From San Jose Mercury:

The National Rifle Association has challenged San Francisco's ban on handguns in public housing, trying to capitalize on the U.S. Supreme Court's historic ruling this week which found a constitutional right to own guns for self-defense in the home.

In a lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, lawyers for gun rights advocates are asking a federal judge to invalidate San Francisco's handgun law based on the Supreme Court's decision striking down a broader Washington, D.C., law forbidding residents to own handguns.

The San Francisco challenge includes an anonymous plaintiff, identified as "Guy Montag Doe," a gay man living in San Francisco's Valencia Gardens housing project. In court papers the plaintiff claims to keep a gun in his home to protect himself against hate crimes based on his sexual orientation, which puts him in violation of the city's gun law.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office has vowed to defend the law. Gun control groups, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, have said they will also fight efforts to overturn gun control laws in the wake of the high court's ruling.

"I intend to vigorously defend our common-sense city ordinances that protect public safety from gun violence," Herrera said. "I'm confident that our gun control measures are on sound legal footing."

The Supreme Court, for the first time in history, ruled that individuals do have the right to own handguns under the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. But left open is the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local gun control regulations, as it dealt only with the District of Columbia, an enclave of the federal government.
The NRA lawsuit against San Francisco is expected to test the ruling's scope for cities and states, a prospect that could open the door to a host of challenges to California gun control laws. The NRA has said it intends to file a similar lawsuit challenging Chicago's stringent gun control laws. Chicago and San Francisco are two of the only major cities with their own laws.

Legal experts say that many gun regulations will remain intact, but the court's decision could place other laws in jeopardy, particularly if they infringe on a person's right to own a gun for self-defense. Lawyers for gun rights advocates maintain that San Francisco's public housing gun law runs afoul of that right.

The suit alleges that the San Francisco law leaves public housing residents "especially vulnerable to home invasion and violence by forbidding them to keep any firearm for self-defense."

I can't help thinking that Mr Doe misunderstood the thrust of Fahrenheit 451...

I think that the Guy Montag Doe name is absolutely perfect as a pseudonym for this particular court case.

While Guy Montag is a symbol of a repressive state ala "BIG BROTHER", HE BROKE THE LAW AND
POSSESSED BOOKS. The allegory of "Fahrenheit 451" seems to support the United States First Amendment freedoms, the "Freedom of Speech", and "Freedom of Expression", and symbolically represents the entire United States Bill of
Rights (the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution of the United States),

So it seems that it is appropriate that a
"member of the State" a "Fireman" who was
charged with repression of freedom of speech
and expression, while also VIOLATING the laws
that created his job (an "Anti-First Amendment"
sort of law, again in the style of George Orwell's "Big Brother" in the novel "1984", but
perhaps not as oppressive of a world that Orwell's "Winston Smith" had to overcome).

I think this battle against subversion of the
United States Constitution, in the form of the Bill of Rights, namely the 2nd Amendment, fits
very well into the character of Guy Montag or
Winston Smith.

So if he is called "Guy Montag Doe" or "Winston
Smith Doe", it is still oppression of the rights of every American that are guaranteed in the United States Constitution within its Bill of Rights.

But that is just the opinion of one man. I am not Mr. Brandbury or Mr. Orwell. I am only a single American man, of education (I have two Doctorates, a Doctorate of Divinity in Theology, and a Ph.D. in Counseling).

I am not a scholar of American Literature (just a fan of it, as well as English Literature, and Irish Literature).

I am not a lawyer (no matter how much CourtTV I watch, I will never be, nor would I want to be an Attorney).

But I have more than a few brain cells to examine a situation and come up with parallels between literature that was required reading many times in my life ("Fahrenheit 451" was a book I was required to read twice in elementary school, once in Junior High School, twice in High School, and 3 times in University both as Literature and as Philosophy).

Plus I remember my American Civics classes very well, where we had to memorize the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the other Amendments of the United States Constitution.

So I can see how an Anti-Hero such as Guy Montag turns out to be a hero for my First Amendment rights, putting himself at great personal risk in his dystopian society that he was a member of (which I read as America, given that Mr. Bradbury as an American would write from his own experiences in life).

I can also see an Anti-Hero such as Winston Smith as a hero for our entire US Bill of Rights, even though Eric Arthur Blair (aka
"George Orwell" was born in British India, and died in London at a relatively young age).

Even though the Human Rights Act of 1998 and previous laws in the United Kingdom is more oppressive than the American Bill of Rights is, such as a person who is accused of making a libelous or slanderous statement, depending on if it is spoken or written MUST PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE, instead of being "proven guilty by a reasonable doubt" (US Criminal Law Standard) or even "proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence" (US Civil Law Standard). Shows the defect in the law, even though the law is in line with the European Union requirements. Under the United States Bill of Rights as amended to our Constitution, sets a much higher standard and requires rights to be preserved, limited only in the most limited way, and to protect the individuals rights before those of the Government.

If a homosexual man, in public housing, in San Francisco, California is being defended by the National Rifle Association (not known for "supporting gay rights"), to have a gun in his own home (even though it is what in the UK would be considered "Council Housing"), to protect the life of himself and his household if he is attacked in his own home, even if it is owned by the government and not by him personally, should be protected. In the spirit of Guy Montag, I hope he finds freedom and not violate a law that he feels violates the US Bill of Rights, and does not turn out to be a Winston Smith and end up having to suffer on behalf of the the government coming before the individual.

Most Sincerely,

Rev. Dr. John Benjamin Tatum, D.D., Ph.D.

I shouldn't think that a homosexual gentleman would have any trouble in San Francisco, of all places!

Thanks for the explanation, Rev Dr John, but I still maintain that Guy Montag Doe misunderstands the thrust of Fahrenheit 451. Yes, it's about freedoms, but what sets it apart from Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is that it's really about a man's intellectual awakening. It's a celebration of literature.

Using it to justify the right to bear arms seems bizarre to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Spaulding:
I shouldn't think that a homosexual gentleman would have any trouble in San Francisco, of all places!

Not when it comes to "public accommodation", you have the right to be homosexual, just not the right to protect yourself from attack. I get the Bay Area stations on the television in the place I rent (they have DishNetwork and some "distant network" service tied in with it).

I guess a homosexual in San Francisco, California has as much chance of getting "bashed", in San Francisco as they do in Topeka, Kansas (where that disbarred lawyer turned preacher, is based who protests at any funeral with television coverage, against homosexuality, Fred Phelps, If you die in Iraq or Afghanistan, you died in a war to support homosexuality in America... is his opinion, very much the FAR OFF FRINGE). But such beatings happen in other such "havens" such as West Hollywood, California; Garden Grove, California; Laguna Beach, California; Greenwich Village, New York; Atlanta, Georgia; so why not the "mecca" of San Francisco?

It is neither "here nor there", but just because it is a "more free" environment in such a place, that such violence does not occur. Even a number of places in the UK that are "more free" areas for homosexuals have not stopped the violence. So it is not just a US problem or the problem of any particular community.

Where there is hate, there will be violence. It only takes one idiot who might have a NAZI flag on their front room wall as their main decoration, to cause violence. More than one, and most people will not have any sort of chance of defending themselves.

I am just a hospital and nursing home chaplain, I am not an expert. I just watch the news and can not believe half of what my "fellow man" does anywhere in this world.

Being in a wheelchair, I have been physically attacked (for what reason, that is known only up to them). Just my existence as a person with a disability may have "offended" them. I can not speak for the homosexuals, but I can report what I have seen... plus the violence of the animal that is the human being.

Remember in "Fahrenheit 451", the "Firemen", set the woman alight (after all, they were not "police", they were not going to "arrest" her for preventing them from doing their "official duties"), that "speaks volumes" (pun not intended, but realized). Goes to show the nature of human beings doing what they "feel" is right, or what the "government sanctioned" as right. That is one character that was "dangerous" both for her mind as well as the printed information in her possession. But, did she deserve to be treated worse than one would treat a wounded animal? Just light up the flamethrower, and throw another person on the bonfire of intellectual growth?

