- Here is the corrected link.
- Her name isn’t mentioned in your link, so where does “she supported it in public” come from?
- Of course she signed off on it-it had enough signatures to qualify, didn’t it? Under what grounds do you think she could have refused to sign it?
So, while admitting that she doesn’t carry, you also contend that she carries.
If she publicly supported Proposition H, then I agree with this. Not the worst sin, but I see the argument.
I haven’t seen a cite yet that she was in favor of banning all private handgun possession, but if she did, I’ll give you the point.
Either your OP and this are the most preposterously disingenuous posts I’ve seen in a long time, or else you have a very hard time grasping some very simple concepts.
One can think of a gun in the home as a kind of powerful drug which has been shown to prevent certain serious diseases but which has very serious side effects including risk of death. Obviously, the utility of such a drug – or of such a defensive instrument as a gun in the home – is entirely dependent on the level of threat that it’s purported to guard against. For someone who is at high risk for whatever reason, the benefits of owning a gun may outweigh the considerable demonstrated risks. For most people, a gun in the home affects their safety in overwhelmingly the opposite way that they think it does. That’s the point of those studies. This heartbreaking story is just a few hours old. This sort of thing happens all the time, along with fatal gun suicides, guns used in intentional domestic violence, and all the other factors frequently cited. In a CDC study of child gun deaths in a dozen first-world nations, the US consistently had more children killed by gun violence than the grand total of all other 11 countries combined.
Well, y’all had things largely (entirely in parts of the country) your way up until Bill Clinton overreached. Pendulums swing, of course. Right now it has swung our way, so I will enjoy it while it lasts. You go ahead and do the same when it goes your way.
…THAT’s your cite for your claim that “there are people who want to ban all handguns (Harris)”?
Holy shit. Okay.
Oh please, it’s not like more American children die to firearms than police officers and soldiers combined or any thing.
That said, the OP is obviously a parody of a serious topic, not meant for actual debate or discussion, but to “own the libruls”.
Her name in the newspapers at that time. Ads.
No, the DA can refuse anything for the ballot that isnt legal. Prop H was Unconstitutional. Not only under the 2nd, but under CA law.
Wasnt that a handgun ban?
Holy shit? A citywide ban on guns is a weird cite for the idea that some people want to ban handguns? Harris signing off on a law she assuredly knew was illegal is a nothingburger to you? W T F?
I do not admit she does not carry. She says she keeps it locked up.
I hope your comprehension of this post is better than your comprehension of my previous post you are commenting on.
It wasn’t a complete ban. Peace officers, security guards, and active duty military were exempt when on duty.
I don’t know where they would be kept when off duty.
- His cite was broken.
- His cite didn’t include Harris.
- His cite is for a law that was ultimately decided to be invalid, but it’s absurd to say “she assuredly knew it was illegal.” Folks obviously have different interpretations of the constitution in this respect, and the city decided their chance of success was worth litigating it in the courts.
- Limiting handguns within city limits to possession by cops and security professionals != a desire to “ban all handguns.”
I don’t know that it was the worst cite I’ve ever seen in my life, but it’s in the top 5%.
Trying to do DrDeth’s legwork for him, I Googled “Khamala Harris Proposition H”, and found nothing mentioning her supporting the proposition. The closest I could find was her offering “lukewarm support” for a different package of gun control measures, and an article that mentioned her in tangential relationship to a different proposition H in 2002, about police department oversight.
Far be it from me to accuse him of talking out his ass, but I find myself jawdroppingly unconvinced.
Sorry, gun owner and unless you know exactly where to shoot, you can stay alive with no face and brain damage …
Me? I have an assortment of prescription drugs and alcohol and the ability to mix them to go gently off to sleep and not wake up. Much less messy and more my idea of a way to go. Though if the opportunity presented itself I would prefer to go somewhere physician assisted suicide was available and have it professionally done.
If she is smart enuf to be DA then AG, she has to know at least CA state law. So either she knew the law was illegal or she is stupid. Pick one.
Banning all private possession of handguns is certainly banning all handguns. No one in favor of a handgun ban includes Police officers also, let’s be real. Besides Police officers *can’t *be banned under state law anyways. It didnt include the uS Military either. :rolleyes:
Boy “I propose a law that would ban the possession of all guns in the uSA, except those held by police and military… but since cops and the Army get to keep theirs, that’s not a “ban””. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Did Kamala Harris propose such a law? Your own cite shows that she did not.
