Pink Pistols Leader Denies He's BehindNRA's Gay Gun Lawsuit
Back in January he penned a letter the San Francisco Sentinel, talking trash about the city's attempt to reduce gun violence and improve civilian safety, which is costing local taxpayers lots of money:
The state appeals court has refused to revive San Francisco’s Proposition H ban on handgun possession. The City will now have to pay legal expenses of the NRA.Boyer's address on the letter is listed as being on Valencia Street, in the block where Valencia Gardens public housing project is located. He's also identified as a Pink Pistols spokesman, and find myself again, as I have over the many years I've known Boyer, in serious opposition and political disagreement with his worship of guns and the National Rifle Association.
Even though Supervisors Chris Daly, Bevan Dufty, Tom Ammiano, Matt Gonzalez, and Ross Mirkarimi were advised that this misadventure would fail in the court, they ignored legal advice in pushing fake crime control.
San Franciscans should ask themselves how they feel to be deceived by these Supervisors, and to have their hard earned tax money flushed down the toilet.
I've suspect that Boyer is the Guy Doe listed as the petitioner on the recent NRA lawsuit against the city's gun control policies, and as they apply specifically to public housing.
During the last week of June, the day after the Supreme Court handed down a favorable Second Amendment decision, the suit was filed, generated tremendous media coverage, none of which kicked around the question of who is Guy Doe. Since this anonymous man is costing the city thousands of dollars in legal fee responding to the filing, with the potential of thousands, possibly millions, more in city funds spent fending off the NRA, I'd like the press to delve into Mr. Doe, his motives and fears of being a hate crime victim.
Click here to read the 200-plus Google News hits on the suit and the no-name gay guy bringing the legal petition.
I spoke with Boyer about all this when I ran into him at the farmers market during the week, and followed up with an email exchange, which is shared below.
Me to him:
I'm drafting a post that I want to get up on my blog regarding my belief that you're the 'anonymous' gay gun owner living in Valencia Gardens who's behind the NRA lawsuit.
There's some evidence that you are the person referred to in the suit. Are you the gay pistol owner on whose behalf the suit was filed?
I'd like to include a quote from you, reacting both to my question and the filing of the suit.
Boyer's response:
Thanks for giving me a chance to respond. The article that appeared in the Chronicle seemed to have indicated that the gun owner possessed a gun in his apartment. I myself am in no violation of the lease, which prohibits firearms, swords, water pistols, or anything that looks like a weapon.
So my answer is there is no gun in my apartment.
There is more than one gay man at Valencia Gardens, and I feel that his wishes to remain anonymous for fear of retribution are valid.
My reply to him:
Thanks for the fast reply.
I wonder if you are willing to go on the public record and state unequivocally that you are not the gay gun owner behind the NRA lawsuit? Your reply above was vague on this point.
You say there is no gun in your apartment at this time, but that is not a clear denial of being the gay guy behind the suit.
Also, from whom exactly does the gay gun owner fear retribution? The Housing Authority? A member of the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor?
Many of the articles on the suit mention this fear, but give no indication of who would exact retribution from the petitioner over his lawsuit.
And, finally, his response:
Once again Michael, thanks for holding off until I could respond.
Because there are a number of gay men living at Valencia Gardens, any answer from me will tend to identify the anonymous plaintiff, thus I will not answer that question.
As for the concern of retribution, one will have to ask the anonymous plaintiff.
I said earlier my suspicions are that Boyer is the anonymous petitioner, and his evasive answers to my questions and weak denials reinforce my belief he's intimately involved in the NRA suit.
Regardless of my personal suspicions, the San Francisco press and City Hall politicians should ask a few questions about this Guy Doe and his love of the NRA and fear of crime.
Now now, Michael, there's nothing wrong with a citizen seeking redress from the government through the courts.
ReplyDelete-marc
I'm not suggesting citizens should not seek redress of grievances, Marc. Just that in this case, questions must be raised about the petitioner and his identity. You don't object to that, do you?
ReplyDeleteMichael, you seem to intimate that since Boyer took issue with the City flushing money down the toilet to defend the gun ban, that he is a hypocrite for lodging a lawsuit against the City for its ban on gun ownership in the projex.
ReplyDeleteThere are already enough barriers to seeking relief in court, we don't need to add any more. Nor should this be construed as an effort to shield the plaintiff from scrutiny.
The plaintiff should be scrutinized on the merits of their case rather than for filing the suit in the first instance. Given the SCOTUS 2d amendment decision, this case is quite likely to succeed on the merits, assuming the SCOTUS does not adapt one set of laws for the rich and white, another for the poor and of color.
That would never happen in a country with a 13,14 and 15th amendment, right?
I happen to know that Tom Boyer is relatively well known and very well informed about the goings on in the realm of gun ownership, gay concerns, and even SF politics. But never once in all my conversations with him have I gotten the impression that he was in any way opportunistic or otherwise willing to injure San Francisco or her tax paying residents.
ReplyDeleteYour popular knowledge of Tom Boyer as someone outspoken on the prudence of self defense for those who make obvious targets, and your crediting him with being in a good position from which to speak on the matter, do not make any case for him being the anonymous Guy Doe. Tom is a well-known figurehead, rather easy to find, as you point out in your article. Tom, a very proud and open gay and gun Rights activist, of all people, shows little need or desire to hide.
No matter who this Guy Doe is, and I don't buy it that it is Tom, the court will theoretically decide based on the relevant facts whether the suit is valid. Unnecessarily delving into the private details of someone who wishes to remain anonymous, as this Guy Doe obviously does, makes the case supporting the original request for anonymity in the first place.
But this entire subject is completely moot. The city Stupidvisors and attorneys knew full well that they were violating the Rights of SF residents, as well as breaking state law. They wanted to make names for themselves, and they have.
Hopefully, now as the pro-Prop-H news media try to ignore the prop-H debacle, maybe this suit will point out to the misled voters how badly our city government has screwed up, yet again.
Who is Guy Doe? This is irrelevant. Who are the Supervisors, and Mayor, that crammed this entire Prop-H piece of garbage down our throats? That's worth remembering at the polls.
Hey Mike:
ReplyDeleteA while back, in 1998, I wrote an editorial for Annoy.com titled "Matthew Shepard: A Call to Arms" in which I concluded the following: "Perhaps it's time for gays to stand up and take control of their destiny. To stop relying on self-appointed national leaders to go begging to sit at a hypocritical political table where they are neither welcome nor accepted. To stop characterizing themselves as victims and bestowing awards on celebrities and media outlets because they represent gays 'favorably,' while gay kids are being pistol whipped and beaten to death and anti-gay violence is on the rise. Perhaps every gay and lesbian individual should stop supporting gun-control advocates, and arm themselves with guns and ammunition and embrace the gun ownership philosophies of rabid homophobe and National Rifle Association chairman, Charlton Heston. Because neither a Human Rights Campaign membership, nor a federal law could have saved Matthew Shepard that night. But a loaded gun might have. Ironic, since it was an unfired gun that killed him."
While I have mixed feelings over gun control laws and their application, given the context above, I'm more concerned about the privacy issues involved. If Guy Doe has a legitimate fear of being a hate crime victim and an equally well founded fear of revealing his identity, what justification is there for unmasking him and depriving him of his right to challenge the government anonymously? The day after Matthew Shepard died, a divided U.S. Supreme Court let stand a voter initiative that barred Cincinnati from protecting gays against discrimination. What if the Guy Doe had been an anonymous petitioner challenging Cincinnati's initiative? Would you still encourage the unmasking of his identity?