Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - San Francisco prepares to vote on gun ban/grab

- Tilted Weaponry (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-weaponry/)

- - San Francisco prepares to vote on gun ban/grab (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-weaponry/78859-san-francisco-prepares-vote-gun-ban-grab.html)

San Francisco prepares to vote on gun ban/grab

http://www.sierratimes.com/04/12/16/...se_Gun_Ban.htm

Quote:

San Francisco Supervisors Propose Gun Ban
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - City residents will vote next year on a proposed weapons ban that would deny handguns to everyone except law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards.

If passed next November, residents would have 90 days to give up firearms they keep in their homes or businesses. The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal by a gun owners group.

The measure - submitted Tuesday to the Department of Elections by some city supervisors - would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses, according to Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly.

Firearms would be allowed only for 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,'' according to the measure.

Barnes said Wednesday the initiative is a response to the rising homicide rate and other social ills, noting: ``We think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city.''

Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group, quickly called the ban illegal. Sam Paredes, the group's executive director, said state law bars local governments from usurping the state's authority to regulate firearms.

``The amazing thing is they are going to turn San Francisco into ground zero for every criminal who wants to profit at their chosen profession,'' Paredes said.

How many residents would be affected by the ban is unclear, since California does not require residents to register handguns that are kept in a private residence of business.

Washington, D.C., is the only major American city that currently bans handgun possession by private citizens. Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, said San Francisco would be remiss to use that city as a model.

``If gun control worked, Washington, D.C., would be the beacon. However, it's the murder capital of the United States,'' he said.

In San Francisco, five of the 11-member Board of Supervisors submitted the measure directly to the Department of Elections - one more than the minimum needed to get the measure on the ballot without signatures from registered voters.

The city's voters have frequently championed liberal causes. In the last election, a nonbinding ballot measure to condemn the war in Iraq and immediately pull out U.S. troops immediately passed with ease.

If approved, the weapons ban would take effect in January 2006.

If we take away legally purchased guns, nobody will get host, because criminals never get weapons illegally, right? :rolleyes:

I'm sure glad I live in a shall-issue state. Only 17 days until I'm eligible to carry.

They did that once already in the 80's.

Diane Feinstein was the instrumental in having it passed. She made a BFD about surrendering her little .25 auto at a news conference... while her two armed bodyguards stood in the background.

It'll never fly. not only does it violate California state law, but it is unconstitutional. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

hrdwareguy

CA dose not seem to even know what the 2nd is. After all, look at the state's record. They banned AKs and ARs by receiver types. The banned any gun that contains more than 10 rounds. They banned any 50 bmgs, even though none have ever been used in a crime. The list goes on and on. Hopefully, some group like the NRA, the ACLU, or the Pink Pistols will bring suite on the issue if it passes.

I had a studio in SF for 10 years and left because it was too childishly liberal for my thinking, even then.

It's good to see a thread like this that isn't getting jumped by those who oppose a robust unholding of the second ammendment.

My studio was in the Mission District - a place where criminals have guns and use them nightly. This is the city where the Mayor and a gay Councilman were killed in their offices by a city Supervisor. You better believe it's reasonably necessary to carry a gun for self defense in that city - and not just in the Mission District but all the way to the top rungs of the ladder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrTuffPaws

States can make laws that place more restrictions on federal laws but they can not override federal laws.

Also, this is a case where a city is trying to be more restrictive than a state law and, as originally posted, California does not allow individaul cities to make their own gun laws.

You cannot pay me enough to live in California.

Visit, yes.

Live? No friggin' way.

Both sides in that article are absolutely psychotic. One wants to completely ban firearms in an area where they may be of use or necessity, and the other is arguing that crime will skyrocket when the guns are taken away. People are so stupid it makes me want to cry sometimes.

That's just silly stuff. There's no way it can pass, I don't think, as others have said...it's unconstitutional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

I won't argue that it will skyrocket, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the rate of muggings and other violent crimes increase sharply, then gradually level off.

I wouldn't be surprised to see changes either, but the article mentioned gun nuts saying "The amazing thing is they are going to turn San Francisco into ground zero for every criminal who wants to profit at their chosen profession" which is absolutely ludicrous. I think it's a pain when people attribute crime rates causally to weapon ownership, or lack thereof.

All I know is that criminals are overwhelmingly in favor of gun control, and that's enough of a reason for me to not like it. I guess I'm just going to have to do my best to avoid SF.

So taking away guns from people who obtained them legaly is supposed to help protect them from criminals who obtained them illegaly?

riiiiiiiiiiight.......... :rolleyes:

yeah, this is just stupid. im not a big gun fan, but come on! all this will do is make a bigger black market for guns and give them an excuse to arrest folks (for fines, bail money, etc)

kalifornia is an odd state

Damn Kali people :shakes head: There is a lot of cool stuff that comes from CA, but there is also a lot of fucked up stuff like this. Do they wonder why they have high crime? I know it was sited in this paper but it really needs to be published more. More guns=Less Crime in almost everything I have seen, VA and DC is the perfect example.

Spyder, it's really not that simple. In the case of the United States, firearm availability is essentially a neccessity in order to prevent crime, but there are other ways to deal with it. Under the current circumstances however, they are better to have around legally than not. The only issue is that while it may decrease muggings, property theft, and first degree murder, ubiquotosity (real word? maybe) of firearms also would increase second degree murder, manslaughter, and accidental suicide (running purely off of speculative logic).

I hope it passes overwhelmingly and fails miserably.

Suave;
Actually, increased presence of firearms drives down -all- types of crime, violent or not. Mr. Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime provides exaustive documentation of this.
As for suicide: Japan has -no- legal gun-ownership, and a suicide rate more than 3X higher than ours.

I may have to read that book. From the title it seems to me he probably biased the shit out of his "documentation". I also realise that Japan has an atronaumical suicide rate (note I put accidental in there, and with good reason), but comparing two countries, especially two as different as Japan and the U.S. is like, to be cliche, apples and oranges.