[Stoat]

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.

 

Update: Xrlq notes this is a repeat from 22 years ago.

[Stoat]

WHOOPS! Sorry for the double post...it's late here :-(

[drt1]

Great. The Lib's want to eliminate the exit-of-last-resort for Conservatives who have decided they can't live in weirdo, wacko SF anymore. Sounds like cruel and inhumane punishment to me!

[Kozak]

Some of the gun ban advocates are using the old public health rationale and are touting the measure as a suicide-prevention strategy.

In that case they better tear down the Golden Gate Bridge in the interest of public health and safety. /sarcasm

[Roots]

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?

I've met my share of pro-choice Vegans out there as well

[risk]

One for your SF ping list, CJ. These idiots think they're above the laws of the land. Laws mean whatever they want them to mean, including the second amendment.

[goldstategop]

I agree. Why not be honest and let people do a Final Exit with their own guns if they wish? This from the party of partial birth abortion and assisted suicide. One hand never washes the other.

[Prime Choice]

You've got to hand it to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. They are unrepentant, unabashed, and undeterred gun grabbers...

When can we expect Leftist-cheered "maverick mayor" Gavin Newsom to flaunt the law and start issuing Concealed-Carry weapons permits to anyone who shows up at City Hall? You know, like he defied the law by issuing marriage certificates for every rump ranger who showed up...

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

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."

Based on a "hope", the rights of the citizens are to be taken? This is criminal.

Semper Fi,

[Condor51]

SF to ban the possession of handguns as well as the sales of all firearms and ammunition, including shotguns and rifles.

Oh Shiite - this means no more Dirty Harry movies.
/sarcasm

[Wilhelm Tell]

Home invasion crimes and murders will skyrocket -- this is so predictable. Also, does anyone want to compare the number of San Franciscans who have used guns in suicides vs. the number of San Franciscans who have died of AIDS? And yet gay bath houses are sacred to the leftists -- no public health problem there! Yeah, right. The left will use this to force their "morality" on the rest of us, there "morality" being to let criminals run riot and to make ordinary people defenseless.

[Condor51]

Richard Ramirez
Is For Gun Control!

[Carry_Okie]

"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."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IV to the U.S. Constitution

See? there's no problem. The Constitution doesn't prohibit unlawful "interactions," so what's yer beef?

Let's see how long it takes them to initiate those house to house "interactions."

[Springman]

Ping.

[paul51]

"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."

I take this to mean the law provides the opportunity in other words, if a cop suspects you are carrying, he can stop you in other words he can stop anyone because 'i thought they were carrying'.

[NY Attitude]

"San Francisco 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 firearms in the city."

I wonder just who will tell DI FI that she has to give up her concealed carry permit?