Proposed San Francisco Gun Ban a Bad Idea.

[Baculus]

Proposed San Francisco Gun Ban a Bad Idea

By Alan Gottlieb

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9207.shtml

Banning the lawful possession of anything has never stopped people from getting it, and it should be a no-brainer in the City of San Francisco, where citizens are well-educated and intelligent, that the proposed ban on the sale or manufacture of firearms and possession of handguns will not prevent criminals from arming themselves.

The idea is evidently so bad that at least one of the original sponsors of the measure, City Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, has withdrawn her name from the ballot measure. Why the others continue to push this measure makes little sense, because a similar ban more than 20 years ago was struck down by the courts after the Second Amendment Foundation sued the city and then-mayor Dianne Feinstein.

Gun bans are purely a form of making a social statement, because only a raving lunatic could ever seriously believe that disarming law-abiding citizens, thus making them even more vulnerable to crime, would ever remove guns from the hands of criminals. By their very nature, criminals ignore existing law, and legislation t hat would make their victims easier prey can only make these thugs happier.

In recent years, legislation passed in Sacramento has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Democrat majority in California's Legislature wants the Golden State to be as unfriendly to firearms owners as possible. Alas, all the emotional rhetoric used to support such legislation has yet to prevent a single crime. Bans on semiautomatic rifles have not stopped gang bangers in the Los Angeles area. They haven't stopped crime in San Francisco, either, or anywhere else in the state for that matter.

What have these laws accomplished? Only to make it nearly impossible for law-abiding citizens to fight back; to burden honest gun owners with onerous regulations designed more to trip them up on technicalities and discourage them from owning firearms than to curb crime.

Proponents of the San Francisco ban – now formally titled Proposition H – have evidently grown up in a fairy tale worl d where good intentions invariably trump real life tragedies.

Proposition H does not pass the smell test for a city with the history of San Francisco. While banning the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition within the city, and banning possession of all handguns, there is an exemption for "any City, state or federal employee carrying out the functions of his or her government employment, including but not limited to peace officers" as defined by the California Penal Code.

Translation: Police and a selection of other elites can have handguns in a city where the citizens are disarmed. For generations, the good citizens of San Francisco have created an image and lifestyle diametrically opposed to the concept of a police state where only cops have guns, but now comes Proposition H, which literally creates a police state environment, and far too many people are acting like lemmings, rushing to dive over that precipice, into a polit ical and social abyss.

Perhaps the greatest fraud perpetrated on San Francisco, and the rest of the country, over the past several years is the notion that gun violence is some kind of health epidemic. This is a colossal prevarication, as if gun crime might be removed by minor surgery on the Constitution, or an application of salve to reduce swelling and itching.

The preamble to Proposition H even alludes to a report on gun crime from the San Francisco Department of Public Health. This explains a great deal about the grossly wrong-headed approach to crime that the sponsors of Proposition H have adopted.

We're talking about crime here, not some malady that can be healed by rubbing it with an over-the-counter medication. Backers of this measure are confusing Proposition H with Preparation H.

Preparation H gives relief, but Proposition H will give San Franciscans nothing but grief from people who, it is painfully evident, have taken a rather an al approach to fighting violent crime. At this point in its history, the last thing San Francisco needs is another hemorrhoid.

[PokerPacker]

i think the gun-ban is a great thing! look at all it's done for DC. no handguns- and rifles/shotguns must be locked up and unloaded. ever since that law went into effect, crime in DC has dropped dramatically.

[Kilmer17]

While I think it's a dumb idea. It's also their call to make. Local Govts have the right to be stupid.

Im curious though, if the local Govt tried to limit freedom of speech, would that go over with the people of SF?

[Cskin]

Yep.... I'm going to give up my gun so when I'm confronted with an intruder with a loaded pistol.... I can fight them off with a rolled up newspaper. :doh:

Gun Ban = making sure the thugs are armed and making you a helpless victim.

No Thanks!

Kilmers right though.... should be the responsibility of the local govt. to enact such a ban. The Fed should stay out of it.

[PokerPacker]

this is a federal argument, because it deals with the constitution of our country. i don't see how these gun-bans are considered constitutional.

[Kilmer17]

That's not the way the Constitution is set up or intended. State and Local Govts can restrict it if they choos

The right to bear arms means that the FEDERAL govt cannot restrict your right to own a gun.

[chomerics]

Gun Bans = bad. . .

Manditory waiting period and backround checks = good. . .

