DVD Talk
San Fran bans handguns [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : San Fran bans handguns


mikehunt
11-09-05, 08:44 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aaSKo6_SH_a0&refer=us
San Francisco Voters Ban Sale, Possession of Handguns (Update1)

Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- San Francisco residents voted to ban the sale and possession of handguns and ammunition even after the police union opposed the idea, saying the law wouldn't help fight crime in the city.

Measure H won with 89,696 votes, or 58 percent, according to returns posted on the city's Web site. More than 65,000 voters, or 42 percent, opposed the measure.

Measure H bars the sale of handguns and ammunition and requires residents to hand over the guns they own by April 1. Proponents said the law would curb crime in a city that had 88 homicides last year, the most in a decade.

The National Rifle Association said it plans to sue to block the law, which would be the most restrictive measure of its kind in the U.S. The city Police Officers Association said the law would do little to rein in violence and may pose a nightmare for the cops who'd have to collect the more than 22,000 handguns bought in the city in the past 10 years alone.


I'll laugh when crime and murders go up not down

Bugg
11-09-05, 08:50 PM
I'll laugh when crime and murders go up not down

Yes because there is nothing funnier than rising crime and murder rates . :confused:

mikehunt
11-09-05, 09:22 PM
not all laughs necesarily imply humor

DVD Polizei
11-09-05, 10:01 PM
Crime is already rising in San Fran. In any case, I don't see why they are doing this. Why not ban kitchen knives too.

I also find it odd the police union is against this idea. Normally, they favor citizen disarming.

B.A.
11-09-05, 10:16 PM
Collecting handguns that were bought legally and registered w/ the local authorities. -ohbfrank-

Josh H
11-09-05, 10:55 PM
:thumbsup:

Handguns are completely useless IMO. I grew up around guns, and have done a fair amount of hunting. So I'm not totally anti gun But there's just no use for handguns, automatic weapons, etc.. Especially in cities. People say they get them for protection, but that usually backfires more often than not.

kvrdave
11-09-05, 11:25 PM
They should just make murder illegal. That would stop the murders.

X
11-10-05, 12:00 AM
I'm going to be with a friend who has a concealed handgun permit tomorrow and I'm going to ask him about getting one myself.

Unlike our esteemed ex-mayor and senator, only the "little people" won't be able to have guns and I wouldn't want to be one of them.

Myster X
11-10-05, 12:44 AM
It ain't gonna pass.
I'm betting the same people who voted for this ban are the same people who voted against disarming Saddam Hussein. Nice logic. :lol:

Duran
11-10-05, 09:33 AM
It ain't gonna pass.

It already did, didn't it?

Requiring citizens to turn in their legally acquired guns does not seem American to me on any level. I hope this is challenged and overturned.

X
11-10-05, 09:44 AM
I heard the ACLU is going to challenge the ban.

Groucho
11-10-05, 09:44 AM
Pretty stupid, and I would say uncontitutional. It'll be interesting to see what happens with this.

al_bundy
11-10-05, 09:55 AM
does this ban apply to anyone or only to the little people?

what about celebrities that might be living in SF and who have guns but continually speak out against them.

Th0r S1mpson
11-10-05, 10:05 AM
This keeps people from the suburbs and outside cities from carrying guns into SF too, right? If citizens can't have guns, I don't think robbers should be able to bring them in either.

adamblast
11-10-05, 10:20 AM
I'm not adamantly opposed to banning handgun sales within the city limits of large urban areas with crime problems. As for banning possession or requiring people to turn in handguns they already own, that's intrusive enough that I'd balk if I owned one.

DonnachaOne
11-10-05, 10:24 AM
I bet every criminal is now turning their gun in for proper disposal.

kvrdave
11-10-05, 10:26 AM
I heard the ACLU is going to challenge the ban.

rotfl

You have a dry wit.

Tommy Ceez
11-10-05, 12:33 PM
I'm not adamantly opposed to banning handgun sales within the city limits of large urban areas with crime problems.

You do realize that drug dealers and home invaders DO NOT buy thier guns at the local shop, right?

You also realize that homeowners and small business owners DO buy thier guns at the loacla shops, right?

When you put those two together, what do you get?

Cygnet74
11-10-05, 12:48 PM
You do realize that drug dealers and home invaders DO NOT buy thier guns at the local shop, right?

You also realize that homeowners and small business owners DO buy thier guns at the loacla shops, right?

When you put those two together, what do you get?
more robberies, but fewer shootings? i don't know, i'm guessing.

