal law, so the state has every right to do this. So why the big stink? I remember the gun Ban in San Francisco CA

California court strikes San Francisco handgun ban

  

By Amanda Beck

SAN FRANCISCO | Wed Jan 9, 2008 9:54pm EST

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California state appeals court on Wednesday struck down a ban on the private ownership of handguns in San Francisco, one of several U.S. cities that have outlawed small firearms.
San Francisco voters passed their ban in 2005, barring all city residents from selling, distributing or manufacturing firearms or ammunition.
Like similar laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C., San Francisco's ban also prohibited residents from possessing handguns unless they are government employees or security guards.
Retired law enforcement and military personnel joined several firearms rights groups to challenge San Francisco's ban before it could be enforced.
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal upheld a district court decision, which found that the ordinance was pre-empted by several state laws, one of which prohibits cities from restricting handgun possession in an individual's home, business, or private property.
"These laws of statewide application reflect the legislature's balancing of interests -- on the one side the interest of the general public to be protected from the criminal misuse of firearms, on the other, the interests of law-abiding citizens to be able to purchase and use firearms," the panel wrote in its unanimous decision.
"When it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly."
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he was disappointed with the ruling and that the city would consider further appeal.
"We think that localities should have this ability to protect the health and safety of their residents," Herrera said.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a similar case this year, when attorneys from Washington will defend that city's 31-year-old law banning private possession of handguns.
Opponents say the Washington ban violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Legal experts say the Supreme Court's decision in the dispute could be the most important decision on gun rights in nearly 70 years and produce a decisive ruling on whether civilians have a right to keep firearms.
Representatives of the National Rifle Association, which has pressed both the Washington and San Francisco cases, said they were pleased with the California court's decision.
"This is at least another step in the right direction," said the NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris Cox. "When one city, in this case San Francisco, seeks to defy state law and restrict the rights of law abiding residents, the NRA has and will continue to stand up and fight on their behalf."
(Editing by Braden Reddall and Mohammad Zargham)

 I have no issue with the overturning of the San Fran gun ban, because the California Supreme Court stated so. But I do have issues when the feds step in and even though there are no real laws in the books, Congress passes a law for only one group of people.

Court Rules Cops Can Carry Guns ... Nationwide!

By Jim Kouri MichNews.com Nov 21, 2008

(The following report was obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police Firearms Committee.)

A ruling on a case from South Dakota -- where off-duty law enforcement officers were criminally charged for carrying guns despite the authority to do so under the federal 'Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act of 2004' (LEOSA) -- has confirmed that all qualified off-duty and retired law enforcement are allowed, by federal law, to carry a concealed gun for personal self-defense irrespective of state law.

The federal law supersedes the crazy, confusing and often conflicted state and local laws that limit legitimate self-defense.

Law Enforcement Alliance of America's Executive Director, Jim Fotis said, "When LEAA co-authored the original draft of what became affectionately known as 'National Cop Carry' back in the early 1990's, I knew it would save cops' lives and give those who choose to resist violent criminals a fighting chance. In 2004 I shook President Bush's hand after he signed our bill into law and rejoiced that our fight -- for more than a decade -- was finally over!"

The local prosecutor's apparent effort to challenge the federal law, and send a message to all in law enforcement not to carry a gun for self-defense in South Dakota, was soundly rejected! Thankfully, after careful review, the gun charges against the officers were dismissed. "The Judge's crystal clear and unambiguous legal opinion should be required reading for every prosecutor in the nation so that no other law enforcement professionals, active or retired, have to endure what those officers and agents have endured in South Dakota," declared Carl Rowan, LEAA's Vice President.

Robert Van Norman and Kenneth Orrock, Attorneys for the officers, said "We are pleased with the court's decision, as it reaffirms the intent of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act and in effect will protect law enforcement officers and our communities. The law enforcement community should find comfort that LEOSA has been properly applied in this case."

The Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Inc., (LEAA) is the nation's largest not for profit, non-partisan coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims, and concerned citizens dedicated to making America safer.

Source: Law Enforcement Alliance of America

Again, I have no issue with guns and I do not have issues for LEO (Law Enforcement Officers) from carrying concealed, but what I do have is the fact that states, like New Jersey, that did not want anyone to carry concealed (out-of-state LEO included), had no choice but to comply. Failure to comply meant no funding from the feds. So where is the state sovereignty? What happened to the 10th Amendment? And what cop if he or she is involved in an Off duty OIS (Officer Involved Shooting), justified, would want to travel across America to appear before a judge? This is more wasteful government spending the Teabaggers abhor and one less cop out on OUR street.

So if the Teabaggers were truly patriotic and defend the Constitution and are against government waste, I was wondering why weren't they vocal and standing besides the legislature in New Jersey? Probably because the anxiety of thinking may hurt their brains. Oh and finally, did you know that the 'Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act of 2004' in in violation of the 14th Amendment and posse comitatus? Why is it that off duty LEO can carry as civilians and not us? And there was a reason why carrying concealed differed in every state...it's called sovereignty, something the Teabaggers don't understand...apparently.