It's not that hard to figure out. BTW, I do believe in limiting automatic rifle purchases, as well as 50cal guns. Neither has any place in protecting yourself, nor sport, their only purpose it to cause mass casualities, or even worse to kill someone from a mile away. Besides, there are people who are exporting the 50cal guns to forign countries, and the last thing I want our soldiers facing is a 50cal gun bought in the US.

[PokerPacker]

That's not the way the Constitution is set up or intended. State and Local Govts can restrict it if they choos

The right to bear arms means that the FEDERAL govt cannot restrict your right to own a gun.

here's an essay i wrote back in january for english class: tell me if you agree with the content.

Unfortunately, the city of Washington D.C. has banned the ownership of all handguns (with a grandfather clause exception). Furthermore, all shotguns and rifles must be kept locked and unloaded, making it impossible to use for self-defense. The bans have no point other than to appease people who keep complaining to their politicians, because these people don’t know how ineffective it is. Criminals will keep possession of handguns, regardless of law. All it does is leave innocent people defenseless in their own home, because they are being attacked when unexpected, and have now accessible firearms.

Guns are given a bad reputation because it’s the media doesn’t seem to be able to keep things in proportion. Every time there is a shooting, the news keeps talking about it for weeks a time. When there’s a car accident, it’s more common, and seems less tragic; therefore, it doesn’t get as much attention. With all this attention on gun accidents, people yell at politicians until they make more pointless gun control laws.

In Grundy, Virginia, at Appalachian Law School, an off duty sheriff/law student aimed his gun at an armed assailant, and got him to raise his hands in surrender. The other students then tackled him. Of 280 articles written on the incident, only four of them accurately stated that a student with a gun forced him to surrender; the others simply stated that the students tackled him.

It is claimed that you or a family member are 2.7 times more likely to be killed by a gun kept in the house, than protected. There are so many problems with how many errors were put into his equation, I don’t have time to into all of it in detail, and so I’ll outline it for you. His article was made to discourage ownership of a gun in an ordinary household, but he failed to take out the high-risk groups. Drug dealers/users, gang members, couples with domestic disturbance problems, and convicts are all included. He failed to eliminate crimes in which the gun was from outside the house… the list goes on.

“Using similar reasoning, you might be able to show that people who hire bodyguards are more likely to get killed than people who don't. Obviously, people who hire bodyguards already feel at risk, but does that mean that the bodyguards are the reason for the risk?”

Senator John H. Chafee decided to walk all over our second amendment right to bear arms. “I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). … It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!”

BAN THEM? WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT? Ever read the second amendment?

Representative Major Owens: “Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind.”… … … … You’re KIDDING me, right? I don’t even know where to begin!… Turn in your guns!? I can’t stand these politicians!

The United States of America Vs. the Constitution of the United States of America

(U.S. v. Emerson)

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes"

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.

Garwood: "Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed?"

(June 13, 2000)

Ok, the second amendment has now been sent to the incinerator. The second amendment of the constitution states “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Did you hear that, Meteja? SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! The constitution applies to every US citizen. Is the military now the only part of the country considered to be citizens? If so, I think the problem may go deeper than just the second amendment.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, 80% of them came from family, friends, the streets, or an illegal source. Making guns illegal would not prevent access to these guns.

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”--St. George Tucker

[Baculus]

I think a challenge in a Federal district court would have to be issued before any type of ruling on its constitutionality could be determined on such a law.

This is a double-edged sword. I believe in a city or state's right to enact its own ordinances and laws, but there is also the issue of citizen's rights infringement. In this case, it is relating, of course, to the 2nd amendment which covers all citizens, regardless of the state (or district) of where they live.

The right to bear arms means that the FEDERAL govt cannot restrict your right to own a gun

I am not so sure about that. It isn't until the 10th amendment that delegates powers, not specificied in previous amendments, to the states or the people. This is intended to limit the powers of the Federal government, but it also recognizes that certain freedoms should be upheld and not curtailed by individual states. Once again, for me, it is a double-edged sword; states should have the right to determine their own laws, and when does Federal enforcement become instrusive on this right?

Either way, the author is right- bans such as the SF firearm ban is unwise.

[Aluadan]

The arguement that owning a gun will allow you to defend yourself is a total joke. The fact is people that own handguns are 45 times more likely to shoot a friend or family member on accident then to actually shoot a criminal in self-defense.

[Destino]

Gun bans are stupid and I don't think local governments should have the right to ban them at all. This is a change in stance for me. I do think you should be required to pass classes, background checks, and get a license for the use and purchase of any fire arm. A system much like drivers licenses that have different types for different weapons. A flat ban however doesn't target the right people, it eliminates the guns from law abiding citizens and changes nothing for criminals.

