On January 9, a California appeals court struck down San Francisco's 2005 ban on handguns, citing that local governments lack authority under California law to enact such a ban (h/t NewsBusters reader John Kernkamp).
While this is a state law struck down on state constitutional grounds, not the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is a major victory for gun rights advocates -- in a liberal Democratic state no less -- in a presidential election year in which the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing a 2nd Amendment case in March (District of Columbia v. Heller).
Yet while the San Francisco Chronicle's Bob Egelko covered the story on January 10, I'm having trouble finding any coverage elsewhere in the media. When searching Nexis, I found no coverage of the San Francisco gun ban story in the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, nor broadcast networks ABC, CBS, or NBC.
Meanwhile, as the Chronicle's Egelko noted in a January 14 story, San Francisco's district attorney has filed a friend-of-the-court brief backing the District of Columbia in its appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the District's 1976 handgun ban:
Prosecutors led by the district attorneys of San Francisco and New York are urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to recognize a broad individual right to gun ownership that could endanger state and local firearms laws.
The court is preparing to hear arguments in March on the constitutionality of a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun possession, with a ruling due by the end of June. A federal appeals court ruled last March that the ban violated the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms - the first time a gun-control law had been struck down on that basis.
In arguments filed Friday, 18 elected prosecutors, led by Kamala Harris of San Francisco and Robert Morgenthau of New York, said a similar ruling by the Supreme Court could cast doubt on numerous gun laws, ranging from bans on assault weapons to increased sentences for using a firearm during a crime.
Last week the MSM were obsessed with the supposed sea change in the Democratic race with Clinton's "comeback" in New Hampshire, and, to be fair, the primary race rightly was topic A in the news last week.
Yet the fact that the MSM are not tracking legal and political developments in what could well prove to be a sleeper issue this election season just goes to show the MSM's deficiencies in tracking issues of political substance. The fact that Democrats have been gun shy of pushing gun control for fear of being trounced at the polls by 2nd Amendment-supporting voters could also explain the media's reticence about reporting on conservative victories on this issue.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
What if....
January 14, 2008 - 18:30 ET by WoodyMHmmmm. You just have to wonder how the media would have covered this story if the outcome had been reversed. I guess we can only use our imaginations.
So, let the Gay Revolution
January 14, 2008 - 19:00 ET by drillanwrSo, let the Gay Revolution begin!
Sorry ... um, feeling a bit cocky today ...
drill, if you want to read
January 14, 2008 - 21:23 ET by Jack Bauerdrill, if you want to read about a Proud to be Armed gay lady, check out Tammy Bruce, currently cooing on her website about her recent SIS handgun purchase.
JB -
January 14, 2008 - 21:41 ET by drillanwrKnow of Mz. Tammy ... Love her (in the non-gay sense of the word ...). She's great!
As a SF native and gun
January 14, 2008 - 19:17 ET by dabalAs a SF native and gun owner, I applaud this decision.
I am still appalled that it was necessary in the first place.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer
in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid
mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine
W Prosecutors arguing AGAINST gun ownership???!!!
January 14, 2008 - 21:15 ET by planetrepublicanThis is the MOST troubling part of this: "Prosecutors led by the district attorneys of San Francisco and New York
are urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to recognize a broad individual
right to gun ownership that could endanger state and local firearms
laws.". Don't these prosecutors work for Bush??? What's that all about? I voted and supported W these past 8 years thru thick and thin and this is the thanks I get? Whose side is the W administration on???
"Don't these prosecutors
January 14, 2008 - 22:15 ET by MikeB"Don't these prosecutors work for Bush?" No, they don't. They are the elected prosecutors in the counties that San Francisco and New York City are in. U.S. Attorneys are appointed federal prosecutors.
As for a SCOTUS decision against D.C. causing a reduction in sentences for using a firearm in the commission of a felony, that is pure Natural Organic Fertilizer produced by a male bovine. An individual right to keep and bear arms does not in any way imply a right to use those firearms to facilitate the commission of a felony. Whoever came up with that one needs to be immediately a) fired, or b) removed from office if elected or appointed, because they are stupid and/or incompetent.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Fruits and nuts
January 14, 2008 - 21:24 ET by Randy HallCalifornia is a land of fruit and nuts. I’d hesitate to call it liberal. We passed Pete Knight’s Defense of Marriage act by a landslide. I chalk up California voting liberal due to the many public sector labor unions that tell the members who will be best for their labor cause.
I Am a Californian, and I have lived in San Fracisco..
January 15, 2008 - 00:12 ET by JoggerNotAll I can say, is you better damn well have a gun at your disposal..legal..or ? good for the courts this time around.. as arnold said..I'll ( We'll) be back!
A close friend of mine
January 15, 2008 - 09:59 ET by SpockA close friend of mine manages a Credit Union in Washington D.C. He has an armed security guard on staff to protect against the obvious during normal working hours. The guard has to have special permission to openly carry this weapon while on duty, but this comes with restrictions. For example, the guard must carry the weapon locked away in his trunk while traveling to and from work. Criminals know this.
They waited for the guard to arrive and jumped him as he got out of his car and before he could open his trunk. They then proceeded to enter the bank at gun point and rob it.
Isn't it ironic that "Gun Free Zones" are often exactly where guns are needed the most?