I was up there, i saw her face on TV. In any case, can you deny she was DA? And thus she ruled that Prop H was legal? When it wasn’t. It wasnt even close to being legal, and even the City of SF knew that.
*"The measure raises significant legal questions regarding the authority of state versus local governments to regulate firearms. The ordinance refers Article XI of the California Constitution as providing Charter-created cities, such as San Francisco, with “home rule” power. This power allows counties to enact laws that exclusively apply to residents within their borders, even when such a law conflicts with state law or when state law is silent.
However, the California Government Code states that “it is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of regulation of the registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms…and such provisions shall be exclusive of all local regulations, relating to registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms, by any political subdivision.” This law seems to indicate that state government believes it has ultimate authority over local government in regulating firearms.
San Francisco passed a ban on handguns
in 1982, which was subsequently struck down by California Courts on the grounds that state law superseded the local ordinance. In Doe v. City and County of San Francisco (136 Cal. App. 3d 509), the court ruled that the handgun ban conflicted with Penal Code section 12026, which allows California residents to keep a firearm in their homes without a permit."
*
https://www.revolvy.com/page/San-Francisco-Proposition-H-(2005)
*On June 13, 2006, in the case of Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco (Case No. CPF-05-505960), San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren struck down the ban, saying local governments have no such authority under California law. Judge Warren sided with the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, and other petitioners represented by Chuck Michel of Trutanich-Michel, LLP, in Long Beach, California, who sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after the measure passed.[3] Judge Warren wrote in his 30-page ruling that “Proposition H is adjudged invalid as preempted by state law.”[1]
The judge’s decision was not without precedent considering a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban on exactly the same grounds in 1982.[4]
The City appealed Judge Warren’s ruling, but lost by a unanimous decision from the three judge panel in the Court of Appeals issued on January 9, 2008. On February 19, 2008, San Francisco asked the California Supreme Court to review Court of Appeal’s decision. The state Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision on April 9, 2008 that rejected the city’s appeal and upheld the lower courts’ decision.*
So, Harris HAD to know that “a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban on exactly the same grounds in 1982.”
Note that her appeals were rejected by a* unanimous decision.* Not one single judge agreed that Prop H was legal.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_13_05_SC.html
"*It’s not easy to do, but gun control advocates in San Francisco have come up with an anti-firearms measure that embarrasses even some gun control advocates. The red-faced ones may realize this one is not likely to work even if it is upheld in court, which it almost certainly will not be. But the pointlessness of the initiative didn’t stop San Franciscans from approving it by a hefty majority…
So what’s wrong with this plan? Just about everything. Start with the fact that it appears to conflict with the state constitution, which gives the state sole jurisdiction over firearms regulation – a defect that doomed San Francisco’s last handgun ban, passed in 1982.
University of California at Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring, a staunch supporter of gun control, says the new ordinance is a “sure loser” in court. Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who as mayor signed the 1982 law, saw no point in taking a position on this one because of its obviously fatal infirmity. Current Mayor Gavin Newsom admitted the initiative is “a public opinion poll.”*
Note the last three- a gun control advocated admitting the law is a “sure loser” in court. Sen Feinstein “saw no point in taking a position on this one because of its obviously fatal infirmity”.
**Feinstein knew it wasn’t legal. Newsom **knew it wasn’t legal. Are you saying Harris somehow thought it was, when no one else thought so?:dubious:
It was such a slam dunk that SF actually had to pay the NRA’s legal expenses:
What are you babbling about? I was using that to show such a law would be considered a “gun ban” despite Left Hand of Dorkness’s claim that allowing police to own guns doesn’t make a 'gun ban".
So far the only cite that Harris supported this was your recollection. While that might be accurate, it’s surprising we can’t find any confirmation on the internet.
Allowing it on the ballot does not equal support. Even if it had a slim chance of passing constitutional review. I don’t think you want partisan elected officials deciding what the people get to vote on. The courts can, (and did) figure it out after the election.
If she did, but now owns a gun, as I said earlier, that’s fair (but mild) criticism of her. Kind of like advocating for higher tax rates but taking advantage of the lower rates until the rates can be changed. She’d prefer (presumably) to live in a city with no private ownership of handguns, but until that happens, she wants a gun too.