San Francisco Wants Total Handgun Ban

[Coot]

You'd think with all the cat owners in that :friggin:'n city, the cats would have covered up the whole town by now. Clearly, the city council has OD'd on catbox fumes (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/12/15/state1859EST0145.DTL).

San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.

The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.

Under the language of the measure, the ban would not apply police officers, security guards, members of the military, and anyone else "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment."

If approved by a majority of the city's voters, the law would take effect in January 2006. Residents would have 90 days after that to relinquish their handguns.

I wonder if we could just get the whole city towed over to the South of France.

[Copzilla]

I rather hope it passes. Because it will prove, once and for all, that banning handguns does nothing to stop criminals from having them, and does nothing to stop crime.

Gawd I'm glad I live in Texas.

[Piobaireachd]

You'd think with all the cat owners in that :friggin:'n city, the cats would have covered up the whole town by now. Clearly, the city council has OD'd on catbox fumes (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/12/15/state1859EST0145.DTL).


San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.


The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.

Under the language of the measure, the ban would not apply police officers, security guards, members of the military, and anyone else "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment."

If approved by a majority of the city's voters, the law would take effect in January 2006. Residents would have 90 days after that to relinquish their handguns.


I wonder if we could just get the whole city towed over to the South of France.
I'm sure my NRA will throw a bunch of money at this stupid idea to make it go away. Hopefully the citizens of the Peoples Republic of San Francisco will have enough sense not to let this thing pass.

[Brazbit]

If this passes I give them roughly 91 days until the folks over in Oakland cross the bridge and claim dominion over the whole bay area. :thumbsup:

Somehow I do not see this as solving any problems in that city but I do see it causing a great many problems. Only time will tell.

[Andy]

Gee... a bunch of hippies live in Tombstone AZ, where just such a ban exists also...

Coincidence? :doh:

[Copzilla]

You know what I'd love to do if this passes? Get myself a "Texas Peace Officer" T-shirt, wear that and a pair of jeans and flip-flops and a gigantic 8" chrome .44 magnum on my hip and walk down mainstreet San Fran just to screw with the LLL looozers.

Wonder how much panic I'd set off? LOL

[Stiofán]

Can I still say Happy Holidays in San Francisco? Anyway, seems the residents of the most tolerant city will be forced to turn in their guns (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/16/BAG29AC7611.DTL) for destruction should this law pass, making SF the only city other than Wash DC to completely ban firearms. Gee, that'll pretty much mean only the bad guys will be armed, now won't it?

[Piobaireachd]

Yes, we've started discussing it here: http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?t=30595

[Allene]

This is crazy! I'm glad I don't live there.

[Fiona]

I rather hope it passes. Because it will prove, once and for all, that banning handguns does nothing to stop criminals from having them, and does nothing to stop crime.:thumbsup: -exactly!


ooohhh no guns allowed in SF... now I'm safe... ooooohhh, yeah right!

[Stiofán]

Well I posted it first, it's just that I have a **cking life and had to answer the phone before I hit the submit button. Coot tired of trying on the rubberware apparently, and snuck his thread in on me.

[Stiofán]

All they need to do now is ban the gays, then we can change the city name to Berlin, 1938.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44

[Copzilla]

(Threads merged)

[joseftu]

Seems like a stupid law--more an idiotic gesture than anything useful or necessary.

It's been clearly demonstrated, again and again, that banning guns does nothing to reduce crime. It's been similarly demonstrated, again and again, that permitting guns does nothing to reduce crime. There's no demonstrable correlation in either direction.

So what's the point of the law? Just to outrage some people, and soothe others? Idiotic.

[Biker]

I rather hope it passes. Because it will prove, once and for all, that banning handguns does nothing to stop criminals from having them, and does nothing to stop crime.

Gawd I'm glad I live in Texas.

Got that right! :happy:

And before anyone starts poo-pooing the idea that liberal conceal laws also don't reduce crime, they better look at the statistics for Texas after the CHL laws were passed. There was a MARKED decrease in crime.

[joseftu]

Crime rates in Texas are higher (in some cities) than places with much more strict gun laws (in some cities). Those laws don't reduce crime. They don't increase it, either. Statistically, there's no correlation. (Mainly because it's impossible to control for all the variables).

[RetFireCapt]

THis law doesn't (so far) affect owning the best home defense weapon out there, the short scattergun.

It still bothers the hell out of me though, as I'll bet anyone here 20 bucks that long arms will be next to go in the Soviet Socialist State of Frisco. God I wish they'd sucessfully secede.

