San Francisco Supervisors Propose (Hand)Gun Ban

[Romulus]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20041216/ap_on_re_us/gun_ban

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.

*snip*

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."

*Snip*

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.

*Snip/more*

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

[seriousstan]

1. limiting the number of guns in the city...only criminals may carry.

[billbuckhead]

2. No, you have it backward, it's people who carry who are criminals

[Township75]

12. like CA's Democratic senator?

way to go around bashing one of our party's leaders.

[Torque67]

69. Huh?

So, anyone who carries a firearm, no matter if they have completed the steps to do so legally is a criminal?

[Wickerman]

3. Well, put it on the ballot and see what the majority think

Seems the flipside of CCW.

[Columbia]

9. Would you mind putting abortion or freedom of speech on the ballot too?

Tyranny of the majority is not a good thing.

[Wickerman]

11. Many people feel the same about putting Concealed Carry

on the ballot.

And I agree, tyranny of the majority is not a good thing.

edited to say that I am convinced that if you put abortion on the ballot you would have no impact. Surveying doesn't indicate support for a ban of 1st trimester abortion.

[Township75]

14. I am not as sure as you...

the fundies showed up in large numbers during the election, and if the opportunity to ban abortion came-up, I think even more would show-up. Furthermore, abortion has a stigma attached to it in the US. How many people openly discuss having an abortion? I don't hear many, but they do happen.

It wouldn't surprise me if restrictions on free speech were on the ballot, that it would pass. I think the driving force behind it would to make English the official language of the US.

[Wickerman]

17. I think when the time to fish or cut bait came about

flocks of otherwise fundie women would vote for their right to control their own bodies. Of course, that is all speculation, much like speculating that San Fran will actually vote this bill in.

[shleonny]

71. privacy and freedom of speech aren't the same thing

neither is as much a liability as gun ownership.

[Squatch]

16. Majority rule = mob rule.

In my not so humble opinion

[Wickerman]

18. Just like in Ohio, huh?

and Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado*, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming?

Of course, the 11-member Board of Supervisors is an elected body, perhaps the bill should be given over them to make a decision - local control and all.

[Squatch]

19. Why does CO have an asterisk?

[Wickerman]

20. Because

Actually I am busted for pilfering this from the first place I could find a list. I tried NRA and Packing, but didn't find it quickly - when I searched I found it at the Bradybunch. Sorry, I would've preferred to use another source.

When I cut and pasted the list I neglected to remove the asterisk or Colorado, if I would've followed my mental criteria which is simple application for CCW permits.

Here is the asterisk info:

*Note: Although Colorado does not require a showing of "need", law enforcement officials have considerable discretion in granting CCW permits. In practice, it is extremely difficult to obtain a CCW license in Colorado

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=ccwfaq

[Squatch]

21. Gotcha...so what does that list have to do with San Fran?

Thanks for the clarification on the asterisk.

[Wickerman]

22. Majority rule

evil that it is voted Concealed Carry into law in those locations.

[Squatch]

32. OK, then I agree.

I'm pretty indifferent on CCW. I don't carry, myself, but I wouldn't deny another's right to do so.

Now, if CCW was passed by a majority rule, as you say, rather than by our processes of legislative representation, then I think the method of passage was wrong.

Does that make any sense?

[mosin]

24. Colorado's asterisk

That asterisk is seriously outdated. The Colorado legislature removed the "discretion" in May 2003. Since then, potential CCW licensees in Colorado have required no showing of "need," only a showing that they meet the training and background check requirements.

[Wickerman]

25. Thanks!

[mosin]

29. Any time

Here's the national map from packing.org:



The NRA map is similar, but they have two extra categories: no permit required (Vermont and Alaska) and discretionary--reasonable issue (Alabama, Connecticut, and Iowa). I don't have time to track it down.

[-..__...]

35. One thing that bugs me about the Brady campaign...

well, actually there's a lot of things about them that bug me...(but, you probably already know that B-) )

In many of their press releases regarding CCW permits for "shall issue" states, they use the description "Police are forced to issue"...

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccwstate

"Although 34 states now force police to issue CCW permits..."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccw_state_2003

Arizona - Bill to create a "lifetime" CCW permit - Defeated. Police are forced to issue CCW permits.

Arizona - Bill to allow non-residents to carry CCW guns - Defeated. Police are forced to issue CCW permits.

Arizona - Bill to reduce the fine for illegal carrying (without CCW) to $50 - Defeated. Police are forced to issue CCW permits.


http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,551493,00.html


I have no idea what the Brady Campaigns definition of "force(d)" is, but even police chiefs have to obey and follow the letter of the law and if the law says "shall issue", then the police aren't being "forced"... they're simply doing their job by obeying that law.

[Wickerman]

38. Required would be a much better choice of word

I wish both sides would minimize the inflammatory language. Of course, what fun would that be? Tone it down, there might not be as much noise about the whole bit.

[-..__...]

39. "Required", sounds good to me.

But, as we all know, supporters on either side of the issue aren't about to change their habits or mission.

In fairness, minimizing the inflammatory language, toning things down, discussing the issue(s) in a civil manner isn't a tact unique to gun control issues; pro-life/pro-choice, gay rights/anti-gay rights, pro death penalty/anti-death penalty, etc.

The advent, growth and accessibility to the Internet certainly hasn't helped matters.

Yeah, embarrass or make the bastards change "force(d)" to "required". It would be one less thing for me to complain about when I could better spend my time complaining about something else. :evilgrin:

[MrSandman]

58. OH and WV CCW were results of ...

Court Decisions which in the legislative's opinion, required regs.

[Mz Pip]

4. Even as a flaming liberal

I disagree with this.

I know plenty of law abiding citizens who own firearms and are not criminals or psychopaths.

Criminals around the city are probably laughing their asses off over this one.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[frank frankly]

5. this is a terrible idea

i COMPLETELY reject it.

[Devil Dog Dem]

6. This is why I will never live in D.C. Stupid, stupid, stupid law.

Just look how well it has worked in D.C. (sarcasm)

[jody]

7. How will San Franciscans exercise their inalienable right

to defend life and protect property under the California Constitution?

QUOTE
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
UNQUOTE

[JeebusB]

28. Where the govt. is concerned,

there's no such thing as "inalienable." You just have to be slow and sneaky about usurping rights and hardly anybody will notice. They got a lot of milage out of the "for the children" mantra. Eventually, they pushed it too much and it became just as cliche as "New and Improved!" But "safety of the general public" is still quite usable - Probably because the sheeple have long since accepted that as justification for giving up their rights.

[-..__...]

8. "California, Über Alles...

"residents would have 90 days to give up firearms they keep in their homes or businesses

Buuu, buuu, but... they told us this would never happen!

What happens on the 91st day?

"I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles
And never frowns
Soon I will be president

Carter power will soon go away
I will be Fuhrer one day
I will command all of you
Your kids will meditate in school

California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California

Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face

Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay

California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California

Now it is 1984
Knock knock at your front door
It's the suede/denim secret police
They have come for your uncool neice

Come quitely to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower

Die on organic poison gas
Serpent's egg's already hatched
You will crack, you little clown
When you mess with President Brown

California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California"

Okay... so Jerry Brown is long gone and forgotten, but you get the message. :hippie:

I remember reading some bug-eyed Brady drool a few years ago. Of course it had something to do with some sort of "gun control" legislation.

In the opinion piece there was some mention of California being a "bellwether" state.

Uneducated, blue-collar, crude ass that I am, I didn't know what a "bellwether" was... so, I looked it up in the dictionary (Websters, 4th edition). What I read was amusing, but not surprising.

1 a male sheep, usually wearing a bell that leads the flock.

2 a leader, esp. of a sheeplike crowd (last bold emphasis on "sheeplike" mine).

I suppose I could be a bit selfish about this and wish "the flock" all the best of luck in their endoevour... after all, this could actually end up being a 2nd Amendment case that the SCOTUS can't turn their backs on.

[anonymous44]

40. lol that was good

nice job

i had a good laugh

[anonymous44]

64. LMAO

nice poem

[MrSandman]

65. If ...

It gets on the ballot; if...

It passes; if...

the CA state judiciary upholds it, then...

this could actually end up being a 2nd Amendment case that the SCOTUS can't turn their backs on.

[shleonny]

72. handgun bans are constitutional, its already been decided

they wouldn't take this case because its not different than NYC or DC Chicago

[iverglas]

66. nice job ...

by someone. Don't you feel at all honour-bound to attribute it?

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deadkennedys/californiauberalles.html
"DEAD KENNEDYS LYRICS"


http://www.80smusiclyrics.com/artists/deadkennedys.htm

A little something about Dead Kennedys
Dead Kennedys were annoying, insulting, irritating, and
grotesque - all of which made them instantly attractive
to anyone who found mainstream politics, media and
culture annoying, insulting, irratating and grotesque.

The Dead Kennedys are cemented in musical history as
one of the greatest bands of the American punk scene.
Formed in San Francsico, their first single - "California
Uber Alas" - presented California's progressive, liberal
governor Jerry Brown as a kind of hippie Hitler.

On a sad note, recent years have seen bitter legal
battles between singer Jello Biafra and the rest of his
former band over royalties and rights to their music.
Both sides have condemned the other as sell-outs, and
the conflict has spilled over into local clubs where a
misguided teenager seriously wounded Biafra a few
years ago

Teenaged angst ... it's just so ... old.

http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/6558/ARTICLE2.HTM

Veteran punk rocker and spoken-word artist Jello Biafra was attacked and seriously injured by a group of young men at Gilman Street, a Berkeley, Calif., punk club, on May 7 <1994>. ...

... a slam dancer crashed through the crowd, landing on Biafra's leg and breaking it. "I asked him for an ID so I could deal with it and leave the cops out of it," said Biafra. "He laughed."

According to Biafra, the slam dancer, whose nickname is Creton, said, "Well, you're such a rich rock star, you can deal with it yourself."

An argument insued. By Biafra's account, Creton then pushed him to the floor: "All of his friends - five or six thugs - jumped on me and kicked me in the head from both sides. As they kicked me, they were yelling, 'Sellout rock star, kick him.'"

I'll bet nobody else is thinking wow, lucky they weren't saying 'sellout rock star, shoot him'.

What a shame that the guy who didn't like John Lennon didn't think of kicking him, eh?

And how lucky we are to have a Jello fan here, so that those of us who may have missed the demonization of a Democratic politician the first time around can relish it in rerun.

[MrSandman]

67. Biafra...in the 80's...a decade late?...nt

[iverglas]

68. if I take your meaning ...

"Biafra...in the 80's...a decade late?"

(and recalling that I wasn't citing him for anything other than his authorship!)

... I'd have to say:

Dead Kennedys ... in the 80s ... two decades late??

;)

Perhaps (if I take your meaning) we were both just too old to appreciate all that 80s irony.

[MrSandman]

73. Too true on the both irony...

of the Kennededy's and the Igbo's.

[slowroll]

10. Of course gun control advocates

only want reasonable controls, nobody's advocating confiscation or anything. Only the NRA nuts believe that.

[Buster43]

23. Really,

Feinstein said that if she could pass legislation to ban them she would. All the anti's want Mr. and Mrs. America to give them up. That is the ultimate goal.

"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.

And NYC is in the same boat along with DC.

And, Congress is legislating to repeal the handgun ban in DC. Yeah, gun control really works. (sarcasm off)

[iverglas]

36. what's your referrent?

In response to this:

Of course gun control advocates
only want reasonable controls, nobody's
advocating confiscation or anything.
Only the NRA nuts believe that.

you said this (emphasis added for your convenience):

Really,
Feinstein said that if she could pass
legislation to ban them she would.
All the anti's want Mr. and Mrs. America
to give them up.


What's "them"?

Are you going be a big brave fellow and say what you mean, or just use unclarified weasel-words that would result in your statement being interpreted by the reasonable person as a lie? Surely you wouldn't want that.


"If gun control worked, Washington, D.C., would be the beacon. However, it's the murder capital of the United States," <the director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association> said.

And what the director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association says matters ... how?

What I say is that if a deity stepped down and told the director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association that gun control worked, the director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association would still deny to his grave that gun control works. So it doesn't matter a pinch of poop what the director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association says about it. And I'm much smarter and more trustworthy than the director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, so you'll be wanting to believe me on that.

And if the fact that a particular set of rules exists in Washington, D.C., were what was meant by "gun control", the statement made by the director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association might even make sense and not be a statement that the director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association knows as well as I do is crap.

