Judge: San Francisco can't be sued over death of Kate Steinle who was killed by illegal immigrant...

Sgt Wayne Wood - That seems to be the basic resident of San Francisco.

The rule of law has to be the same for all, or it means nothing, there is no consistency, and chaos would rule the courts. If you allow this lawsuit to go forward, then other lawsuits will also go forward, cases that most people would be up in arms about.

No, despite the pain of the family, it is better that the rule of law be followed, even when it is not the easy thing to do.

Capt Gregory Prickett - I am curious how they did NOT violate Federal law? They refused to turn him over to the Federal LEO. I am curious how this will play out. The City/State is partially responsible.

PO1 Richard Cormier - the federal government cannot co-op state officers to conduct federal duties, see Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). State officers are under no obligation to notify federal authorities when state prisoners are being released. Federal officials could have deported him at the conclusion of his federal sentence instead of transferring to the custody of San Francisco to face state charges. In any event, as the judge noted, there was no law requiring that San Francisco notify the federal government of the release of a state prisoner who had no pending federal criminal charges.

I see both sides as well... maybe that's why the law has nothing to do with justice...

The state of Oklahoma made companies who had policies preventing employees from transporting firearms in their vehicles while in company parking lots responsible for their employee's safety to and from work. The Second Amendment gives people the right to bear arms in all cases of self defense. The state of OK, said the company policies made them liable for their employee safety. A state law was passed striking the provision from employee handbooks. Texas passed a similar law a few years later.

I suspect the restrictive gun laws and sanctuary status of SF could be taken to SCOTUS since the Kate Steinle, et. al. families' rights are infringed by state laws that counter the second amendment. The DC v Heller decision is a prime example of state overreach.

If the Steinle family chose not to pursue their Constitutional right to defend themselves prior to Kate's murder, the state is still liable, in my opinion, for allowing a known felon sanctuary status.


Attachment: Scalia's Opinion
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Cpl (Join to see) - DC v. Heller did not involve any state government or state law. It dealt solely with federal law, since DC is federal territory. You may be thinking of McDonald v. Chicago.

As to the "known felon" status, once someone has served their time, they have to be released, and if the federal government wanted him, they should have filed federal charges. Merely telling another agency that we would like you to hold this guy without any pending charges won't cut it.