[Baculus]

Good post, PokerPacker. When it comes to the issue, and wording of the 2nd amendment, in reference to "A well regulated Militia," it has to be remembered that most men were considered to be in the militia. Also, the section, regarding "security of a free State," is an absolute truth - it's not merely about self-defense, which is an important aspect of citizen's owning firearms, but it is also about the right of citizens to defend themselves against despotism.

Never mind the fact that some of us simply enjoy shooting firearms.

And many gun-control supporters don't know much about firearms, are frightened of them, and are also sometimes hypocritical: Case in point, Rosie O'Donnell and her armed bodyguards, while she preaches that "no one but the military and the police should have guns."

This issue is extremely important - we will not be a safer, freer society if firearms are further limited or outright banned.

[PokerPacker]

The arguement that owning a gun will allow you to defend yourself is a total joke. The fact is people that own handguns are 45 times more likely to shoot a friend or family member on accident then to actually shoot a criminal in self-defense.

you're speaking of the kellerman report, right? the kellerman report is complete bull****. am i more likly to be killed by a handgun because drug dealers screw up the statistics. just because drugdealers are more likely own a gun, and more likely to be killed by a gun, doesn't mean that i am more likly to be killed by a gun.

you want some statistics to show the likely-hood of being killed by your own gun on accident?

i have attached a document containing statistics for deaths due to unintentional injury.

[Baculus]

The arguement that owning a gun will allow you to defend yourself is a total joke. The fact is people that own handguns are 45 times more likely to shoot a friend or family member on accident then to actually shoot a criminal in self-defense.

Many of those statistics are skewed - there are a great number of home defense stories that are often ignored by the media, public, and those who compile these statistics. And this just isn't about handguns, either - this issue always seeps into rifles and other firearms (such as .50 cal rifles).

Let me ask you this question: Should we ban sports cars, or have a block to prevent cars from travelling over the speed limit? After all, motor accidents are one of the leading causes of death in this nation.

[Baculus]

That's an interesting document, and it shows the hysteria around firearms. As I asked in my previous post, for those who want to limit handguns and firearms, why don't we do the same with cars, especially dangerous sportscars? (And no, I am not saying we SHOULD ban sportscars, but trying to use an analogy.)

By the way, Destino, I am not crazy about some of the regulation currently in place, in regards to registration, waiting periods, etc. But I will abide by them, since I am a legal firearm owner; I could see some usefulness if real criminals are actually prevented from buying a firearm. But I am still a bit weary of the government being able to gather data on firearm purchases, especially considering what happened in California after its assault weapon ban. I am also a bit weary if the Federal government decides who can, or cannot, purchas, firearms or certain types of firearms, and can use the ATF to exert such control, even inspite of questionable constitutional authority.

[Aluadan]

Let me ask you this question: Should we ban sports cars, or have a block to prevent cars from travelling over the speed limit? After all, motor accidents are one of the leading causes of death in this nation.

Last time I checked, cars are made to get people from point A to point B, knives are made to cut food while guns are made for one purpose, to kill.

[Kilmer17]

Just count me as a total states rghts trump Federal Rights kind of guy.

The Courts have upheld the DC gun laws as well as New Yorks. I dont see them chenging for this one.

[BlueTalon]

BTW, I do believe in limiting automatic rifle purchases, as well as 50cal guns. Neither has any place in protecting yourself, nor sport, their only purpose it to cause mass casualities, or even worse to kill someone from a mile away. Besides, there are people who are exporting the 50cal guns to forign countries, and the last thing I want our soldiers facing is a 50cal gun bought in the US.

Where, pray tell, do you go to buy an "automatic rifle"?

Your desire to limit .50 caliber rifles is typical of liberal anti-gun types. Can you name one crime committed with a .50 cal in this country? Ever?

[PokerPacker]

Where, pray tell, do you go to buy an "automatic rifle"?

Your desire to limit .50 caliber rifles is typical of liberal anti-gun types. Can you name one crime committed with a .50 cal in this country? Ever?

my uncle sells automatics...

[Destino]

By the way, Destino, I am not crazy about some of the regulation currently in place, in regards to registration, waiting periods, etc. But I will abide by them, since I am a legal firearm owner; I could see some usefulness if real criminals are actually prevented from buying a firearm. But I am still a bit weary of the government being able to gather data on firearm purchases, especially considering what happened in California after its assault weapon ban. I am also a bit weary if the Federal government decides who can, or cannot, purchas, firearms or certain types of firearms, and can use the ATF to exert such control, even inspite of questionable constitutional authority.

