Skip to comments.
San Francisco Supervisors Propose Gun Ban
yahoo ^
Posted on 12/16/2004 4:23:19 PM PST by DixieOklahoma
Democrats shoot themselves in the foot again
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.
TOPICS: US: California
KEYWORDS: ban; bang; duplicate; francisco; gun; sanfrancisco; sf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: DixieOklahoma
Any other part of the bill of rights they'd like to ignore?
To: DixieOklahoma
What about the homo "pollinators" who give HIV to their fellow travellers? They have killed more people than guns have in San Fagcisco.
Are they going to ban homos there?
To: DixieOklahoma
Gun ban? In San Francisco? What are the thousands of Village People Cop impersonators going to insert in their holsters?
Uh, never mind.
To: DixieOklahoma
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
5
posted on
12/16/2004 4:29:43 PM PST
by
Tarpaulin
(Look it up.)
To: DixieOklahoma
Why don't they just make robbery and murder a crime?
6
posted on
12/16/2004 4:30:14 PM PST
by
Spok
To: Tarpaulin
lol you should read the freaks over at DU... they are shaking in their boots about this.
We will make an example out of this for the 06 election should I assume?
They just can't hide their liberalism. They want your guns, but thats not all.. they want your rights, and they will stop at nothing to TAKE both from YOU.
7
posted on
12/16/2004 4:32:49 PM PST
by
DixieOklahoma
(Stop specter vision! Keep specter out! Just say NO to specter!)
To: DixieOklahoma
Quite so, and I have a simple answer to that: BANGLIST.
8
posted on
12/16/2004 4:35:20 PM PST
by
Tarpaulin
(Look it up.)
To: DixieOklahoma
I wasn't aware that San Franciscans had any rights left..
9
posted on
12/16/2004 4:39:05 PM PST
by
Awestruck
(The artist formerly known as Goodie D)
To: snarks_when_bored
What are the thousands of Village People Cop impersonators going to insert in their holsters? Dang it, it isn't fair to offer up a terrific straight line like then and snatch it away.
I'm telling the Mods.
To: snarks_when_bored
"then" = "that" but you're still in big trouble...
To: DixieOklahoma
The Volokh Conspiracy is reporting that the proposed ban is not just for handguns. It's for
all firearms.
[2.] Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition shall be prohibited. [3.] Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, no resident of the City and County of San Francisco shall possess any handgun unless required for professional purposes, as enumerated herein. [The law then exempts various government employees, armed forces members, and professional security guards doing their jobs.] . . .
12
posted on
12/16/2004 4:48:15 PM PST
by
DGray
(http://nicanfhilidh.blogspot.com)
To: DGray
I'm sure brady bunch will call this 'common sense' gun control. I'll be watching them carefully on this. Will they come finally and fully admit that 'common sense' means total ban and seizure?
13
posted on
12/16/2004 4:49:40 PM PST
by
G32
To: Tarpaulin
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Except by homo-promo liberal idiots who think the laws do not apply to them. Remember the mayor performing "gay marriages" ?
14
posted on
12/16/2004 4:58:56 PM PST
by
hophead
("Wait awhile eternity, ole Mother Nature got nothing on me")
To: hophead
Remember the Governor of California violating the Second Amendment with his signature?
15
posted on
12/16/2004 5:06:23 PM PST
by
Tarpaulin
(Look it up.)
To: Billthedrill
Calling the Mods...on moi? Hah! As if they could harm snarks_when_b
To: snarks_when_bored
Snarks? Snarks?
[Sound of crickets...]
To: Billthedrill
Man, them ZOTS kinda smart when they hit ya!
To: mainepatsfan
Any other part of the bill of rights they'd like to ignore?
Actually, yes... they would like to ignore the Constitution, Bill of Rights and how about a few documents for the State of California. I believe there is a little LAW that calls for municipalities to NOT pass legislation that counters state LAW.
This coming on the tial of the Emperor Norton Bridge...
I believe the lovely city of SF has PLENTY other issues that should be addressed. Perhaps this group of moonbats could look into those!....
19
posted on
12/16/2004 5:18:53 PM PST
by
Dashing Dasher
(Because I fly, I envy no (wo)man on earth. - Anon)
To: snarks_when_bored
Man, them ZOTS kinda smart when they hit ya! We certainly hope so.....
When we ZOT a DU, we want it to hurt a little.
20
posted on
12/16/2004 5:23:55 PM PST
by
Dashing Dasher
(Because I fly, I envy no (wo)man on earth. - Anon)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson