San Francisco residents will be required to keep their guns in lock boxes or have trigger locks on their firearms under a law signed Wednesday by Mayor Gavin Newsom.
This creature is, of course, as twisted and loopy as the constituents who support him.
We've seen in the past he's not above ignoring laws he disagrees with, while imposing those he does on those with less political power--a pretty good indicator that tyranny is in progress.
Meanwhile, he's not only guaranteed more violent crime by making Frisco a haven for predators, but he's actually turned up the heat by--again, defying laws he chooses not to obey--declaring it a "sanctuary city."
Somehow, I can't work up too much sympathy for anyone who would give this disease power over their lives. Besides, when I went up there, I just ignored edicts that I disagreed with, too.
4 comments:
How does this carry any weight, as Ca. preempts local legislation on this issue?
Or is this just Newsom's armed gang wielding the power of the armed thug over the unarmed victim?
I would think they could enforce it until someone adjudicated to have standing successfully sues to have it overturned. I fear having standing means they'd need to be arrested for violating it and endure the subsequent indignities.
Thing is, other CA communities have enacted corrosive edicts, such as ammo restrictions and registration requirements, and I believe some "junk gun" bans have gone unchallenged...
I could research it a bit but am super busy at the moment. Perhaps someone with immediate knowledge could weigh in...?
"Standing" has become a weapon in the War on Freedom. It would seem to me, any citizen of San Francisco would have standing as they are all being harmed by the lawlessness of the city in its violation of state law.
You got that right, SA--and guess who wielded that weapon arguing against standing for plaintiffs in Silveira v Lockyer?
Post a Comment