[MNeedham73]

Crime rates in Texas are higher (in some cities) than places with much more strict gun laws (in some cities). Those laws don't reduce crime. They don't increase it, either. Statistically, there's no correlation. (Mainly because it's impossible to control for all the variables).There's an author/scholar by the name of John Lott who has done extensive research on the subject. From what I've read of it, his data indicates that areas with less restrictive gun laws and/or concealed carry laws do experience a drop in crime.

He even makes his raw research data (http://www.johnlott.org/cgi-bin/main.cgi) available for anyone who wishes to view it.

[RetFireCapt]

From what I've read of it, his data indicates that areas with less restrictive gun laws and/or concealed carry laws do experience a drop in crime.

Britain, anyone?

[Copzilla]

Got that right! :happy:

And before anyone starts poo-pooing the idea that liberal conceal laws also don't reduce crime, they better look at the statistics for Texas after the CHL laws were passed. There was a MARKED decrease in crime.
Better amend that to a marked decrease in violent crime, Biker, because crime rates stayed the same as muggings and car jackings decreased, criminals took to theft and other endeavours.

[Biker]

OK.. So I forgot to type a little 7 letter word. :blush:

[Lovehound]

I've been under the impression that I have a constitutional right to own a gun. Considering the above discussion it appears that I am mistaken.

[Copzilla]

Yeah... actually Texas crime rates are skewed anyway, as we have a terrible problem with auto theft, being so close to the Mexican border, autos stream there in incredible numbers. Discount that one issue - which the rest of the gun-controlling nation wouldn't share, except for a few states, and Texas is remarkably crime free. But living here, I'm sure you knew that.

[ethics]

I've been under the impression that I have a constitutional right to own a gun. Considering the above discussion it appears that I am mistaken.


Only if it agrees with your ideology.

See, if you are for the separation of Church and State you will use the Constitution ad-naseum. But when it's against your pompous view of how the world should be, then the Constitution is not even mentioned because it goes against your views.

[Lovehound]

Only if it agrees with your ideology.

See, if you are for the separation of Church and State you will use the Constitution ad-naseum. But when it's against your pompous view of how the world should be, then the Constitution is not even mentioned because it goes against your views. I don't quite understand what my ideology or my opinion on the separation of church and state has to do with my constitutional right to bear arms... AFAIK I haven't even stated my opinion on those subjects.

[Copzilla]

He even makes his raw research data (http://www.johnlott.org/cgi-bin/main.cgi) available for anyone who wishes to view it.
Please post a generic username/password for everyone to use.

[ethics]

I wasn't referring to you but replying to you. People choose as to what they want their world to mirror theirs usually take one thing out of the Constitution and throw everything they disagree with it out.

[ethics]

Bugmenot has a few. :)

[LissaKay]

bugmenot/bugmenot


BugMeNot extension for Firefox (http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic=566)


BugMeNot extension for IE (http://www.unixdaemon.net/ie_plugins.html#bugmenot_plugin) (context menu item)

BugMeNot Bookmarklet (Easiest to go to BugMeNot (http://www.bugmenot.com/) site and drag the Bookmarklet link to your toolbar)
javascript:void(window.open('http://bugmenot.com/view.php?mode=bookmarklet&url='+escape(location),'BugMeNot','location=no,status=yes,me nubar=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,width=385,height=450') )

If you really want to do it the hard way, make a new link in the Links/Bookmarks toolbar. Then right-click on it and choose properties. Copy/paste the above code to replace the URL and rename to BugMeNot.

[Fiona]

username: FiFi
password: pinkthong

[Lovehound]

I wasn't referring to you but replying to you. People choose as to what they want their world to mirror theirs usually take one thing out of the Constitution and throw everything they disagree with it out. Your quotation of my post and your reply below it gives the appearance that one is related to the other. I don't see how any other conclusion could be drawn but far be it for me to tell you how to post. Peace... :)

I'm willing to accept the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. I don't see how it makes sense to do otherwise, but that's just me. Perhaps I have a skewed personal view of reality and history and law.

[ethics]

I'm willing to accept the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. I don't see how it makes sense to do otherwise, but that's just me. Perhaps I have a skewed personal view of reality and history and law.

I agree with that view.

[Lovehound]

:)

So getting back to my (implied) question, I don't see how S.F. can ban handgun ownership without running afoul of the Constitution and citizen's rights to bear arms.

