San Francisco gun ban

[David S]

SAN FRAN BAN

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors wants to ban guns in the city!  This week, the Supervisors submitted a proposal to the Department of Elections that will ask residents of San Francisco to vote next year on a proposed gun ban that would strip law-abiding citizens of their Constitutionally-guaranteed Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  The measure would abrogate the right of any citizen to own a handgun for any reason.  Only law enforcement officers, members of the military, and security guards would be allowed to possess them.  The measure would also completely ban the sale, manufacture, and distribution of all handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.   If passed next November, city residents would be forced to surrender their firearms within 90 days.

According to Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly (Dist.-6), "The hope is...that officers will have an opportunity to interact with folks and if they have a handgun, that will be reason enough to confiscate it."

In 1982, San Francisco enacted a similar ordinance which also purported to ban all handguns.  That measure, with the help of NRA and its members, was eventually struck down.

Ironically, Washington, D.C., a city that effectively bans the right to self defense with a firearm, has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the nation.  As such, San Francisco officials would be remiss to use the District of Columbia's gun-ban experience as a model. 

According to the anti-gunners' logic, if gun bans worked, Washington, D.C. would be one of the safest cities in America. In reality, the District holds the notorious distinction of being the murder capital of the United States.

As for the District's draconian gun ban, on September 29, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act--" legislation that seeks to restore the right of self-protection to law-abiding citizens of Washington, D.C.  HR 3193, was introduced by Representatives Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.), and passed on a bi-partisan vote of 250-171.  The bill is the House companion to Senate bill S. 1414, introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). 

Please contact your U.S. Representative and Senators and urge them to cosponsor and support this legislation in the 109th congress.  You can find contact information for your elected officials by using the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org, or you can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121.

[A18]

It will be struck down as unconstitutional.

[David S]

It will be struck down as unconstitutional.

DC has had such a ban for many years and it has not been struck down. If we had government that abided by the constitution it would not only be struck down but it would never have happened in the first place. But we don't have a government that respects the constitution.
If we don't keep the heat on our legislators we will quickly lose the 2nd amendment and probably the rest of the constitution as well.

[Confabulator]

It's natural for people in power to think things like this could possibly work or make sense.  Yeah, it's illegal to have a gun!  That means if you shoot someone, you're in trouble!

[John Dibble]

If this is passed and not deemed unconsitutional, the crime in San Fran will skyrocket. Unlike in the UK, where guns are banned universally, a criminal could just go outside the city to purchase a gun, and so only the criminals will have guns.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Well they can ban our guns.. and we will ban their gays

[bgwah]

Well they can ban our guns.. and we will ban their gays

stupid comment.






anyway, its san ing francisco, who the hell cares.

[Alcon]

Well they can ban our guns.. and we will ban their gays

How about we shoot your guns?

I mean.

Whatever.

[David S]

An interesting factoid; Based on 2003 data the murder rate in San Francisco was 8.9. The murder rate in the city they seek to emulate, Washington DC, was 43.8, nearly 5 times higher. SF has chosen an outstanding example to follow.

[Jake]

Well they can ban our guns.. and we will ban their gays

LOL

[stry_cat]

I was in San Francisco about 6 years ago.  It would be ashame if they ruin it with this kind of stupid law.

[opebo]

This is a very insignificant government interference with freedom compared to the ban on prostitution, drugs, and gay marriage.

Alas, I do not think that even San Fransico has legalized these basic rights.

[John Dibble]

This is a very insignificant government interference with freedom compared to the ban on prostitution, drugs, and gay marriage.

Removing the last line of defense of freedom is insignificant?

[minionofmidas]

This is a very insignificant government interference with freedom compared to the ban on prostitution, drugs, and gay marriage.

Alas, I do not think that even San Fransico has legalized these basic rights.

They've tried on the last one, and I think they would on the others if they saw a chance - though quite possibly not to the extent you advocate.

[opebo]

This is a very insignificant government interference with freedom compared to the ban on prostitution, drugs, and gay marriage.

Removing the last line of defense of freedom is insignificant?

In my opinion, the US is not at all free, and I never saw anyone drawing his gun on the government to defend freedom.  Though I suppose drug dealers occasionally manage to knock off a cop.

[A18]

There's a difference between freedom to control yourself (prostitution, drugs) and freedom to control the government (gay marriage).

[opebo]

There's a difference between freedom to control yourself (prostitution, drugs) and freedom to control the government (gay marriage).

Good point, except for the fact that the government already acts to provide marriage.  I would certainly prefer that the government get out of the whole nasty business, and stop giving preferential treatment to Breeders.

[John Dibble]

This is a very insignificant government interference with freedom compared to the ban on prostitution, drugs, and gay marriage.

