First, as the NRA’s suit against the San Francisco City Housing Authority, press reports indicate that the NRA will likely dismiss the City & County of San Francisco from the lawsuit challenging a ban on the possession of firearms in San Francisco’s Housing Authority developments. The federal lawsuit sought to overturn both a 2007 local ordinance banning gun possession on county land and a provision in the San Francisco Housing Authority’s lease agreement that prevented residents from keeping a gun on Housing Authority land. Mayor Newsom appoints the Housing Authority. The NRA failed to tie the city ordinance to the lease provision of the Housing Authority, which apparently is a federal agency.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera had called the lawsuit “little more than a publicity stunt that improperly names SF as a defendant, and makes false representations to the court,” after the lawsuit was filed. If such is the case, the SF under the loser pays provisions of 42 USC 1988 should file its own request for attorney fees and costs.
We're being told their much-publicized lawsuit fired on the wrong target?
Anybody know anything about this? Because it appears sanctions are being sought, and I haven't seen anything giving NRA's side, either on their site or from any of the many gun bloggers who promote the Association (although in fairness I have not had time to do more than a cursory search).
Although it's long and written more toward policy/legal types than a general audience, the entire article is worth reading for insights and analysis. We've met Irwin Nowick before. His ability to navigate the legislative process and focus on details, connections and implications is impressive, and we ignore his opinions at our peril, because the leading anti-gun legislators in California listen to him with rapt attention.
UPDATE: Here's the complaint. Hopefully those with legal expertise can educate us on what this all really means.
And here's an "About" link for SFHA: "Housing Authorities are unique entities established by a combination of federal, state and local actions. While the Mayor appoints the seven members of the SFHA's Board of Commissioners, the SFHA is an independent agency and a state chartered corporation."
Beats me what this all means--that's why I'm asking for informed opinions.
UPDATE: Dave Hardy weighs in in "Comments," below.
UPDATE: From Chuck Michel
I assure you there is no screw up here...