[ethics]

New York City did it.

[Biker]

It would be a lost cause in California. The state has already all but banned gun ownership there, and the higher courts located in the state would readily side with the city. Only way to get it overturned is to get the appeal heard in SCOTUS. And you have to have deep pockets to get to that point.

[MNeedham73]

New York City did it.
So has Chicago and several of it's suburbs.

[Lovehound]

Well I live in Los Angeles and gun ownership is not banned here. Or perhaps they neglected to inform me! ;) However, the City of L.A. has all but driven out gun retailers or made it difficult for them to operate. Big 5 still sells at least rifles (from their advertising flyers) and last time I looked they also sold handguns (couple years ago).

Biker I think you're exaggerating about CA "has already all but banned gun ownership..." I'm not meaning to say that there aren't interests here that would like to ban gun sales, but it hasn't come to that yet -- and I'm planning on leaving the state in a few years partially because of all this state government crap and because I'm tired of dealing with all the big city and big state problems we have.

[Biker]

They've already started. What's the highest caliber handgun you can own?

[Brazbit]

Wouldn't it be kind of hypocritical to ban guns in a state with Arnold as governator?

[joseftu]

Yes, that would be ironic, at least!

And MNeedham, I'd be very cautious about using John Lott as a source. His data is very questionable, and his honesty and integrity are not questionable...they're completely compromised. He's clearly (admittedly) guilty of posting positive reviews of his own work, and rebuttals to his critics, under fake names, on Amazon and on Usenet. He only admitted it when caught, and he has posted backdated corrections of his incorrect data, without admitting that until caught.

John Lott is not a reliable resource at all. You know he's a problem when even Michelle Malkin can't trust him.
http://www.vdare.com/malkin/johnlott.htm

[Lovehound]

They've already started. What's the highest caliber handgun you can own? AFAIK the borderline between small arms and everything else is .50 caliber. One of the handgun manufacturers introduced a .50 caliber pistol a couple years ago and it was quite a controversy -- over what nobody but a collector would buy. In any case the .45 is probably the largest handgun you would commonly find -- or need IMHO.

AFAIK it is not legal to own or possess any arms over .50 caliber except in special circumstances, i.e. not your average citizen.

[MNeedham73]

One of the handgun manufacturers introduced a .50 caliber pistol a couple years ago and it was quite a controversy -- over what nobody but a collector would buy.
Smith & Wesson model 500 probably.
Caliber: .500 S&W Magnum

[Stiofán]

California has a few gun ownership problems, but we still hae some leftover conservative thought from prior to the Democratic coup in our legislature some years back.

We can legally own just about any handgun, including a .50 cal. I believe.

Unfortunately, some cities have banned "Saturday Night Specials" from sale, and it's been upheld (ownership is still legal however). some counties and cities have banned gun shows, and again it's been upheld. The reasons for this are that California is one of only 5 states, I think, which does not specifically include the right to keep and bear arms in it's state consitution, so the liberal courts have not seen fit to see that right i nmany suits brought there. If they are appealed to the federal courts, it then has to get by the 9th Circuit, which won't even recoginze an individual's right to keep and bear arms in the US Constitution, although a few justices have dissented from that view. As long as they chip away at our rights slwly and piecemeal, the cases never seem to either be taken up by or get to SCOTUS. We do have a state law which says local gun regulations cannot preempt state law on guns, but the liberal courts refuse to enforce it, always finding a reason it will not apply.

[mikepd]

San Francisco, New York City, any city or state can pass all the legislation they want banning firearms. However, by definition, criminals do not obey the law so why do the legislators think they will obey the ones on firearms? The cretins that did the North Hollywood bank robbery sure did not obey any firearm laws. Law abiding people obey the laws and I would wager that if a study was done it would show that in places where a CCW is allowed, an armed society is a polite society.

[Lovehound]

... The cretins that did the North Hollywood bank robbery sure did not obey any firearm laws... It's interesting that the store that loaned the LAPD some real fire power, B & B Sales, is no longer in business because new gun laws made their business unprofitable. (Damn -- B&B was my favorite store!)

[Frodo Lives]

A populace that is unarmed is a populace that is less likely to revolt against a government that imposed tyrannical laws and taxes. Not that I am saying this is why they are trying to pass such pathetic gun laws, but then again......

[Sierra Mike]

That's it, damn it...I'm going to zero the Sigs this weekend, in celebration of living in a less tyrannical state.

SM

[Andy]

It's interesting that the store that loaned the LAPD some real fire power, B & B Sales, is no longer in business because new gun laws made their business unprofitable. (Damn -- B&B was my favorite store!)

Isn't it true they got spanked down on real hard because of the existing gunlaws at the time for NOT filling out the proper paperwork, waiting 5 days and doing background checks when they just handed weapons over the counter to the PD to try and help them?

[Copzilla]

If they are appealed to the federal courts, it then has to get by the 9th Circuit, which won't even recoginze an individual's right to keep and bear arms in the US Constitution, although a few justices have dissented from that view. As long as they chip away at our rights slwly and piecemeal, the cases never seem to either be taken up by or get to SCOTUS. We do have a state law which says local gun regulations cannot preempt state law on guns, but the liberal courts refuse to enforce it, always finding a reason it will not apply.
And the wheels keep turning on the conservative movement...

After all, it's only the media centers, the big cities that carry the liberal vote in California, and they're the ones requiring the bans - and carrying signs that say "Fuck Middle America" in their post election riots.

Keep on forcing the liberal agenda, keep moving away from our nation's origins and values, picking and choosing which rights are important from the Constitution as if it were a buffet line... and keep losing ground in the political arena.

[Copzilla]

Isn't it true they got spanked down on real hard because of the existing gunlaws at the time for NOT filling out the proper paperwork, waiting 5 days and doing background checks when they just handed weapons over the counter to the PD to try and help them?
I'm sure some loony liberal had that notion, but California's laws in that regard will closely mirror Texas' laws, which state (in a nutshell) that under an emergency a peace officer can draw resources required in order to accomplish the mission. Any attempts to demonize the gunshop owners would be thrown out as they were actually required to comply.

[Lovehound]

I didn't hear of any problems for B & B resultant from them helping LAPD. Although B & B got their just reward in the end anyway considering that they are no longer in business. (But not as a result of the NH robbery business.)

[Andy]

I'm sure some loony liberal had that notion, but California's laws in that regard will closely mirror Texas' laws, which state (in a nutshell) that under an emergency a peace officer can draw resources required in order to accomplish the mission. Any attempts to demonize the gunshop owners would be thrown out as they were actually required to comply.

Thanks.. (both of you actually :))

I probably have that in the back of my mind from reading elsewhere about it, and the gun-grabing, non American-citizen loonies were all up in arms claiming that the shop had violate a law, or something.... :doh:

[Stiofán]

I bought my Sig Hunter .270 from them. They had some good prices. If I remember right, they had some problems when they first instituted the handgun trigger lock law (otherwise known as the criminal gets a headstart to shoot you provision) where the only authorized trigger lock manufacturer couldn't make enough locks, so B&B was using another brand (just as good) and they got fined big time for each sale they made with the other brand locks. This article touches on it.

Page 1 - Self Defense Infringed By Dumb Law (http://www.ggnra.org/newsletters/2002/mar/page2.shtml)
Page 2 continuation (http://www.ggnra.org/newsletters/2002/mar/page5.shtml)

[Stiofán]

Actually, there was some complaint. (boy, can I google or what!)

Gun Dealer in Headlines (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n12_v42/ai_20359282)

We even saw a gun dealer become a national media hero in '97 - for the first time in most of our memories.

We were stunned to see all the great publicity about B&B Gun Sales handing out firearms to Los Angeles police officers who were taking fire from heavily armed bank robbers dressed in body armor.

Bob Kahn, president of B&B, noted, "We supplied them with five .223 semiautomatic rifles, four of which were Bushmasters, and two Remington 1187 police shotguns."

Praise of Kahn was almost universal - almost, but not quite.

"The only people who bad mouthed. us were The Los Angeles Times and Handgun Control," Kahn said. "Handgun Control professed that we may have broken federal laws.

"When nine panicked officers come in and tell you five officers are down, you don't think about breaking federal laws. The LA Times wouldn't mention our shop by name. They said, 'The police officers who did this may receive disciplinary action,' which is bull. Can you imagine if somebody tried to discipline those guys! Can you imagine the press!"

[archidante]

Maybe it will work as well for them as it has for the Brits. They can leave milk and cookies all year round for the fat guys climbing in the windows....

[Kangaroo]

Personally, I think this is a fine idea. The combination of an un-armed population in Frisco and a heavily armed population in Phoenix should mean a vast decrease in criminals here as they swarm to the easy pickings in the Golden State. And the fact that the victims are almost exclusively liberal is just a bonus (j/k).