Gunco Forums banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
THE SAN FRAN GUN BAN
By Michelle Malkin ? December 17, 2004 04:11 PM
You've got to hand it to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. They are unrepentant, unabashed, and undeterred gun grabbers--and there ain't nuthin' that's gonna stop 'em from trampling all over the Second Amendment. Here's the AP/SFgate.com story outlining the board's sweeping gun ban proposal. Volokh notes it would ban the possession of handguns as well as the sales of all firearms and ammunition, including shotguns and rifles.

Defending the proposal, an official explained:

"The hope is twofold, that officers will have an opportunity to interact with folks and if they have a handgun, that will be reason enough to confiscate it."

Clayton Cramer responds to this deadly Big Nannyism:
I love that: "an opportunity to interact with folks...." What they mean is that if the police find someone carrying a gun, they can arrest them and confiscate the gun. Oh, but they already can do so. It is unlawful to carry a concealed handgun in California without a permit (Cal. Penal Code 12025), or to carry a loaded firearm in an incorporated area (like San Francisco) openly (Cal. Penal Code 12031) and when they arrest you for either violation, they confiscate the gun.

So where are these "interactions" going to take place? In your home. Now, if they are arresting you for commiting a crime, they already confiscate the gun, and it is a rare moment indeed when a person gets a confiscated gun back in San Francisco--even if criminal charges are not filed. So what this really means is that if the police come to your home because you are a victim of a crime--and they find a gun--they'll confiscate it--and make sure that you are even less able to defend yourself next time.


Some of the gun ban advocates are using the old public health rationale and are touting the measure as a suicide-prevention strategy. Which prompted two great comments. One from Cramer and one from Opinion Journal.com's James Taranto:

Cramer.

Wait a minute: I thought liberals supported the right to suicide. They certainly support physician-assisted suicide. But they oppose suicide with a gun? Does anyone besides me find that just a bit bizarre?
Taranto.

Advocates of the ban present it as a suicide-prevention measure. Says Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly: "We know that for even law-abiding folks who own guns, the rates of suicide and mortality are substantially higher. So while just perceived to be a crime thing, we think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city."

We think he's wrong about mortality rates, which as far as we know are 100% for gun owners and gun shunners alike. But he may be right that gun owners are at risk of suicide. Good thing San Francisco doesn't have any bridges.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
:rant:

"The hope is twofold, that officers will have an opportunity to interact with folks and if they have a handgun, that will be reason enough to confiscate it."
Interact, what a nice little part of the world these guys live in. Yeah they'll be interaction alright. The crooks who will keep their guns anyway, as crooks have been known to violate the law. The crooks will interact with the cops by shooting them. Cut me a break, this solves nothing. Just ask DC and NYC.

:rant:
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top