San Francisco proposes gun ban

[FallenAngel]

From arguably the most liberal city in the country, it was only a matter of time.


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 (news - web sites) and immediately pull out U.S. troops immediately passed with ease.

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

Too bad it's illegal. Federal law defines "militia" (as used in the second amendment) as any able body male between 17 and 45 years of age.

[Nizark]

It won't pass here. No chance of enforcing it, and the people who probably need the guns most, those in high crime areas, will never give them up. Its a great idea if there was someway to get 100% of the guns, but there is no chance of it.

Maybe if they tried to take away handguns with clips first, and left the six-bullet handguns and see how that turns out, it may have a chance.

[ZaakM433]

Gun control is evil...

just wrote a rogerian argument paper a couple weeks back over it. I could pepper you all with academic sources that you would have to pay in order to get off of online databases. This is a terrible idea.

The militia comment, i agree with you, but the courts dont.

[usbabmc]

It just amazes me how the fools in San Fran. think they don't have to follow the same Constitution as the rest of the US. They are a bastion of liberal idiocy in an otherwise fine country.

[perdurabo]

poor yanks you are getting pussified its infiltration of evil forces from wussieland :lol:

[ZaakM433]

poor yanks you are getting pussified its infiltration of evil forces from wussieland :lol:

not on my watch p-)

[Sir Zach of R.]

poor yanks you are getting pussified its infiltration of evil forces from wussieland :lol:

Not on my watch either. p-) Besides, do you really expect every person to give up their weapons? Especially the criminals and gang members, they would NEVER give them up. This is just another demonstration of how the left has fallen off the common sense cliff and hit every stupid-rock on the way down.

[[SAB]Grey]

Yeah and lets not forget all those on the right who have fallen off the same cliff and hit the same rocks on this issue.

[plodey]

Sounds like a good idea. For it to work they would have to give people a large fine if caught with gun. For criminals caught committing a crime with a firearm they should automatically double their sentence / penalty.

[Sir Zach of R.]

Grey]Yeah and lets not forget all those on the right who have fallen off the same cliff and hit the same rocks on this issue.

I can't think of any off the top of my head. I don't think there are more than a few reps in the House and Senate who are anti-gun.

[gaz]

Too bad it's illegal. Federal law defines "militia" (as used in the second amendment) as any able body male between 17 and 45 years of age.

As a matter of curiosity, doesn't that mean that anyone who doesn't fall into that category (Women, old people or wheel chair users) could have their firearms taken off them since they couldn't be in the militia?

[FallenAngel]

Too bad it's illegal. Federal law defines "militia" (as used in the second amendment) as any able body male between 17 and 45 years of age.

As a matter of curiosity, doesn't that mean that anyone who doesn't fall into that category (Women, old people or wheel chair users) could have their firearms taken off them since they couldn't be in the militia?

Basically federal law defines "militia" as two things.

A- organized/ uniformed militia: the reserves for all branches and national guard members (male and female).

B- unorganized militia: any able bodied male between 17 and 45 who may be called upon to serve in a time of war.

The bold part refers to the draft. Since women are exempt from the selective service system, they technically do not fall under this definition and so, technically, could have their guns taken away I suppose.

[gaz]

That's interesting, thanks.

[Nizark]

It just amazes me how the fools in San Fran. think they don't have to follow the same Constitution as the rest of the US. They are a bastion of liberal idiocy in an otherwise fine country.

and you conservatives assholes hate it when people have a difference of opinion

[Sir Zach of R.]

It just amazes me how the fools in San Fran. think they don't have to follow the same Constitution as the rest of the US. They are a bastion of liberal idiocy in an otherwise fine country.

and you conservatives assholes hate it when people have a difference of opinion

Well someone sure is cranky. ;)

[ZaakM433]

It just amazes me how the fools in San Fran. think they don't have to follow the same Constitution as the rest of the US. They are a bastion of liberal idiocy in an otherwise fine country.

and you conservatives assholes hate it when people have a difference of opinion

ouch! dont be so hypocritical.

[ZaakM433]

Sounds like a good idea. For it to work they would have to give people a large fine if caught with gun. For criminals caught committing a crime with a firearm they should automatically double their sentence / penalty.

its not a fine, its jail time. Right now.

[Pralix]

It just amazes me how the fools in San Fran. think they don't have to follow the same Constitution as the rest of the US. They are a bastion of liberal idiocy in an otherwise fine country.

and you conservatives assholes hate it when people have a difference of opinion


As long as California (all of it, including San Francisco) are part of the USA they have to abide by the US Constitution, even the parts they don't like.

[Geezah]

Sounds like a good idea. For it to work they would have to give people a large fine if caught with gun. For criminals caught committing a crime with a firearm they should automatically double their sentence / penalty.

