Zoomie
11-07-2005, 08:51 PM
Handgun, military recruiter bans spark little interest in San Francisco (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/11/05/state/n110339S21.DTL) - By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
Saturday, November 5, 2005
(11-05) 11:03 PST San Francisco (AP) --
Banning guns and booting military recruiters would seem like sure-fire hits with voters in peace-loving San Francisco.
But days before a municipal election, two ballot measures dealing with the typically passion-provoking topics face uncertain fates. One would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition, the other would oppose — in word only — the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges.
The rhetoric over the two has been so restrained, in fact, that Mayor Gavin Newsom said he hasn't felt compelled to take a public position on them.
"I haven't given either that much thought, and as mayor you are not supposed to say that," Newsom said. "Both are intellectually interesting, but beyond that people are looking more pragmatically as to whether we repave our roads or whether the community college bond passes."
Most political observers, Newsom included, think the measures will pass Tuesday, but they have sparked so little interest and debate that even the most seasoned pundits can't say for sure.
"They might not be the sure things people assume they are," said David Binder, a local pollster who found broad support for the concept of a gun ban before Proposition H was put on the ballot by five members of the Board of Supervisors in December. "Gut instinct says San Francisco supports both of those, but not by as much as people would think."
The gun initiative would ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition in San Francisco. It also would prohibit private residents from keeping handguns in their homes or businesses, with an exception for law enforcement, security guards and others who require the weapons for work. Current gun owners would have to surrender their arms by April if the measure passes.
Only two other major U.S. cities — Washington, D.C., and Chicago — have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.
One reason the measure has gotten so little notice is neither backers nor opponents have invested much money in the campaign, preferring to save resources for the national gun lobby's promised legal challenge if it passes. Cities do not have the authority to regulate firearms under state law, claims Chuck Michel, a lawyer representing the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association.
"People think of guns and they think about gun violence. They don't think of all the other ways guns are involved in our lives — in theatrical productions, action films, memorial services, color guards, all kinds of collateral things," Michel said.
In the NRA's campaign absence is a diverse coalition of gun owners in San Francisco, where nearly 22,000 handguns have been purchased since 1996, according to the state attorney general. Groups fighting the measure range from the San Francisco Police Officer's Association to the Pink Pistols, a group for gay gun enthusiasts.
The military recruitment initiative, dubbed "College Not Combat," would encourage city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters and create scholarships and training programs that would reduce the military's appeal to young adults. But as a nonbinding resolution, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking new enlistees at city campuses. A ban would put schools at risk of losing federal funding.
The initiative put on the ballot by anti-war groups is part of a larger national "counter-recruitment" battle being fought over the exclusion of openly gay service members and the war in Iraq. Last November, city voters approved a similarly symbolic measure urging the U.S. to pull troops from the Middle East.
Word of the upcoming Proposition I reached so far that Newsom had to personally reassure commanders of the Pacific Fleet they would not get a hostile reception at the city's "Fleet Week" celebration last month. He said he based his word, in part, after meeting enough locals opposed to the war who see the military as a respectable alternative to college.
"It's a fickle town in this respect, that oftentimes it's counterintuitive what you think the electorate would want," Newsom said. "Previous initiatives, like allowing noncitizens to vote in school board races, get crushed here."
The vote is tomorrow. To read the actual wording of the propositions you can read it here. (http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/election/VIP_Web_Nov_05.pdf)
I also find it funny how the supporters of the banning of military recruiters in school say they only target poor working class family's children when they show up at the schools, and they also purposely mislead them about never seeing combat and the same old blabbering from them. What I find interesting is that one of the bill's leading proponents is a combat medic who became a concientious objector during the Gulf War because she didn't think she'd ever see combat despite joining the army.:cantbeli:
Saturday, November 5, 2005
(11-05) 11:03 PST San Francisco (AP) --
Banning guns and booting military recruiters would seem like sure-fire hits with voters in peace-loving San Francisco.
But days before a municipal election, two ballot measures dealing with the typically passion-provoking topics face uncertain fates. One would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition, the other would oppose — in word only — the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges.
The rhetoric over the two has been so restrained, in fact, that Mayor Gavin Newsom said he hasn't felt compelled to take a public position on them.
"I haven't given either that much thought, and as mayor you are not supposed to say that," Newsom said. "Both are intellectually interesting, but beyond that people are looking more pragmatically as to whether we repave our roads or whether the community college bond passes."
Most political observers, Newsom included, think the measures will pass Tuesday, but they have sparked so little interest and debate that even the most seasoned pundits can't say for sure.
"They might not be the sure things people assume they are," said David Binder, a local pollster who found broad support for the concept of a gun ban before Proposition H was put on the ballot by five members of the Board of Supervisors in December. "Gut instinct says San Francisco supports both of those, but not by as much as people would think."
The gun initiative would ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition in San Francisco. It also would prohibit private residents from keeping handguns in their homes or businesses, with an exception for law enforcement, security guards and others who require the weapons for work. Current gun owners would have to surrender their arms by April if the measure passes.
Only two other major U.S. cities — Washington, D.C., and Chicago — have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.
One reason the measure has gotten so little notice is neither backers nor opponents have invested much money in the campaign, preferring to save resources for the national gun lobby's promised legal challenge if it passes. Cities do not have the authority to regulate firearms under state law, claims Chuck Michel, a lawyer representing the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association.
"People think of guns and they think about gun violence. They don't think of all the other ways guns are involved in our lives — in theatrical productions, action films, memorial services, color guards, all kinds of collateral things," Michel said.
In the NRA's campaign absence is a diverse coalition of gun owners in San Francisco, where nearly 22,000 handguns have been purchased since 1996, according to the state attorney general. Groups fighting the measure range from the San Francisco Police Officer's Association to the Pink Pistols, a group for gay gun enthusiasts.
The military recruitment initiative, dubbed "College Not Combat," would encourage city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters and create scholarships and training programs that would reduce the military's appeal to young adults. But as a nonbinding resolution, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking new enlistees at city campuses. A ban would put schools at risk of losing federal funding.
The initiative put on the ballot by anti-war groups is part of a larger national "counter-recruitment" battle being fought over the exclusion of openly gay service members and the war in Iraq. Last November, city voters approved a similarly symbolic measure urging the U.S. to pull troops from the Middle East.
Word of the upcoming Proposition I reached so far that Newsom had to personally reassure commanders of the Pacific Fleet they would not get a hostile reception at the city's "Fleet Week" celebration last month. He said he based his word, in part, after meeting enough locals opposed to the war who see the military as a respectable alternative to college.
"It's a fickle town in this respect, that oftentimes it's counterintuitive what you think the electorate would want," Newsom said. "Previous initiatives, like allowing noncitizens to vote in school board races, get crushed here."
The vote is tomorrow. To read the actual wording of the propositions you can read it here. (http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/election/VIP_Web_Nov_05.pdf)
I also find it funny how the supporters of the banning of military recruiters in school say they only target poor working class family's children when they show up at the schools, and they also purposely mislead them about never seeing combat and the same old blabbering from them. What I find interesting is that one of the bill's leading proponents is a combat medic who became a concientious objector during the Gulf War because she didn't think she'd ever see combat despite joining the army.:cantbeli: