Now let me start by stating that the legality and constitutionality of a handgun ban within the county/city limits of San Francisco may be, in fact, unconstitutional (I am no Constitutional scholar, and that includes California's governing document, as well), and the court, and judge, may well have made the correct decision. However, Superior Court Judge Warren, in his 30-page decision, went off-point and on a wild tangent with the following assertion: "If the city were allowed to ban handguns within its borders, he said, nearby counties could be flooded by handguns no longer allowed in San Francisco." Is this not the definition of a non-point? What would happen if Iran weren't allowed to enrich uranium? All of the neighboring countries would be flooded with uranium destined to be enriched. Once again, the decision may be right, the law may be wrong, but the judge's commentary is poorly constructed and is of no basis for the issue at-hand. (Truth is, unfortunately, the judge probably didn't want to rock the boat with the gun lobby.)
Also, isn't this an example of legislating from the bench? The ban passed with 58% of the vote in November. Why aren't the "activist-judge"-haters up in arms? (Oh, because they like the outcome. But why should they? More crime, more death; and a city powerless to stop it.)