Words of wisdom from our resident Dianne Feinstein rofl


Sounds like a good idea, fine criminals for being criminals rofl

[Aerosoul]

Yeah umm....I swear I posted here but I'll do it again.


Edit: Found another post.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=33195

few replies there, if the info is correct provide good info. abbout the legality of the issue.

[usbabmc]

It just amazes me how the fools in San Fran. think they don't have to follow the same Constitution as the rest of the US. They are a bastion of liberal idiocy in an otherwise fine country.

and you conservatives assholes hate it when people have a difference of opinion

I don't feel like my Contitutional rights being stomped on by some cry baby liberal to be a difference of opinion. They are my rights, My family fought to liberate this country from the Brits and gain the freedon we now have and I'll be damned if I am going to sit by while they are eroded under the guise of liberalism.

The const. is NOT a working document that can be molded to fit someones political ideals. I don't care if it's taking away my right to bear arms or a gays right to marrage, I will disagree.

The Constitution is a document that gives freedom not takes it away.

BTW the name calling shows your lack of maturity. :bash:

[Sir Zach of R.]

It just amazes me how the fools in San Fran. think they don't have to follow the same Constitution as the rest of the US. They are a bastion of liberal idiocy in an otherwise fine country.

and you conservatives assholes hate it when people have a difference of opinion

I don't feel like my Contitutional rights being stomped on by some cry baby liberal to be a difference of opinion. They are my rights, My family fought to liberate this country from the Brits and gain the freedon we now have and I'll be damned if I am going to sit by while they are eroded under the guise of liberalism.

The const. is NOT a working document that can be molded to fit someones political ideals. I don't care if it's taking away my right to bear arms or a gays right to marrage, I will disagree.

The Constitution is a document that gives freedom not takes it away.

BTW the name calling shows your lack of maturity. :bash:

That was the best post I've heard in two months. Congratulations. woot

[plodey]

It just amazes me how the fools in San Fran. think they don't have to follow the same Constitution as the rest of the US. They are a bastion of liberal idiocy in an otherwise fine country.

and you conservatives assholes hate it when people have a difference of opinion

I don't feel like my Contitutional rights being stomped on by some cry baby liberal to be a difference of opinion. They are my rights, My family fought to liberate this country from the Brits and gain the freedon we now have and I'll be damned if I am going to sit by while they are eroded under the guise of liberalism.

The const. is NOT a working document that can be molded to fit someones political ideals. I don't care if it's taking away my right to bear arms or a gays right to marrage, I will disagree.

The Constitution is a document that gives freedom not takes it away.


You guys probably should know more about your own constitution than me, a foreigner......... however, I thought the constitution WAS a working document. There have been a number of amendments to the original version such as the Emancipation Proclamation and even the 2nd amendment itself. For example, the Emancipation Proclamation was set down to redress outdated sections of the constitution (where slavery was codified), why should you not have another to redress the outdated amendment such as the 2nd ?

Do you really think that your right to bear arms is necessary for the security of a free State? I thought your military was the strongest in the world? Why do you need extra militia? If this militia did have to fight against the US Army or a foreign invader do you think small arms would suffice against tanks or fighter/bombers? Have you seen what tanks do to rifles in the video section (Iraq)?

I couldn't care whether you can buy guns or not, I find the argument of a "right to bear arms" interesting.

[TacoDelRio]

I love this state.

If it passes (when), you should just take a map, and watch the "Red Tide" crawl rather quickly accross California. We shall be swallowed by communist morons!

I kid you not.

[Sir Zach of R.]

I love this state.

If it passes (when), you should just take a map, and watch the "Red Tide" crawl rather quickly accross California. We shall be swallowed by communist morons!

I kid you not.

Don't you mean "bleu tide?" rofl

[BlackRain]

The people in San Fran would understand why this anti-gun law is unpopular with ordinary Americans IF they also passed a anti-butt f-ing law there as well. :D

[Freibier]

I might often disagree with you guys but as a hobby shooter I say:
**** the anti-gun ****ers!

[BlackRain]

[Do you really think that your right to bear arms is necessary for the security of a free State? I thought your military was the strongest in the world? Why do you need extra militia? If this militia did have to fight against the US Army or a foreign invader do you think small arms would suffice against tanks or fighter/bombers? Have you seen what tanks do to rifles in the video section (Iraq)?

I couldn't care whether you can buy guns or not, I find the argument of a "right to bear arms" interesting.

Yes, I do. The designers of our country believed that ordinary citizens must be able to retain and bear arms as a counterbalance to another corrupt government taking root.

Gun/weapon bans have been used by tryants during the course of human events to remove the liberties of the average citizen.

Examples:

Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)

Adolf Hitler: "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: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.

John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann [From the 1974 Gun Digest, article titled Gun Laws]

Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

Thus, I shall protect my 2nd Amendment rights; sadly the citizens of San Francisio are losing theirs.