How 'bout you? Are you as smart as me, or even the director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association? And surely, even if you're not as trustworthy as moi, you're more trustworthy than him!

We all know that the fact that a particular set of rules exists in Washington, D.C., is not what is meant by "gun control". Yes we do; c'mon now; don't be coy. You know it.

[Romulus]

42. more fuel for the fire

from www.saf.org:

"In late June 1982, then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein pushed through a handgun ban in San Francisco that lasted only three months before it was overturned by the California State Court of Appeals. Twenty days after the ban was enacted, SAF took Feinstein and the city to court, ultimately beating the ban on Oct. 30 of that year. The city appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court, which allowed the Appeals Court ruling to stand in January 1983."

[iverglas]

48. nice brushfire

Nothing to do with anything I said, but far be it from me to suggest you shouldn't be free to post irrelevancies wherever you like.

We need us a rhino ...


http://www.musicman.com/00pic/1070.html

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080801/quotes
"The rhino is the self appointed fire prevention officer.
When he sees a fire, he rushes in and stamps it out."

Me, I'll just step around it and get on with business.

[Romulus]

50. (off topic)

TGMBC I&II were some of the funniest movies I have ever seen.

[iverglas]

51. okay ...

so was it true what it said about rhinos? I was just wondering about it the other day, and I've never been sure. I could ask google ...

#II wasn't memorable, I guess, since I don't remember anything about it. But #I was historically funny.

Almost as funny as the Trailer Park Boys' Christmas special ("Dear Santa Claus, Go Fuck Yourself") that all you poor yanks aren't being allowed to see because Canadian TV stations aren't allowed onto your cable dials ...

http://www.showcase.ca/trailerparkboys/specials/ecards/
(send 'em to your nearest and dearest)



... eh?

:P

[cattleman22]

27. You hit the nail on the head.

Apparently the Dems in San Fransisco enjoy have Republicans in control of all three branches of the federal government. Having a democrat controlled city government confiscate guns from all law abiding citizens will further increase rural voters and gun owners skepticism of the the democratic party.

[-..__...]

33. They're just looking out for "everyones" best interest.

:shrug:

"S.F. supervisors propose gun ban

By Lisa Leff, Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - City supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing fire-arms in the city.

The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said yesterday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.

Barnes said the initiative is a response to San Francisco's skyrocketing homicide rate, as well as other social ills. There have been 86 murders in the city this year compared to 70 in all of 2003.

"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," he said. "Second, 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."


8<---- Snip

Complete article.

[Romulus]

41. "even law-abiding folks"

need to be protected from themselves . . .

""Second, we know that for even law-abiding folks who own guns, the rates of suicide and mortality are substantially higher. "

Seems the effect of the Kellerman, et al., studies has been finally realized.

[TyObe]

34. Remember, "the slippery slope" doesn't exist (ntxt)

ntxt

[Township75]

13. The Brady Campaign and Million Mororns won't stand for this!

They often tell us they do not want to ban guns, but rather just want sensible gun laws. I am sure they will speak out against this, as they do against banning guns everytime they make a failed attempt at legislation.

[jody]

15. ROFLMAO

[iverglas]

37. I give up

What's a Mororn?

Something like a moran?

We all took that guy's point, as I recall, and it wasn't the one he thought he was making ...

[mosin]

26. Did you get that story from the Onion?

I don't believe this story, no one wants to ban guns. They don't want to ban guns in D.C., Chicago, New York City, or San Francisco. It's all an NRA/GOA plot to scare red-state voters. :eyes:

[Buster43]

30. The Onion???!?

It is fact that DC has a handgun ban in place. Orrin Hatch of Utah has sponsored legislation to repeal that ban and he has many Dems as cosponsors.

[mosin]

31. Sarcasm-impairment

I believe you should look up the word "sarcasm" in a convenient online dictionary.

[shleonny]

74. too bad dcer's can't decide if they want to keep it

they have no representation in congress

[slackmaster]

43. Proposal lacks a provision to compensate gun owners

Who comply and turn them in, i.e what is often called a "buy-back" program for the guns. There's nothing in it that bears any resemblence of due process for condemning a person's property.

