The Great Equalizer

Gun rights equals gay rights - who knew?  From the Times:

SAN FRANCISCO — Using the new judicial muscle provided by the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the right to bear arms, the National Rifle Association and another pro-gun group sued San Francisco and its housing authority on Friday to invalidate a ban on handguns in public housing.

...In an interesting turn in a city known for its embrace of gay rights, the chief plaintiff in the suit against the city is a gay man living in a public housing development, owned by the federal government, who wants to have a gun to protect himself from potential hate crimes.

...

A city of about 725,000, San Francisco has 12,000 residents living in public housing, all of whom are required to sign a lease that forbids a broad variety of weapons, including pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, automatic rifles, BB guns, as well as nunchucks, brass knuckles and stun guns. This blanket ban was begun in 2006, and the penalty for violation of the lease is eviction.

In the case filed on Friday, an anonymous gay man said that stipulation had deprived him of “any effective means of self-defense.”

A very clever choice of plantiff.

Megan McArdle explained yesterday that gun rights equals women's rights.

BONUS CHEAP SHOT:  The same folks who can read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and find an unassailable right to abortion and gay marriage can't find a right to possession of a firearm.

Comments

[Just happened in]

Well put bull's eye 'cheap shot.'

[syn]

"The same folks who can read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and find an unassailable right to abortion and gay marriage can't find a right to possession of a firearm."

I suppose the trick these days is to just stay in the middle so that eventually it will be popular enough to find?

[Daddy]

I think this San Fran gun rights case may be put on the back burner for a bit. THE INDEPENDENT (UK) newspaper (27 June 08) is reporting that the current big push in the City by the Bay is to get a ballot initiative passed so that the cities residents can vote on renaming San Francisco's biggest sewer, "The George W. Bush Sewage Plant." When such important civic missions as trying to humiliate the President are at hand, why would they waste time on picayune stuff like the Bill of Rights?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-francisco-to-vote-on-naming-sewer-after-george-bush-855433.html

[Chris]

Mayor Gruesome was extremely eloquent in lambasting the court for deciding that the constitution actually means what is plainly in the text.

This is the same mayor, I'd add, who, along with three other imperialists in black robes, finds a constitutional right to gay marriage in the CA constitution.

The choice of an "anonymous" gay man to sue the city is outstanding. Where will Gruesome side? He's gonna resemble a pretzel bathed in hair gel on this one.

This is a city, SF, where the criminals have no problems whatever obtaining firearms to perpetrate murder and mayhem on the general population. MS-13, you are welcome. Illegal aliens-sanctuary. Law-abiding citizens-not so much.

[bgates]

Daddy - he's been taking sh*t from those people for seven and a half years. Might as well get some credit for it.

[Daddy]

bgates

LOL!

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Someone else observed about the Bush sewage plant that Bush had been dealing with the dirty jobs liberals don't want to do, and doing it well, so it made sense.

[richard mcenroe]

'GET AWAY FROM ME YOU FUCKING BREEDERS!' BAMBAMBAMBAMBAM

Sure, what could go wrong there?

I mean a POOR gay guy, living in public housing? I've watched Will & Grace, I know there's no such thing...

[Joe Schmo]

The 2nd Amendment means that government can ban any gun, any time, and for any reason. All you have to do is look at the text and that is clearly what it means.

Hey, if Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter can say that, why can't I?

[Denny, Alaska]

This is so hilarious! SF's chickens seem to be coming home to roost.

Now, if only we could get Berkley snared in a similar fate!

[Jeffersonian]

But isn't it closer to what Our Lord and Savior Barack says...you have an individual right to own firearms, but it's only valid if your city/county/township/parish/state all agree to let you exercise it?

[Thomas Jackson]

I was disappointed that Souter and Breyer didn't cite the laws of Zimbabwe and Burma in their dissent.

[Clint]

I hope someone will remind San Franciscans of their own history, as they consider whether only police officers and former police officers should be allowed to have guns.

In 1978, former police officer and city supervisor (equivalent to city councilman) Dan White walked into the mayor's office and shot Mayer Moscone and City Supervisor Harvey Milk -- the first openly gay man elected to any public office in American history -- dead. He then walked out, walked into a police station, announced what he had done, and the police broke into applause.

If the mayor and a city councilman weren't safe inside City Hall, with armed guards and metal detectors...

