NRA Drops Lawsuit Against San Francisco

The NRA officially dropped their lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco yesterday. The lawsuit was brought due to a resolution approved by the Board of Supervisors branding the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization”.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i), Plaintiff the National Rifle Association of America voluntarily dismisses without prejudice the above-entitled action against all Defendants. This notice of dismissal is being filed with the Court before service by Defendants of either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.

San Francisco, in their reply to the original complaint, contended their resolution was a “statement of policy” and “non-binding”.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Mayor London Breed had already told city staff that the measure did not limit the city’s dealings with any vendors doing business with the NRA. Stefani said her resolution was a legitimate public denunciation with no binding consequences.

At the time Mayor Breed made her statement that the resolution would not impact dealings with vendors, NRA outside counsel William Brewer III indicated that the lawsuit would continue until the the resolution was formally revoked. As of yesterday, the resolution had not been revoked but nonetheless the case was dismissed.

Both sides are now claiming victory in the lawsuit.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera issues a short statement that said:

“We’re pleased the NRA backed down on its frivolous lawsuit. This was a baseless attempt to silence San Francisco’s valid criticisms of the NRA and distract from the gun violence epidemic facing our country. San Francisco will never be intimidated by the NRA. If the NRA doesn’t want to be publicly condemned for its actions, it should stop sabotaging common sense gun safety regulations that would protect untold numbers of Americans every year, like universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and restrictions on high-capacity magazines.” 

The NRA and its attorney proclaimed victory in a multipart Twitter post:

Today the NRA withdrew its lawsuit in SF – and now celebrates the important victory it obtained on behalf of its members. As has been widely reported, after the Association challenged the unconstitutional resolution, the City beat a hasty retreat and backed down from its wildly illegal blacklisting scheme. The censors are on notice. The NRA will always fight for the Constitution, and will re-file if the City tries anything like this in the future.

So it appears that each side got a participation trophy allowing both sides to claim victory. The NRA got San Francisco to declare that the resolution was non-binding and San Francisco got the lawsuit dismissed without officially revoking the resolution.

I don’t think anyone can question that the NRA had to sue San Francisco in this case. However, I did find it interesting that the NRA didn’t use attorney Chuck Michel and his firm to handle the lawsuit. Michel and Associates has traditionally been the NRA’s go-to law firm for California related cases. Instead they used Las Vegas based Garman Turner Gordon as their attorney on the ground and Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, as “of counsel”.

Only In San Francisco

Only in San Francisco do you have widespread defecation on the streets.

Only in San Francisco do you have a five-time deported illegal alien found innocent of murder.

Only in San Francisco are convicted felons now called “justice-involved persons.”

Only in San Francisco do you have an organization dedicated to the advancement of an enumerated civil right declared a “domestic terrorist organization.”

Say what? The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution yesterday that brands the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorist organization”.

The resolution was sponsored by Supervisor Catherine Stefani (D-SF). She is an attorney, former prosecutor, and, according to her official bio, a “leader and spokesperson for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.” Gee, no conflict of interest there, is there?

Catherine Stefani, Official SFBOS Picture

Reading the resolution is like reading some bizarre alternate reality short story. It claims that the NRA “incites gun owners to acts of violence” among other things. It goes on to claim that the NRA, by being advocates for gun rights, have armed those who have committed acts of terrorism.

You can read the whole thing at this link. Try not to gag when reading it.

They Wouldn’t Stand For That – So Why Should Gun Owners In SF

Imagine, if you will, a proposed ordinance from a San Francisco supervisor stating the proprietors of medical marijuana dispensaries must have a multi-zone video system in place and then forward the video along with records of every purchaser to the San Francisco Police Department. Mind you, even though marijuana for medical purposes can be prescribed under California law, it is still a Federal crime.

Being that it is San Francisco, let’s imagine another scenario. Say it was 1981 and the AIDS epidemic was starting. Public health officials knew it was hitting gay men disproportionately and suspected it was related to having multiple sexual partners. So as a public health measure, a San Francisco supervisor proposed that a video system be put in place at the city’s bath houses which were known meeting places for sex used by gay men. All the video along with a record of everyone who entered these bath houses was to be sent the SF Department of Public Health.