An analogy would be the city deciding it's in the public's best interest to build a freeway through a populated neighborhood. Residents are given 90 days to move out so their houses can be demolished. But they aren't offered any money at all for their land and improvements, nor any compensation for the trouble they will have packing up and relocating. There is no chance this proposal would stand up in court. At a bare minimum the city should have offered to pay fair market value for guns that are turned in.

The fact that it didn't makes the proposal look all the more disingenuous. It's a political attention-getting ploy, much like Mayor Newsome's gay marriages earlier this year.

[jody]

44. Does San Francisco currently require that all handguns be registered? n/t

[Romulus]

45. I think that's a CA state law (n/t)

[jody]

46. Earlier today, I scanned CA law at the ATF site. I concluded that

one must have a permit to own a handgun but I didn't take the time to determine whether each handgun must be registered.

Do you have a definitive answer?

See CA Code RE Firearms

[slackmaster]

52. Not a permit to own one - a Handgun Safety Certificate to BUY one

In order to purchase a handgun in California one must have a current Handgun Safety Certificate, which provides some assurance that the buyer has a rudimentary understanding of handguns, gun safety, and California gun laws.

The certificate costs $25 and is good for five years. You have to pass a (pretty simple IMO) multiple-choice test to qualify.

No permit is required to keep a handgun that you already own.

[jody]

53. Thanks, but as you said in another post, a handgun must be registered

under certain conditions. Could someone possess a Handgun Safety Certificate and still be unable to register a handgun?

[slackmaster]

54. More on handgun registration

Could someone possess a Handgun Safety Certificate and still be unable to register a handgun?

Sure.

- A convicted felon or other person prohibited from buying a handgun could get the HSC card but be unable to buy (and therefore register) it.

- If you find a handgun in the street, the law has no formal provision for registering it. I suppose you could take it to an FFL holder, pay fees, get the background check, and transfer it to yourself. :eyes:

- Likewise, the law has no provision for registering homebuilt handguns. There is no state law against crafting one for your own use.

You can only register a handgun that you are buying from an FFL holder, receiving as a gift from a family member, or inheriting.

[jody]

55. Must private sales of handguns go through an FFL? n/t

[slackmaster]

56. Yes

The only exception is muzzle-loaders.

[jody]

57. Thanks n/t

[slackmaster]

47. No, but the state of California does

We've had de facto handgun registration since 1968. All handguns legally sold starting some time in that year have been reported (make, model, serial number, and the identity of the buyer) to the Department of Justice. If you move here and import handguns you have to report them to the DoJ within 60 days. Same if you give one to a family member as a gift, or if you inherit one.

For San Francisco to have any hope of implementing the proposed ban it would need access to the DoJ files. Their request for that information (i.e. every handgun and handgun owner in the city even though they are not charged with any crime) could serve as yet another basis for a court challenge to the measure.

[jody]

49. Thanks n/t

[Romulus]

59. *update* (plot thickens)

It seems that the SF ballot proposal may ban more than just handguns:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050104/ap_on_re_us/gun_ban_1

(complete text follows)

SAN FRANCISCO - In a story sent Dec. 15, The Associated Press described a proposed ballot initiative on a weapons ban in San Francisco. The story should have specified that the ban would apply only to handguns of private individuals. Other firearms such as sport rifles could be kept by private owners in the city.

A separate provision of the proposed initiative was described as a ban on the sale, manufacture and distribution of handguns in San Francisco. Instead, it would apply to all firearms if the measure passes next November.

[slackmaster]

61. I believe that provision would affect only two individuals

The two licensed gun dealers in the city who haven't yet been taxed, bullied, and harassed out of business. All sales of firearms in California have to be done through FFL holders. Yesterday I bought a used handgun from a private individual. The process was almost exactly the same as buying a new one; just a little more complicated because the seller and the buyer both have to be in the dealer's presence.

There are no gun manufacturers in San Francisco AFAIK.

[MrSandman]

60. Doesn't CA law preempt a local ban?...nt

[slackmaster]

62. Yes, the code and case law are quite clear

The proposal is plainly unconstitutional, and there is a court challenge brewing up to keep it from even appearing on the ballot.

Stay tuned.

[MrSandman]

63. Reasonable restrictions...

Forget the law.

[shleonny]

70. its done wonders for NYC

and most of the world has realized gun ownership is too much of a liability.