[John Gardner]

Let's hear it for the Pink Pistols!! http://www.pinkpistols.org/

[John Gardner]

Let's hear it for the Pink Pistols!! http://www.pinkpistols.org/

[Tom]

One of the plaintiff's in the original DC case was a gay man who had survived an attempted bashing assault.

[Thomass]

"Posted by: Clint | June 28, 2008 at 03:44 PM"

Since your talking SF history don't leave out their ties to the kool aid cult. It gets sent down the memory hole since progressives want to believe it was all about him being gay (musta been a hate crime...)...

[SteveMG]

... can't find a right to possession of a firearm

Michael Kinsley, hardly a righty, once pointed out that if liberals read the Second Amendment the way they read the other Bill of Rights that they would demand government buy every poor person in America a gun.

Several, in fact.

[Paul Zrimsek]

I don't know if this is such a good test case. The fact that it's public housing will muddy the waters in a lot of people's minds.

[taxlawstudent]

Clint you are sick. That is despicable. The White assassinations were a very traumatic time for the city and still weigh heavily on our minds. Saying the police applauded White is bogus and extremely offensive.

Say what you want about your disagreements with gun control advocates. Even the "bonus cheap shot" is totally fine b/c it's on point.

[clarice]

Always look for the penumbras..

[Mountain Gal]

Uummmm.

Re Dan White:

In *1978* there were metal detectors and armed guards at City Hall?

May be 'twas thus -- but I didn't think that showed up for another 10 or 15 years ....

I was there in SF 1967 and 68 and while the times were a changin' I don't think they were electronically frisking everyone 10 years later ....

[Forbes]

Well, one of the plaintiffs in Heller was gay, so it seems the NRA is taking the hint about what works.

[Doug Santo]

The bonus cheap shot is not a cheap shot. It is a common sense understanding of the constitution. The truth in that statement cannot be denied. All the high-faluting arguements and ciphering put forth by the liberal justices can't touch it for its simplicity and truth.

Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA

[FDA]

The gay man in the Heller case was a Cato employee and the NRA was not involved in bringing the Heller case

[FDA]

The gay man in the Heller case was a Cato employee and the NRA was not involved in bringing the Heller case

[Robert Heinlein (deceased)]

Allow myself to quote myself:

An armed society is a polite society.

-

[MikeS]

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

Does this mean he will appoint judges who would empathize with an 8 year old rape victim rather than her rapist, or a gay man who is afraid he can't protect himself while living in public housing?

[Sara]

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

I was a poor teenage Mom, a victim of a rape, and I'm now a poor disabled old person, so ask me anything you want, I'll be happy to pontificate on anything you need to know.

[Annony]

If the gay man is anonymous, how are they going to establish that he's gay? Or is that just presumed in San Fransisco?

[Jane]

LOL

[Dave]

The same people who can find the right to bear arms without the part about "Militia" are the same people who are standing around watching the rest of the Constitution being torn up because they only care about that one amendment.

How can you think that having guns is going to protect you from tyranny when you can't be bothered to tell your Congressman that you're going to put him out of a job if he doesn't do his job and restore the checks and balances guaranteed by the founders of this country?

[Tom]

Dave, I don't know who you are talking about, aside from perhaps some fantasy person in your own head. The majority of the country believes that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms (which it does, always did, and which the Supreme Court recognized this week). Libertarians, like me, have been aghast at a lot of what's gone on with the Constitution, probably a lot longer than you (anyone who thinks that the threats to our liberties started and will stop with the Presidency of George W. Bush is intellectually dishonest). And we write Congress too.

[Aaron]

Bonus cheap shot is bogus. SCOTUS has not ruled for gay marriage.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
SCOTUS has not ruled for gay marriage.
---

I think it's up to the states to decide.

[Sara]

Apparently not in Calif. 89. We voted against gay marriage and the court told us to go to hell, they were going to do it anyway.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
We voted against gay marriage and the court told us to go to hell,
---

State constitutions trump state laws; you'd have to amend the constitution to have an effective ban.

[Sara]

Do you have the reference in the Constitution, please?

[Gabriel Hanna]

Judges can declare the state constitution unconstitutional. In Nevada's case, the state legislature refused to pass the governor's budget with the constitutionally mandated supermajority. The state supreme court ordered the budget passed, because the preamble says that the state legislature is supposed to fund education.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/state_issues/nevada_judicial_activism.htm

If a judge can say a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional, they can say that so is a gay marriage amendment.

Some people apparently think that a constitution means whatever a judges says it means.

