| Click to Post a New Message!
Page [ 1 ] |
|
|
|
Californias at it again
Printable Version
Email This Article
(12-15) 17:14 PST SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --
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.
The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.
Barnes said the initiative is a response to San Francisco's skyrocketing homicide rate, as well as other social ills. There have been 86 murders in the city so far this year compared to 70 in all of 2003.
"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," he said. "Second, 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."
The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal, however, by Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group. Sam Paredes, the group's executive director, said the state has for years had a "pre-emption law" on the books that bars local governments from usurping the state's authority to regulate firearms.
"The amazing thing is they are going to turn San Francisco into ground zero for every criminal who wants to profit at their chosen profession," Paredes said. "People are going to be assaulted, people are going to be robbed, people are going to be pushed around by thugs and the police are going to be powerless to do anything about it."
Under the language of the measure, the ban would not apply police officers, security guards, members of the military, and anyone else "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment."
If approved by a majority of the city's voters, the law would take effect in January 2006. Residents would have 90 days after that to relinquish their handguns.
Five supervisors on Tuesday submitted the proposed ban directly to the Department of Elections, one more than the minimum needed to get the measure on the ballot without signatures from registered voters. The next election is scheduled for November 2005, although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has talked about calling a special election before then.
Besides Daly, the sponsors include Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Tom Ammiano, Bevan Dufty and Matt Gonzalez, the outgoing president of the 11-member Board of Supervisors. Consisting of four Democrats and a Green Party member, the group is nonetheless considered "ideologically diverse" by San Francisco standards, Barnes said.
How many residents would be affected by the ban is unclear, since California does not require residents to register handguns that are kept in a private residence of business. Only 10 people in San Francisco have been issued concealed weapons permits allowing them to carry guns and the city has only three licensed gun dealers, Barnes said.
Washington, D.C. is the only major American city that currently bans handgun possession by private citizens. Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, said San Francisco officials are remiss to use the District of Columbia's experience as a model.
"If gun control worked, Washington, D.C. would be the beacon. However, it's the murder capital of the United States," Arulanandam said.
Penalties for violations have not been set, but would be recommended by the mayor in consultation with the police chief, the sheriff and the district attorney, according to language in the measure.
Barnes said that since initiative was crafted with input from the city attorney's office and an outside consultant to avoid potential conflicts with state law, the supervisors were confident it would withstand legal scrutiny.
"We'll see when and if it's litigated," he said.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
This story is a couple of months old, but it became fresh again in a radio interview I heard a couple days ago where the author was defending it. When asked how they could possibly enforce it, he responded "we have all the names and addresses from when they were required to register them".
So are they thinking of going door to door to confiscate them? I hope not. That could get 'very' ugly. I imagine many gun owners might not give them up too easily.
Don't these utopians have anything better to do than make criminals out of law abiding citizens?
Unfortunately if this is challenged it would probably be upheld by the very liberal 9th circuit court of appeals. Would then likely have to go to the supreme court to be overturned. Then again maybe that would be a good thing. To get this before the highest court and settle the issue once and for all. Either the 2nd amendment is legal or it isn't.
|
|
 Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Californias at it again
The state of california itself is icredibly beautiful, the people by and large are hard working, honest people like everywhere else in this country. But unfortunately, we are held hostage by a very pain in the ass minority who happen to be a political majority. They only represent the special interest groups in the state, and scare everyone else into believing that all this BS they do is for our good.
When we vote in a piece of legislation they disagree with, they ignore it and go to the liberal judges to have it thrown out. The state is held hostage by a bunch of utopian fascists.
They keep getting back into office, because people like my dad (now deceased), would just check everything democrat without having a clue who these people are or what they stand for. Or what the party stands for in modern times for that matter. He considered himslef a good union man who did what his union told him to.
Californians often just vote democrat because they're democrats, and they don't know anything different.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Page [ 1 ] | Thread 105574 Filter by Poster:
1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
|
()
Picture of the Day
DennisCTB
Unanswered Questions
Active Subjects
Hot Topics
Featured Suppliers
|
Gas Generator Weather Protecti
02-06-2005, 00:27 
Digg It 
Del.icio.us