Myster X
11-10-05, 02:14 PM
Now, all we need to do is start another agency to enforce this ban if this prop. survives court ruling. Millions spend with no positive results.

al_bundy
11-10-05, 02:19 PM
more robberies, but fewer shootings? i don't know, i'm guessing.

what percentage of unlawful shootings are from legally owned weapons?

grundle
11-10-05, 03:19 PM
:thumbsup:

Handguns are completely useless IMO. I grew up around guns, and have done a fair amount of hunting. So I'm not totally anti gun But there's just no use for handguns, automatic weapons, etc.. Especially in cities. People say they get them for protection, but that usually backfires more often than not.
Then how do you explain this?

http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_city/20021015arrest1015p1.asp

A pistol-packing woman accomplished with two bullets what Pittsburgh police had been attempting to do for days: to stop the man suspected of a string of sexual assaults in the city's East End.

Police Chief Robert W. McNeilly Jr. announced yesterday that all six female assault victims had identified Daniel Wesley, 25, of Homewood, as the man who attacked them during a two-week rampage.

movielib
11-10-05, 03:20 PM
Requiring citizens to turn in their legally acquired guns does not seem American to me on any level.
You would have a point if San Francisco were part of America.

grundle
11-10-05, 03:27 PM
what percentage of unlawful shootings are from legally owned weapons?
Approximately 0.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

First, what are "liberalized" concealed carry laws? They are a set of requirements, when met by an applicant, require the issuance of a concealed carry permit, which allows a permit holder to carry a gun (concealed) in public places. These requirements may consist of a license fee, a safety training program or exam, fingerprinting, a "clean" record, no history of mental illness, etc. In other words it is not left to the discretion of local authorities to decide whether or not to issue a permit. Liberalized concealed carry laws are more often referred to as "shall-issue concealed carry weapons" laws.

In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.

David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. <b>This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit.</b>" ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)

tsohg
11-10-05, 04:19 PM
If people do turn in their guns will the city pay the people for them? I can't imagine buying a new gun for about $350-500 and then just giving it away.

Cameron
11-10-05, 04:24 PM
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/heston%20nra.jpg

Th0r S1mpson
11-10-05, 05:55 PM
If I was a criminal I'd be planning a trip to SFO next April. Seriously.

crazyronin
11-10-05, 05:59 PM
from the link about the sexual assaults earlier in the thread...

Police said Charmaine Dunbar, 42, fired her licensed .357-caliber revolver in self-defense on a Homewood street when Wesley came at her with a rifle, possibly intending, they said, for her to become a seventh victim.

:clap:

so if she lived in S.F., she would have just been another victim.

X
06-14-06, 11:35 AM
Lousy activist judges, overruling the people's vote...

Judge invalidates Prop. H handgun ban
Ruling says measure intrudes on an area regulated by state

Bob Egelko, Charlie Goodyear, Chronicle Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 13, 2006

A judge struck down San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handgun possession Monday, saying local governments have no such authority under California law.

Proposition H, which passed with a 58 percent majority in November, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who need guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of guns and ammunition in San Francisco.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren agreed with the National Rifle Association, which argued that Prop. H exceeded the powers of local government and intruded into an area regulated entirely by the state. The NRA sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after the measure passed. Enforcement of the measure was suspended while the suit was pending.

Warren said California law, which authorizes police agencies to issue handgun permits, implicitly prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

That law "demonstrates the Legislature's intent to occupy, on a statewide basis, the field of residential and commercial handgun possession to the exclusion of local government entities,'' Warren wrote in a 30-page decision.

If the city were allowed to ban handguns within its borders, he said, nearby counties could be flooded by handguns no longer allowed in San Francisco. Such a possibility illustrates the need for gun ownership to be regulated on a state level, Warren said.

"California has an overarching concern in controlling gun use by defining the circumstances under which firearms can be possessed uniformly across the state, without having this statewide scheme contradicted or subverted by local policy,'' the judge said.

He declined to consider the ban on sales of other types of guns and ammunitions separately, saying it could not be detached from the handgun ban, the dominant provision of Prop. H. "The focus of the public debate ... was all on the effect of the ordinance in barring handguns,'' and there is no evidence that voters would have approved the other restrictions as a separate measure, Warren said.

Chuck Michel, the NRA's lawyer, said his clients were "thrilled that the judge recognized that law-abiding citizens who possess firearms to defend themselves and their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem.'' Rather than banning such weapons, he said, the city should include gun owners in an effort to "fight the criminal misuse of firearms, which is a goal that we all have in common.''

City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office defended Prop. H, will decide whether to appeal the ruling in the next day or two, said spokesman Matt Dorsey.

"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on the possession of handguns,'' Dorsey said.

Supervisor Chris Daly, a chief sponsor of Prop. H, urged Herrera to appeal and criticized Warren. The judge "sided with the powerful gun lobby against the safety of San Franciscans'' after showing "disregard for the voters of San Francisco'' by taking nearly three months to rule, Daly said.

The court to which Herrera would appeal Warren's decision may have sounded the death knell for measures like Prop. H in 1982, when it overturned a San Francisco ordinance forbidding possession of handguns within city limits and said state law left such regulation to the Legislature.

Sponsors of Prop. H had hoped to comply with the 1982 ruling by drafting a narrower measure that applied only to San Francisco residents. Gun control advocates were also encouraged by state Supreme Court rulings allowing local governments to ban gun possession on public property and to prohibit possession of the cheap handguns known as Saturday-night specials.

But Warren said the local impact of Prop. H was outweighed by its potential effect on neighboring communities, and by the state's interest in uniform statewide regulation.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/13/BAGJSJCVF01.DTL&hw=handgun&sn=002&sc=700

DVD Polizei
06-14-06, 01:29 PM
Another example of how voting doesn't really work. It would have been better to prove SF voters were incorrect in their thinking if this law went into force than have James "Charlton Heston" Warren use his power.

Draven
06-14-06, 01:45 PM
Oh, they are only "activist judges" when they overturn something the poster wants and you know it :)

OldDude
06-14-06, 01:57 PM
Oh, they are only "activist judges" when they overturn something the poster wants and you know it :)

Or a "non-activist" judge thinks "shall not be infringed" probably suggests you can't get away with outright banning it.

Whether you agree with the intent or not, a literal view of the Constitution is really easy to understand. You just take the words at face value. No getting into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or other philosophical arguments.

Then if you don't agree, there is a process to change it.

Sdallnct
06-16-06, 10:39 PM
While I have openly admitted to not being a gun fun (tho also not totally opposed), I find the bigger questions being what can people vote for and not vote for?

They can vote to not have a Wal-Mart,
They can vote to not have a strip club,
They can vote to pay (or not pay) for a sports stadium
But they can't vote to give up their own guns?

Interesting.

Groucho
06-16-06, 10:43 PM
To be fair, I don't think Wal-Mart, strip clubs, or sports stadiums are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

X
06-16-06, 10:47 PM
To be fair, I don't think Wal-Mart, strip clubs, or sports stadiums are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.However strip clubs are pretty directly covered by the "pursuit of happiness" clause in the Declaration of Independence.

CaptainMarvel
06-16-06, 11:37 PM
Proposition H, which passed with a 58 percent majority in November, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who need guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of guns and ammunition in San Francisco.

...

"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on the possession of handguns,'' Dorsey said.

If that restriction was "narrowly tailored", I'd hate to see them try and come up with an overbroad restriction.

mikehunt
06-17-06, 12:07 AM
But they can't vote to give up their own guns?

sure they can, by not buying/owning any
but san fran's law infringed on the rights of those that did want guns

grundle
06-17-06, 11:13 AM
While I have openly admitted to not being a gun fun (tho also not totally opposed), I find the bigger questions being what can people vote for and not vote for?

They can vote to not have a Wal-Mart,
They can vote to not have a strip club,
They can vote to pay (or not pay) for a sports stadium
But they can't vote to give up their own guns?

Interesting.

I'm against deciding any of those things by vote. I am pro-choice on all of those issues. The individual should decide what he wants to do.

DVD Polizei
06-17-06, 01:49 PM
While I have openly admitted to not being a gun fun (tho also not totally opposed), I find the bigger questions being what can people vote for and not vote for?

They can vote to not have a Wal-Mart,
They can vote to not have a strip club,
They can vote to pay (or not pay) for a sports stadium
But they can't vote to give up their own guns?

Interesting.

As far as your Wal-Mart example, if property is already zoned "commercial" it bypasses any voter approval and from there it's a political pressure issue.

Strip clubs also don't deal with voters per se. They deal with public pressure.

Your Sports Stadium example is pretty much true though, unless the city knows damn well it won't pass and they devise a plan to automatically pay for it via other means the voters won't know about until the damn thing is under construction. :)

X
06-17-06, 02:24 PM
Wal-Mart vote set for September (http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/news/20050615-spvns.html)

The Wal-Mart Vote (http://www.reason.org/outofcontrol/archives/2004/04/the_walmart_vot.html)

Voters in L.A. Suburb Reject Wal-Mart Supercenter (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0407-11.htm)

Group expects to force vote on Seattle strip-club ordinance (http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2005/10/31/daily38.html)

Voting Fraud Aimed at Benefiting Strip Club (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65993,00.html)

sherm42
06-17-06, 03:19 PM
Whether you agree with the intent or not, a literal view of the Constitution is really easy to understand. You just take the words at face value. No getting into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or other philosophical arguments.


That is technically nice, but the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal Government. It has never yet been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to State and Local governments.

However, they might decided to to incorporate it if it were brought to them since almost every other right in the bill of rights has been held to appy to the states.

BDB
06-17-06, 04:23 PM
Loads of cops on every street corner today near the fillmore street jazz festival, probably expecting trouble in the pitts plaza projects..