Can you imagine the outrage that either of these scenarios would cause? Any supervisor who even made such a proposal like either of these would be run out of town and encouraged to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge will he was at it.

SF Supervisor Mark Farrell has made such a proposal. However, it isn’t aimed at marijuana users or gay men but rather legal purchasers of arms and ammunition. A purchase which is not only made in full compliance with Federal and state law but is part of an enumerated right under the Constitution.

The first portion of Supervisor Farrell’s gun control package would simply require the videotaping of all gun and ammunition sales within San Francisco. The videotaping would also apply to other critical areas of the business premises, including, but not limited to, all places where firearms or ammunition are stored, handled, sold, transferred, or carried, including, but not limited to, all counters, safes, vaults, cabinets, cases, entryways, and parking lots.

The second portion of Supervisor Farrell’s gun control package would require any permittee who has the proper documentation to sell or transfer ammunition to keep records of their ammunition sales and transfer data for up to five-years, and electronically transmit the ammunition sales data at least weekly to the SFPD. The SFPD would develop the forms and information that would need to be regularly transmitted to the department, and at a minimum will include:
(1) The date of the transaction;
(2) The name, address and date of birth of the transferee;
(3) The number of the transferee’s current driver’s license or other government issued identification card containing a photograph of the transferee, and the name of the governmental authority that issued it;
(4) The brand, type, caliber or gauge, and amount of ammunition transferred;
(5) The transferee’s signature; and
(6) The name of the permittee’s agent or employee who processed the transaction.

Farrell, a lawyer and venture capitalist, represents some of the most expensive neighborhoods in San Francisco. Places where guns are considered icky except when in the hands of private security guards. He first made the proposal in July and plans to introduce them when the Board of Supervisors comes back from recess this month.

The impact of Farrell’s ordinance would be to force High Bridge Arms, the only gun store in San Francisco, to close or move out of San Francisco. Owner Steve Alcairo said they have 17 surveillance cameras in the store and shares the video with police when requested by court orders. However, this ordinance goes much further and Alcairo said he’d probably close if it passes.

“What we don’t do is voluntarily give private information to the police department. Voluntarily, we just don’t do that. People are very private about their information,” Alcairo told KPIX 5.

He believes if the new law passes it will have a chilling effect on his business…

“The element we’re concerned with, they don’t shop here. They don’t,” Alcairo said. “I mean you’re going to get video surveillance of people who are coming in here legally buying stuff with their identification, criminals are not doing that.”

Mr. Alcairo is correct. Criminals in San Francisco don’t shop at High Bridge Arms. They get their guns from former Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) and his tong friend Shrimp Boy among other illegal places.

This measure has nothing to do with crime, preventing criminals from getting guns, or public safety. It is a feel good measure by Supv. Farrell to look good among his constituents as they go home to their Victorian and Edwardian mansions in his Jordan Park-Laurel Heights neighborhood and shop in its high priced boutiques.

CCRKBA Slams Plea Deal For San Francisco Sheriff

Anti-gun San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi was given a sweetheart plea deal today that allows him to retain his gun rights and doesn’t charge him with a crime of domestic violence. Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms correctly points out that an ordinary person wouldn’t have been given such consideration.

Monday, March 12th, 2012

BELLEVUE, WA – The plea deal announced this morning that allows anti-gun San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi keep his guns in what began as a domestic violence case “smacks of hypocrisy at the highest order,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Mirkarimi pleaded guilty in San Francisco court this morning to what the San Francisco Chronicle described as “a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment in connection with an incident in which he allegedly inflicted a bruise on his wife.”

“As a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Ross Mirkarimi supported all manner of gun control schemes,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “He had to surrender his guns when the charges were originally filed, and if similar charges had been filed against some gun rights activist or an average gun owner, you can bet Mirkarimi would be looking to pillory that person, and strip away their gun rights permanently.”

Under federal law, domestic violence convictions can cost people their Second Amendment rights permanently. As part of the plea deal, prosecutors reportedly dropped the domestic violence charge and two other misdemeanor counts.

“Why should Mirkarimi enjoy a double standard,” Gottlieb questioned. “Based on reports of what he allegedly did, any private citizen who did the same thing might be facing jail time. You can bet San Francisco prosecutors would not be cutting a deal that would allow that person to get his firearms back.