Removing the last line of defense of freedom is insignificant?

In my opinion, the US is not at all free, and I never saw anyone drawing his gun on the government to defend freedom.  Though I suppose drug dealers occasionally manage to knock off a cop.

Everyone has a level of tolerance when it comes to restrictions on freedom. For some that tolerance is higher than others. Compared to many nations, the people of the U.S. enjoy a much higher degree of freedom - free enough, probably not, but that can be worked on, but the point is that what tyranny we have to deal with here is nothing compared to nations like North Korea(go live there for a year and then say that the U.S. is 'not at all free' ya spoiled, unappreciative git).

When tyranny gets to the level that is intolerable, people will resist it forcibly. So, of course tyrants will remove the ability to resist before that point, so that when it does occur those who would resist will be unable, so they will raise their tolerance level. An armed people are less likely to bow to intolerable tyranny.

Or, let me put it into an exaggerated form you can understand - when the people of San Fran have no guns, eventually the religious hordes will force their will on them and restrict all their social freedoms, and they'll have no means of resisting. Does that make you understand how the freedom to bear arms is the most precious of all?

[opebo]

This is a very insignificant government interference with freedom compared to the ban on prostitution, drugs, and gay marriage.

Removing the last line of defense of freedom is insignificant?

In my opinion, the US is not at all free, and I never saw anyone drawing his gun on the government to defend freedom.  Though I suppose drug dealers occasionally manage to knock off a cop.

Everyone has a level of tolerance when it comes to restrictions on freedom. For some that tolerance is higher than others. Compared to many nations, the people of the U.S. enjoy a much higher degree of freedom - free enough, probably not, but that can be worked on, but the point is that what tyranny we have to deal with here is nothing compared to nations like North Korea(go live there for a year and then say that the U.S. is 'not at all free' ya spoiled, unappreciative git).

When tyranny gets to the level that is intolerable, people will resist it forcibly. So, of course tyrants will remove the ability to resist before that point, so that when it does occur those who would resist will be unable, so they will raise their tolerance level. An armed people are less likely to bow to intolerable tyranny.

So your argument is that its better in the US than North Korea?  That's not saying much, but I would certainly agree.  I guess I should have been more clear - I think the US is much less free than comparable countries, like the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, the United Kingdom, Spain.  Basically the US is more free than most non-European countries, and less free than European countries.  Thailand has in the past been less free than the US on some issues, but far more free on others - but it is currently undergoing a terrible (and very democratic) process that is transforming it into a very controlled society. 

As for an armed people rising up against tyranny.. well I doubt they will, and even if they would, they haven't done it in response to issues I care about that have been oppressed for years.  Though I did include the example of the drug dealer shooting the cop for a reason - this is an act of armed uprising against tyranny, though its hard to say how self-consciously the dealer understands it as such.

In any case, I basically agree with you on the right to bear arms, I just consider it far less important than those other issues I mentioned.   

[John Dibble]

Well, you can consider those socialist countries that think they have a right to people's money 'free'. Perhaps they are more free in the social sense, but not in the economic sense. I could also nitpick a number of things about their supposed social freedoms, but I won't get into it.

And if you want an example of an armed people rising against tyranny - look at the U.S., we didn't really have it that bad under Britain, but we rose up anyways. We rebelled over TAXES of all things. As I said, the tyranny tolerance level of an armed people is much lower than that of an unarmed one - I didn't say they would gauranteed rise up, but it has been known to happen. Since all governments tend to become tyrannical in the long run, and since normally they won't surpass levels that people aren't willing to submit to, it is best for the people to have as low a tolerance for tyranny as possible. I believe having the people armed is the best way to do that - it helps preserve most other freedoms.

Once the right to bear arms is taken, freedom of speech and religion could easily be taken next. Next they'll be quartering troops in your house.

[A18]

It's not as if all of the United States are the same. Some are freer than others.

[Richard]

The government should not sanction marriage or anything like that.  In fact, the government shouldn't be giving out licenses for anything.  Not guns, not marriage, not for drivers, nothing.

[David S]

This is a very insignificant government interference with freedom compared to the ban on prostitution, drugs, and gay marriage.

Removing the last line of defense of freedom is insignificant?

In my opinion, the US is not at all free, and I never saw anyone drawing his gun on the government to defend freedom. 

Maybe the fact that we have the guns is the reason we don't need them.

It sounds like the freedom you want is  freedom to have drugs, prostitution, and sexual perversions. I don't argue with your right to do such things as long as you don't harm anyone else. But I doubt the founders had that in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

[AkSaber]

Wow. Almost a year after this article, and it passed!!

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

unfortunately.