Um...........yes.
Posted on 01/20/2005 7:26:40 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
SAN FRANCISCO — Frustrated by a 28 percent increase in homicides during the past year, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has proposed a sweeping measure banning handguns, injecting the city into the national debate over gun control.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Would disarming the citizenry be a good excuse to start another American revolution?
Le the idiots suffer their foolishness. Any Lot's in town should flee already.
Maybe we could excavate a canal across the peninsula and expel the city from the country.
Wow once an idiot always an idiot I guess...I would rather have concealed carry myself and a good "Go Ahead and Make My Day" statute :-)
It's always a strange thing to see somebody else WRITE what I've been thinking for a long time now. Well said!
Diamond Joe Quimby
I predict that the gun ban vote will fail in San Francisco in spite of that City's ultra-liberal infection. Following that, the City Council will enact their will into law inspite of people's vote.
You bet!
Banning law abiding citizens from owning handguns will not make any difference in homicides committed with handguns.
Criminals do not obey laws!!! They will get handguns through the black market. All that these gun control laws do is take away thee right of lawful citizens to defend themselves, and prevent the criminal from completing his intentions.
In Canada, despite gun registry and restrictions, gun crimes have escalated, while legal gun ownership has drastically declined. Gun control has cost Canadian taxpayers over one billion dollars, and hasn't taken one gun off the streets that are in the criminals possession.
It hasn't prevented a single gun related death, they have escalated. In fact, the type of weapons found on the street have become more exotic, guns that never were legal to buy or own. They don't come from the USA either, they come from the M.E. and Asia.
Considering that the population of Canada, about 31 million, is the same as the population of California, it would be safe to assume that a similar gun control effort would cost Californians about a billion dollars every 5 years, and not reduce crime at all. Because lawful citizens will be unarmed, gun deaths will increase.
Just another reason to be thankful that I don't live in San Francissyco!
"oh we want to ban handguns in SF, that way only the criminals will be armed!"...duhhhh
When they passed out the brains to the SF Board of Supervisors, they must have said
"oh, we'll take a slooooow one, thank you" LMAO
Good luck trying to collect guns from my fellow Marines in the SF! LOL
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Will Diane Feinstein turn in her concealed carry permit and her .38 pistol?
Um...........yes.
Of course, when the crime rate increases in SF, the city will blame all the guns being brought in from other parts of the Bay Area that have less restrictive policies in place, such as Berkeley. /sarcasm
CA CCW permits are issued by local sherrifs or police comissioners, but are actually statewide permits good everywhere in the state. How will SF law trump this?
Not for the citizens of blue land. They want to be disarmed. They want to huddle in their homes at the mercy of the criminals. They hate all freedom except sexual freedom. They would revolt if their lives depended on it (even though they're pretty revolting).
Even here in GA there isn't any revolutionary spirit as in 1776. Sad example - Several years ago our gun rights group staged a rally on the capitol steps the Saturday before the legislature went in session. We called out our membership (about 3500 actually contacted by phone) advertised on the radio and even put an ad in the newspaper (NOT the Atlanta paper - we absolutely refuse to do any business with that bunch of neonazi racist liberals) 135 people showed up. This is in a metro area population of over 2 million. All they had to do was give up 3 hours of their weekend and they couldn't be bothered. In 1776 the population of the entire US was less than 20 million, but 5000 came risking their lives to oppose General Gage's troops when they moved to seize the colonial arms at Lexington and Concord. No radio, no cars, but there they were. Here we just can be bothered.
I'd move to Oakland.
The whole question of preemption goes into play if SF passes this law (or even puts it on the ballot). It will certainly produce a preemption challenge in court.
IMHO an SF gun ban would completely preempt the intention of the state legislature, which has produced a body of law establishing who may or may not own a handgun. It's called "implied preemption."
If California wants to stop this nonsense, it needs to pass "express preemption" with regard to gun laws, as was done here in Virginia last year. Express preemption means that local governments cannot pass gun laws which are in conflict with state gun laws (which clearly the SF proposal would be).
In Virginia, gun laws were being repeatedly usurped on a local level in many trivial ways, and some local governments were repeatedly at odds with the Attorney General. Letters from the AG to those local governments seemed to go ignored.
So finally the legislature made it crystal clear last year: they removed all grandfathered local gun laws (e.g., no open carry in this town or that), and passed a clause expressly denying localities the right to pass their own gun laws.
IMO this is what California gun owners should be pushing for.
I suspect, though cannot prove, that this is the real intent of this measure.
I don't think SF has a hope of passing this law without violating the implied preemption of state laws. Yeah, they can tweak the laws and even go further (like Chicago, which bans handgun sales but not possession in one's home).
But a wholesale ban on sales and ownership of handguns cuts completely through state law.
I don't think it has a chance.
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.