Gunco Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,214 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here is the latest news from the nations most screwed up city. they said they have found a way to get around the second ammendment with a carefully worded proposal. This CRAP! makes me sick.:rant:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,214 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Here is the story

San Francisco Supervisors Propose Gun Ban

Associated Press Writer

December 15, 2004, 8:30 PM EST

SAN FRANCISCO -- 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.
 

·
Mystic Knight of the Sea
Joined
·
13,384 Posts
Ahh, San Francisco. Home of the fruits and the nuts. More of them should be hanging on trees. Actually swinging on trees, big tall oak trees.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
:bull: :bsflag: :bull: :bsflag: :bull: :bsflag: :bull: :bsflag: :bull:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
Sounds like it is time to goto sanfran on a home burglery spree..

these fuckin asshats will never learn.. Freedom is'nt free, and I hope this doesnt pass. But if it does, I hope there will be bloodshed during the turn in /collection process..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
State's rights at work.
Actually, municipalities, but you raise an interesting point and a bit of a quandary for conservatives.

It wasn't until the 14th Amendment's interpretation of "equal protection" was expanded, beginning around the turn of the last century, that States' rights were impeded by the Bill of Rights. Until then, States were considered to have the right to pretty much pass whatever laws they damned well pleased. The Bill of Rights constrained only the Federal government: "Congress shall pass no law..."

If one is a firm advocate of States' rights, this expansion of the meaning of the 14th Amendment is dreadfully inappropriate and should be rolled back.

Meaning that if California wants to pass a law banning firearms, that's California's right. The Federal government shouldn't have the power to constrain a State's right to do so.

Myself, I'm OK with the expansion of Federal power with the expanded interpretation of the 14th Amendment, I'm OK with States being denied the right to pass confiscatory gun laws. But, then, I'm a lefty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
In NYC they have an almost ban? You have to get a permit and I heard from an ex New Yorker it's impossibly hard to get one for many.

See how great NYC has become, no robbery, murder, or rape there! :rolleyes:

Don't forget DC another gunless utopia.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
No AK-47's allowed in the City of Cincinnati and we know how that has helped the murder rate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Well, didn't handgun violence in New York City stop with the passage of the Sullivan Act?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
This has been discussed in another thread, forget which one, in the context of homosexuality: The Pink Pistols, a homosexual gun-rights group, is opposing the ban.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top