“Instead of getting his guns back under a sweet plea deal and retaining his job as sheriff,” he observed, “Mirkarimi ought to remain disarmed, and lose his job. Otherwise, from this date forward, San Francisco prosecutors need to apply the ‘Mirkarimi standard’ to every domestic violence case that hits their desk.

“Mirkarimi’s reputation as a double-standard elitist is now solidified,” Gottlieb said. “For a person who has advocated gun control for everyone else, he should be ashamed. Ross Mirkarimi can now be known as the High Sheriff of Low Behavior.”

How Is This Possible?

On Saturday, both during and after the traditional pre-season exhibition game between the San Francisco Forty-Niners and the Oakland Raiders, violence broke out. In addition to a brawl in the stands shown in the video below, two people were shot in the parking lot. One of the victims was shot multiple times in the stomach and is in the hospital in serious condition. It is reported by police that he was wearing a T-shirt that said “F*** the Niners”.

Watch the latest video at <a href=””></a>

There is some dispute over the police report about the man’s T-shirt. According to story today in the San Francisco Chronicle:

The father of the victim shot in the abdomen said his son had described an out-of-control scene at the stadium.

“It was crazy out there,” said the father, who was not at the game. He declined to be named and asked that his son not be identified.

He said his son is a 49ers fan, denying police reports over the weekend that the man had been wearing a “F- the 49ers” T-shirt. The son was driving in a pickup truck after the game, following a friend to make sure he got to his car safely, his father said.

People wearing Raiders garb attacked the friend before he got to the car and kicked him on the ground, the father said. When his son got out of the pickup to help, he said, someone shot him four times in the abdomen.

“My son got out, took two steps and heard boom, boom, boom,” the father said. “He said he didn’t realize it until it hurt. He stumbled back to his truck and drove to the front gate. He opened the door and told them, ‘I think I’m dying.’ “

He said his son, born and raised in San Francisco, is married and has a 10-month-old son.

If one listens to the drivel from the Violence Policy Center, concealed carry permit holders are prone to acts of violence.

In addition, the gun lobby has been successful at hiding the truth about crimes committed by concealed handgun permit holders by forcing most states to keep secret the identities of permit holders. As a result, until recently, the false claims made by pro-gun advocates regarding these “upstanding community leaders” have been left unchallenged.

In 2009, the Violence Policy Center began an ongoing research project to identify killings from May 2007 to the present involving citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns. Because detailed information on such killings is not readily available, the VPC is forced to rely primarily on news accounts for reports of such killings and subsequent legal proceedings.

If one makes the assumption that the shooters in the incidents are from the counties surrounding San Francisco Bay so as to take in fans of both the Niners and Raiders, just how many permit holders are we talking about?

Thanks to Brandon Combs of the CalGuns Foundation I have those numbers for 2010. If we look to the south of Candlestick, you have 101 permit holders in San Mateo County and 53 in Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley). If you look to the East Bay area, you have 11 permit holders in Contra Costa County and 75 in Alameda County (Oakland). Immediately to the north of San Francisco is Marin County with its 35 permit holders. Finally, in San Francisco itself you have one permit holder. That is correct – in a city and county of approximately 800,000 people you have one permit holder.

According to the gun prohibitionists, controlling permits and controlling firearms will reduce this sort of violence. So how is it possible to have two shootings at a stadium in a region with only 276 combined concealed carry permit? Using their logic, it is unpossible! Try telling that to the young father who is lying in San Francisco General with multiple gunshot wounds to the abdomen.

Do You Think They Are Trying To Discourage Carry Permits?

Yesterday evening I posted about the CalGuns Foundation’s win in forcing San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey to obey the law and adopt a formal policy on the issuance of carry permits. Having read through the policy two things become glaringly obvious. First, it is expensive. The cost for the permit, the fingerprinting, the psychological test, and the firearms testing and qualification test is $2,607 for first time applicants and there is no refund of any of it if they deny you anywhere in the process.