I see what you are saying but I can't see giving people fire arms without some evidence that they have a clue as to how to use and own them safely. I think it would make a lot of sense to treat it like drivers licenses where you have to prove that you can drive before you are allowed to do so on your own. I do however understand the other side of it that a documented list of who owns what makes it easy for the state to screw you, perhaps there could be a happy medium where you were able to buy guns of a certain type witha ID but there was no record kept of what you bought or how many....hmm I don't know but there has to be a happy middle ground there somewhere.

[manleyistheman]

Let me ask you this question: Should we ban sports cars, or have a block to prevent cars from travelling over the speed limit? After all, motor accidents are one of the leading causes of death in this nation.

Are you kidding me? Is this truly one of your arguments? One is for transportation purposes while the other is a device that forces a piece of metal out through a tube or nozzle with its only purpose being to pierce skin in order injure or kill.

Now a question I'm really curious about is since one of your arguments is that owning a gun is needed to defend yourself against intruders: are there any statistics that indicate how much more likely I, since I do not and never will own a gun, am to be injured or killed during a home invasion? I'd be curious to find out some real numbers. And what is the difference between me and the pro-gun people, maybe psycologically, that makes me feel secure without a gun but the pro-gunners concerned, almost obsessively, with being prepared for an invasion or some sort of attack? Again, these questions in the second paragraph I'm geniunly curious about and are not sarcastic or argumentative in any way. Anyone know?

[Destino]

Your desire to limit .50 caliber rifles is typical of liberal anti-gun types. Can you name one crime committed with a .50 cal in this country? Ever?

Like it or not the gun control issues has always been about where you draw the line, not if there should be a line. I don't see how a .50 cal is an unreasonable weapon to look at in the context of that debate.

In fact let me ask you, why should it be legal, what's its use? Not being an @ss but I always here the case against it and rarely anything but insults from those that support its continued availablility. So make your case friend and let it compete in the market place of ideas.

[PokerPacker]

Are you kidding me? Is this truly one of your arguments? One is for transportation purposes while the other is a device that forces a piece of metal out through a tube or nozzle with its only purpose being to pierce skin in order injure or kill.

Now a question I'm really curious about is since one of your arguments is that owning a gun is needed to defend yourself against intruders: are there any statistics that indicate how much more likely I, since I do not and never will own a gun, am to be injured or killed during a home invasion? I'd be curious to find out some real numbers. And what is the difference between me and the pro-gun people, maybe psycologically, that makes me feel secure without a gun but the pro-gunners concerned, almost obsessively, with being prepared for an invasion or some sort of attack? Again, these questions in the second paragraph I'm geniunly curious about and are not sarcastic or argumentative in any way. Anyone know?

let me try to dig up the real facts on that. if you hear anything about the kellerman report, feel free to ignore it because of the massively flawed research done on that.

[Baculus]

Last time I checked, cars are made to get people from point A to point B, knives are made to cut food while guns are made for one purpose, to kill.

Have you seen the number of fatalities from automobile accidents? The purpose of a car does not matter when you consider the number of accidents; you are much more likely to die in an auto-accident then due to a firearm. Also, just because a firearm was made to kill does not mean it's going to be used to kill. That's very simplistic thinking if that's your belief.

Just count me as a total states rghts trump Federal Rights kind of guy.

The Courts have upheld the DC gun laws as well as New Yorks. I dont see them chenging for this one.

The states cannot trump the Consititution, especially in regards to infringing upon citizen's rights.

Also, not a single death in the US has been caused by a .50 cal rifle. Not a SINGLE death - it is all about the hysteria and efforts to control, and forced coercion. Also, you can buy .50 cal weapons outside the US, so limiting them here in the country will not stop the flow and purchase of these firearms. You'll probably find enemy snipers using smaller, more mobile (with less training time) firearms then a .50 cal. I bet the enemy snipers in Iraq and Afghanistan use a Dragunov more often as opposed to .50 cal rifles.

By the way, the sale of automatic rifles, aka machine guns, is strictly controlled by the BATF. Folks, in the "assault weapon" hysteria, are often mislead to believe that the laws were covering full-auto weapons, which they weren't. They were covering semi-auto rifles, which are actually not true assault weapons, and are difficult to purchase and expensive. The false label of "assault weapon" is used to describe any firearm that has a psuedo-military appearance, inspite of its actual rate of fire. But again, you cannot just walk into a store and just buy an automatic firearm.

[BlueTalon]

my uncle sells automatics...

If your uncle sells fully automatic rifles, he doesn't do it over the counter.