Had to tie it in again, just the "inhumanity" of humans toward other humans, really sickens me. It was the most shocking part of the book to me. Just as the most "freeing" part of the book to me was "meeting the human books" at the end. Cherish what I have, be thankful to be alive in a time that is not as vile it was in the past, hope that Fahrenheit 451 NEVER becomes reality anywhere in this world (we are close enough with the "knowledge suppression" of NAZI Germany with their book burnings, and in a more modern light the same in places such as Iran)... those are just too close to the book. Knowledge has been suppressed and continues to be suppressed only because someone "disagrees" with the knowledge contained. People have died because of that in life, as well as fiction.

My friend Mr. Spaulding, I wish "live and let live" were the way of the world. But the sickness of senseless violence is everywhere, just thankfully it is less often in most places on this planet.

Just more "fuel for the fire",

John

I am personally getting tired of all these trys to destroy the gun laws that were set in place by the founding fathers. I mean seriously, what is the deal with people having guns. Its not bad. And the bad people that are gonna shoot people are gonna have guns anyway with or without a law. So just leave the subject alone. There needs to be a great Defense attorney in San Francisco take down the offense here. Seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by phoenix:
From San Jose Mercury:

The National Rifle Association has challenged San Francisco's ban on handguns in public housing, trying to capitalize on the U.S. Supreme Court's historic ruling this week which found a constitutional right to own guns for self-defense in the home.

In a lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, lawyers for gun rights advocates are asking a federal judge to invalidate San Francisco's handgun law based on the Supreme Court's decision striking down a broader Washington, D.C., law forbidding residents to own handguns.

The San Francisco challenge includes an anonymous plaintiff, identified as "Guy Montag Doe," a gay man living in San Francisco's Valencia Gardens housing project. In court papers the plaintiff claims to keep a gun in his home to protect himself against hate crimes based on his sexual orientation, which puts him in violation of the city's gun law.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office has vowed to defend the law. Gun control groups, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, have said they will also fight efforts to overturn gun control laws in the wake of the high court's ruling.

"I intend to vigorously defend our common-sense city ordinances that protect public safety from gun violence," Herrera said. "I'm confident that our gun control measures are on sound legal footing."

The Supreme Court, for the first time in history, ruled that individuals do have the right to own handguns under the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. But left open is the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local gun control regulations, as it dealt only with the District of Columbia, an enclave of the federal government.
The NRA lawsuit against San Francisco is expected to test the ruling's scope for cities and states, a prospect that could open the door to a host of challenges to California gun control laws. The NRA has said it intends to file a similar lawsuit challenging Chicago's stringent gun control laws. Chicago and San Francisco are two of the only major cities with their own laws.

Legal experts say that many gun regulations will remain intact, but the court's decision could place other laws in jeopardy, particularly if they infringe on a person's right to own a gun for self-defense. Lawyers for gun rights advocates maintain that San Francisco's public housing gun law runs afoul of that right.

The suit alleges that the San Francisco law leaves public housing residents "especially vulnerable to home invasion and violence by forbidding them to keep any firearm for self-defense."

quote:

Originally posted by adviceman:
There needs to be a great Defense attorney in San Francisco take down the offense here. Seriously.

Is this an advert for a barrister!? Seriously?

quote:

Originally posted by Rev Dr John Benjamin Tatum DD PhD:
While Guy Montag is a symbol of a repressive state ala "BIG BROTHER", HE BROKE THE LAW AND
POSSESSED BOOKS.

He also legally possessed a flamethrower, and with that, who needs guns?

quote:

Originally posted by Rev Dr John Benjamin Tatum DD PhD:
Most Sincerely,

Rev. Dr. John Benjamin Tatum, D.D., Ph.D.

Hey, John? If you have Dr. before your name, the Ph.D is redundant...or were you trying to impress us? Either way, have a nice day.

Should I remove it as advertising (spam) or leave it as...uh...interesting?

Leave it as a curio, like the two headed goat at Ripley's Believe It Or Not Odditorium.

Awww, that's cute and just what I was hoping you'd say.

quote:

Originally posted by dandelion:
Awww, that's cute...

Cute, you say?

Cute!



Not so cute.



Absolutely adorable!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dandelion,