The second thing is that it is incredibly restrictive as to handgun and caliber. It goes well beyond the California Roster of Handguns. You are restricted to four calibers and to pistols and revolvers from certain manufacturers. If you want to use a Colt 1911, forget it. 1911’s and all single-action semiautomatic pistols are prohibited. If you think you might like a pocket pistol like the Ruger LCP in .380, forget it as you are limited to pistols in 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

If you think you might want to use the S&W Model 29 made famous by the fictional SFPD Inspector Harry Callahan in the Dirty Harry movies, you can forget that as well. Only revolvers in .38 Special are allowed. Moreover, you are only allowed to carry the weapon with which you qualified.

As to the qualification test, it appears to be a standard 50-shot qualification test as used by many law enforcement agencies. It probably isn’t the most relevant test for a concealed carry holder but at least it is an objective test that seems to be fairly standard. I do wonder how many of the SF Sheriff’s Deputies pass the test on their first try in their annual re-qualifications.

The policy as adopted is below.

San Francisco Carry License Policy
(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

CalGuns Forces San Francisco Sheriff To Adopt CCW Policy

The CalGuns Foundation sent out this release this evening regarding their victory in forcing the Sheriff of San Francisco County to comply with California law regarding concealed carry permits. Congratulations to CalGuns for getting San Francisco to obey the law. When I attended the Gun Rights Policy Conference in San Francisco, I was shocked to find out that there were only eight CCW permits issued for all of San Francisco County. While this number may have changed some, it is still ridiculously small for a city and county of the size of San Francisco.

San Carlos, CA (Tuesday, July 5, 2011) – After a litigation threat from the Calguns Foundation, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey has adopted a policy for firearm carry license (“CCW”) applications.

As part of its ongoing Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative, The Calguns Foundation sent San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey a letter demanding that he immediately bring the firearm carry license application acceptance, processing, and evaluation policies of his department into compliance with California law.

“As a direct result of our letter, San Franciscans now have a path to apply for a permit to exercise their fundamental right of self defense,” notes Gene Hoffman, Chairman of CGF. “We look forward to assisting San Francisco residents to that end by publishing on our website copies of approved ‘good cause’ statements, the Sheriff’s policy, DOJ standard application, a ‘CCW Application Flowchart’, and other valuable tools and information.”

The new policy is being reviewed for requirements and practices that violate the law. “While we’re pleased that Sheriff Hennessey chose to produce a policy rather than spend taxpayers’ money to defend an indefensible position, it’s perplexing that he created such an onerous carry license program that practically begs for further scrutiny and possibly litigation,” said Brandon Combs, a director of CGF and leader of the Sunshine Initiative.

Calguns Foundation provided a copy of their Model Carry License Policy, downloadable here, to San Francisco Sheriff Hennessey and the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. The CGF Model Policy reflects the process and procedures found in state law and comports with constitutional principles. San Francisco, however, chose to largely ignore CGF’s offer of assistance and create its own policy.

“We’re taking a very hard look at policies that burden the carry license application process with unlawful or unconstitutional provisions,” stated Gene Hoffman. “We expect that some sheriffs will dig in their heels and refuse to comply with the law. Those sheriffs should expect to be taken to court.”

A copy of the San Francisco carry license policy is available for download here. More information on Calguns Foundation’s Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative can be found at For more information on other Second Amendment-related litigation and educational efforts, please visit

CalGuns Demands San Franscisco Sheriff Obey Law

The CalGuns Foundation issued this press release yesterday demanding that San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey obey California state law regarding concealed carry.

San Carlos, CA (June 2, 2011) – As part of its ongoing Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative, The Calguns Foundation sent San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey a letter demanding that he immediately bring his firearm carry license application acceptance, processing, and evaluation policies into compliance with the law.

In the letter sent Tuesday, Calguns notes that the Sheriff has failed to comply with state law for nearly thirteen years, even after being notified of the deficiency on a number of prior occasions. Calguns also claims that the policies of the Sheriff in issuing licenses to some, including one of his employees, while refusing to accept all applications from “regular” San Francisco residents violates applicants’ constitutional rights of self-defense and equal protection under the law.

“While the Sheriff may have grown accustomed to following only those laws he chooses, we intend to hold the County’s highest law enforcement officer to the same laws he took an oath to uphold,” notes Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “The rights of San Francisco residents are no less valuable than those of his employees and friends.”