Sdallnct
06-17-06, 07:50 PM
However strip clubs are pretty directly covered by the "pursuit of happiness" clause in the Declaration of Independence.

I don't have a right to low prices, unknowledgable sales people and long lines?

Sdallnct
06-17-06, 08:01 PM
sure they can, by not buying/owning any
but san fran's law infringed on the rights of those that did want guns

Perhaps, but on all these type of issues the question becomes do your individual rights outweigh the rights of others.

Many, many cities ban smoking. But I have a right to smoke, right? But since the smoke interfers with others it can be voted out (I don't smoke by the way, just an example).

San Fransico decided that the real or perceived damage of gun ownership by some is a risk to even those that don't have guns, so they outlawed them.

Just about all issues are like that. Many people don't have a problem with Wal-Mart and welcome the low prices. Why not just say "if you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop there?". Because there is a real or perceived notion that having a Wal-Mart will effect even those that don't go there (reduced housing value, more traffic, etc).

I really think it is an interesting test case. I mean what if California decided to ban SUV's because they use to much gas?

crazyronin
06-17-06, 08:52 PM
That is technically nice, but the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal Government. It has never yet been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to State and Local governments.

I'd have to seriously disagree with you here. The 2nd ammendment can no more be chosen to be ignored by state and local governments any more than the 4th, 5th or 14th ammendments could.

Sdallnct
06-17-06, 09:20 PM
I'd have to seriously disagree with you here. The 2nd ammendment can no more be chosen to be ignored by state and local governments any more than the 4th, 5th or 14th ammendments could.

Yes, but don't forget that it has been upheld that you can still limit the right. There are limits as to what types of guns you can own, where you can and a cannot carry them, when and if they must be registered and/or you being licensed.

Does the limit that SF is imposing "cross the line"?? Guess we shall see.

Again, I think it is interesting when you have to start discussing "the good of the community" v. "the good of the individual".

DVD Polizei
06-17-06, 11:43 PM
Wal-Mart vote set for September (http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/news/20050615-spvns.html)

The Wal-Mart Vote (http://www.reason.org/outofcontrol/archives/2004/04/the_walmart_vot.html)

Voters in L.A. Suburb Reject Wal-Mart Supercenter (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0407-11.htm)

Group expects to force vote on Seattle strip-club ordinance (http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2005/10/31/daily38.html)

Voting Fraud Aimed at Benefiting Strip Club (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65993,00.html)

As to the strip clubs, public pressure leads to the laws, so both of us are probably correct. :)

And your Wal-Mart examples are great, but as a counter-example, here in Oregon, on Hayden Island, the land is zoned Commercially which bypasses the voters for not wanting a Wal-Mart store put there.

As to one of your Wal-Mart links, part of the article is:

The proposal would essentially exempt Wal-Mart from all of Inglewood's planning, zoning and environmental regulations, creating a city-within-a-city subject only to its own rules.

So, it certainly is a zoning issue. And Wal-Mart is taking advantage of these zoning rules throughout the country, trying to bypass the voters.

sherm42
06-18-06, 10:26 AM
I'd have to seriously disagree with you here. The 2nd ammendment can no more be chosen to be ignored by state and local governments any more than the 4th, 5th or 14th ammendments could.

Well, I am currently studying for the bar and during our Con Law review session led by a top Con Law scholar who has argued many cases before the Supreme Court, we were taught that the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms has not been held to apply to the States.

Each of the Bill of Rights protections do not apply to the states on their own. Each protection has been applied by the Court by individual cases where the Court will Incorporate the right using the Due Process Clause of the
14th Amendment which does apply to the state. The other rights that do not apply the States, but do apply to the Federal Government:

- 3rd right to have a soldier quartered in a personís home.
- 5th Amendment Right to Grand Jury for indictments.
- 7th Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases.
- 8th right against excessive fines. Other 8th provisions do apply.

NotThatGuy
06-18-06, 10:53 AM
As to one of your Wal-Mart links, part of the article is:

The proposal would essentially exempt Wal-Mart from all of Inglewood's planning, zoning and environmental regulations, creating a city-within-a-city subject only to its own rules.

So....could Walmart move into SF, get a city-within-a-city ruling and then sell guns to SF residents? Sure they'd only be able to carry the weapons on the Walmart property.....but damn me if that wouldn't be one safe Walmart!! It is kind of like the Vatican City....but they sell diapers, guns, AND condoms!

-p

Sdallnct
06-18-06, 12:22 PM
So....could Walmart move into SF, get a city-within-a-city ruling and then sell guns to SF residents? Sure they'd only be able to carry the weapons on the Walmart property.....but damn me if that wouldn't be one safe Walmart!! It is kind of like the Vatican City....but they sell diapers, guns, AND condoms!

-p

Even tho I like Wal-Mart...that is a very, very scary thought

The city of Wal-Mart, California


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0