[Sara]

Here is where we stand:

The activist Legislature has twice passed bills that would legalize gay marriage, and the governor has twice vetoed those bills. That same activist Legislature also enacted a ban on same-sex marriage in 1977, and the citizenry passed a statewide ballot initiative in 2000 doing the same thing. Citizens have been collecting what now amounts to 1.1 million signatures to amend their constitution in November to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The state's activist Supreme Court got in on the activist action, finding in a 4-3 decision that the California ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship."

So, a ban proposition will be on the ballot in Nov. -- AGAIN, and it will pass again. Polls have about a 20 point favorable for those in favor of marriage between man and woman over gay marriage.

[DJ]

@ Aaron: The "same folks" doesn't have to refer to SCOTUS (though admittedly this is vague in the post). It can refer to the majority of legal academics: they tend to read the Constitution as TM lampoons, no?

[Sara]

In case you are confused, Slate attempts to clear things up:

In case you are confused about whose superactivist-hero powers trump here, let me add that California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger—who had vetoed both attempts by the state Legislature to enact bills legalizing same-sex marriage on the grounds that they would override the more than 60 percent of the state's voters who'd approved 2000 referendum—announced today that he would abide by the state Supreme Court's decision. "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," he said in a statement today. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

So—and in the event that you are scoring this along with me from the bleachers—that means the Governator, who was once prepared to thwart the will of the Legislature in order to uphold the will of the people, is not prepared to usurp the prerogative of the courts to thwart the will of the people or the Legislature. Nor will he back any future attempts of the people to usurp the powers of the courts. Which by some lights makes him a seriously activist governor and by others makes him the biggest wuss in history.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
So, a ban proposition will be on the ballot in Nov. -- AGAIN, and it will pass again. Polls have about a 20 point favorable for those in favor of marriage between man and woman over gay marriage.
---

Sounds like you're on your way to amending the constitution, which is what the court says you need to do.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

But I'm surprised that supposedly freedom-maximizing Republicans would pass an amendment to restrict someone's freedom.

Seems to violate various 'truth in labeling' laws.

[Barry]

"pass an amendment to restrict someone's freedom."

How is not recognizing gay relationships restricting freedom?

[Gabriel Hanna]

e271828... you're missing the point.

If a judge can order a state legislature to pass a budget, why can't they order a governor to sign a bill or override his veto?

If a judge can decide that an amendment is inconsistent with the older part of the constitution it modifies, and declare it "unconstitutional", then what is the point of amendments?

(Incidentally, why are you interested in restricting the freedom of brothers to marry sisters? That's as fair as your question abotu gay marriage. I know incest between consenting adults is icky to you, but so is gay marriage to others--and as for retard babies, the law doesn't require couples to get screened for genetic defects, so clearly incest laws are merely expressions of Jesus-loving prejudice.)

Where in the Federal Constituion does the Supreme Court get to be sole arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional? In fact, there is an article that declares Congress to have the power to limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction!

All of us are obligated to defend the Constitution. It is not a power restricted by any document to judges alone.

[eightnine2718281828mu5e]

---
How is not recognizing gay relationships restricting freedom?
---

Would not recognizing hetero relationships be restricting freedom?

[Gabriel Hanna]

Incidentally, e271828, how can the Supreme Court have the power to tell Congress what to do about Guantanamo Bay when in Article II it says "The Congress... shall have the power

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

and in Article III section 2

"the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Do judges have to obey the constitution or do they have the right to make up their own?

[rickinstl]

"But I'm surprised that supposedly freedom-maximizing Republicans would pass an amendment to restrict someone's freedom."

Snarky B.S.

Look at it this way...
Perhaps they want to be free to live in a society where gay men dressed in leather chaps can't waggle their penises at them on a public street.
Perhaps they want to send their children to schools (which they pay out the nose for) where they won't be propagandized by the very well-funded gay lobby and their allies in the teachers unions.
Perhaps they just want normalcy as they were raised to understand it.
The people who are invading the rights of others are the very well-funded gay lobbying groups, the extremely gay-friendly media, and the extremely well-funded (Soros anyone?)and gay-friendly democratic party.

[Gabriel Hanna]

e271828, while according you the respect due to an important mathematical constant, it seems that you are living in an oligarchy of judges who can have whatever powers they make up and you are totally fine with that.

Again--what's the point of amending a constitution if judges think they just get to ignore what the amendments say? What's the point of a legislature and an executive if they have to do whatever the judiciary tells them to?