In 1998, then-Assemblymember Rod Wright authored a bill to make firearm carry permit applications consistent across the state due to tremendous variations in local practices by licensing authorities. That bill, AB 2022, established a mandate that all licensing authorities create and publish a written policy on carry license applications by April 1, 1999. It also instituted a specific process that licensing authorities – county sheriffs and city chiefs of police – must use in receiving and processing applications.

“We’ve spent thousands of hours requesting and reviewing the policies and practices of hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the state. Sheriff Hennessey’s, obviously, stood out – it simply didn’t exist,” said Brandon Combs, member of the Board of Directors of Calguns Foundation. “It’s exceedingly frustrating to see the Sheriff turning away so many qualified San Francisco residents who are complying with the law.”

In an effort to avoid litigation, Calguns provided Sheriff Hennessey with a comprehensive model carry license policy. “We would strongly prefer that the Sheriff simply choose to use our model policy, much as San Francisco has done with LCAV policies in the past,” Brandon Combs said. “However, should he choose to go another direction, we’re prepared to litigate as necessary to bring his policies and practices in line with the law.”

A downloadable copy of the model policy is available at this link. CGF’s letter to Sheriff Hennessey is located here.

More information on Calguns Foundation’s Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative can be found at For more information on other Second Amendment-related litigation and educational efforts, please visit

I had the distinct pleasure of getting to know Gene Hoffman, chairman of the CalGuns Foundation, at the LuckyGunner Blogger Shoot. I’m proud to say that he is a Tar Heel native and bleeds Carolina Blue especially during basketball season.

Gene and the CalGuns Foundation are doing great work in California in their efforts to preserve, protect, and expand our Second Amendment rights in that state. As one-fifth of all Americans live in California, what happens in California eventually will impact the rest of us. Rather than mocking those gun owners who choose (or are forced by economic necessity) to live in California, we ought to be asking how can we help.

SF Chronicle’s Non-Endorsement

This past Sunday the San Francisco Chronicle decided not to endorse either Barbara Boxer or Carly Fiorina. Given that newspaper’s reliably liberal leanings, that was quite a surprise. And from subsequent letters to the editor, it has angered their liberal readers.

The reason given for not endorsing Boxer is that she:

has failed to distinguish herself during her 18 years in office. There is no reason to believe that another six-year term would bring anything but more of the same uninspired representation.

Her voting record isn’t a problem for them as she is a reliable liberal and they agree with her voting record.

The Chronicle thinks Fiorina would be much more effective and work well in the Senate. However, they don’t like her positions on the issues. One of the one’s that they don’t like is gun control. They say:

her unwillingness to support even the most commonsense gun-control measures to keep assault weapons off the street or to deny guns to suspected terrorists on the federal “no fly list.”

Repealing ObamaCare and no immigration reform until the border is secure also make their list. In other words, Carly Fiorina represents mainstream positions on the issues according to most Americans but not the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board. One could only hope more Californians decide that Boxer is a hack and needs to be replaced than not.

San Francisco’s High Bridge Arms Can Reopen

Despite hundreds of e-mails and letters opposing the re-opening of San Francisco’s only gun store, High Bridge Arms, the Police Department granted them a conditional permit to reopen. The 3-member panel that heard High Bridge’s request said that the opponents “had failed to offer evidence backing their assertion that the store brought crime to the neighborhood.”

In a post I did on this in August, I noted one of the suggestions for the space was a wine and cheese store or a laundry. In virtually any other city in the world, I’d have said the person making that suggestion was being sarcastic. In San Francisco, they mean it.

The permit does impose some conditions upon High Bridge Arms. They must update their security including increased video surveillance and waist-high crash barriers outside to prevent cars from smashing throught the store’s front. High Bridge is also being required to lock up all firearms in a safe outside of business hours as well as require a parent or guardian to accompany those under 18 entering the store. In a bone tossed to the neighborhood on appearance, they can’t have any advertising on their display windows.

The owners had no problem with the requirement to update their security. Steve Alcairo, the store’s manager, said “It’s a fair request. It’s about following the letter of the law, and that’s what we do.”

Despite all the e-mails and letters opposing the re-opening, only 4 people bothered to speak against it at the hearing while 10 spoke for it.

This is pretty typical in my opinion given how easy it is to pop out an email opposing something. However, when it comes down to actually going to a hearing and testifying, it becomes too much trouble. Fortunately, the good guys won this round.