San Francisco must enjoy having it's laws declared unconstitutional

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143081,00.html

Quote:

---

San Francisco Considers Handgun Ban
Sunday, January 02, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO — The city that bucked state law and sanctioned gay marriage (search) is now taking aim at the constitutional right to bear arms (search) by proposing a ban in San Francisco on private ownership of all handguns.

"When you get guns out of people's homes and off the streets, it means that that gun is not going to be used in a shooting that kills someone, whether a murder or an accidental shooting," said Chris Daly, supervisor of San Francisco.

San Francisco officials are pushing a ballot measure to prohibit just about everyone who isn't a cop, security guard or member of the military from having a handgun in their home or office.

Supporters of gun rights, however, say the ban would deny basic rights.

"What it's really about, the end game is, taking away civilians' firearms and depriving them of the most effective tool that there is for self-defense," said Chuck Michel, spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association (search).

Despite state laws that prevent local governments from banning handguns, the city believes doing just that will stem a wave of homicides that's left 87 people dead this year.

Washington, D.C., banned handguns in response to its skyrocketing homicide rate in 1976. But nearly three decades later, it had more murders per capita than any other city its size.

Opponents are already planning lawsuits, but argue that even if it does pass, this ban won't stop crime as law-abiding citizens give up their guns while the criminals flock to a city that ensures they won't be shot at by the people they're robbing.

"And what's going to happen if this passes is people in San Francisco are going to be deprived of their ability to defend themselves," Michel said.

"I don't feel like I need to own a gun to protect myself. Certainly, I am a high-profile elected official and now a lot of gun owners don't like me individually, but if I'm in a situation where I feel threatened, I'll call the police," Daly said.

If approved by voters next year, the ban will take effect in 2006.

---

I believe California has a law on the books that states it's counties and cities cannot pass a law which is contrary to state law (not to mention the Constitution). I believe that same law enabled the California Supreme Court to void all those gay marriages they did. Guess some folks never learn.

Sometimes laws are passed with the full expectation that they will eventually be overturned. Consequently, don't be surprised if the hastily-devised gay marriage ballot initiatives passed in November 2004 start tumbling like unconstitutional dominoes in 2005.

I should move to California. I can rob houses without worrying about being shot at by the owner of the house.

(not that I would do that :mhcky21: )

San Francisco's mayor was assasinated by a city official in 1978, the stigma of that death is big in that city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WVRed

I should move to California. I can rob houses without worrying about being shot at by the owner of the house.

(not that I would do that :mhcky21: )

---

San Fransisco is a city/county of 750K people, probably 1.5% of the population of the whole state. So if you want to rob I suggest you stick to San Francisco if you want to avoid a gun.... oh and don't drive a stick, the hills are death on your clutch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westofyou

San Francisco's mayor was assasinated by a city official in 1978, the stigma of that death is big in that city.

---

I'll lay odds that gun wasn't registered to the guy who shot him. Almost 100% of non-domestic gun related crime is commited with illegal unregistered weapons anyway.

Much like Washington DC discovered, this will have almost ZERO impact on gun violence in the community.

Quote:

---

I'll lay odds that gun wasn't registered to the guy who shot him

---

Dan White ex fireman, city council member? I'm fairly certain it was his gun.

IIRC Frisco tried a similar measure in 1982, and it was struck down by the courts.

The situation in DC has actually gotten worse since the gun ban there, it's now the murder capitol of the US. :( The repeal of the DC gun ban has already passed the House, and will be up for a Senate vote soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westofyou

Dan White ex fireman, city council member? I'm fairly certain it was his gun.

---

And if Mr White was really intent on killing the mayor, which he obviously was, I think he could have very easily gotten a gun illegally. Or maybe he could have bludgeoned him to death with a baseball bat or tire iron. The results are the same. ;)

You don't ban law abiding citizens from legally possessing handguns simply because some nutcase goes awry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAC

You don't ban law abiding citizens from legally possessing handguns simply because some nutcase goes awry.

---

I never said you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reds4Life

The situation in DC has actually gotten worse since the gun ban there, it's now the murder capitol of the US. :(

---

Can you please provide a source for that statistic (in bold). I believe DC has been the murder capital of the US as late as 2002. But I am having a hard time finding stats that DC is the Murder Capital for either 2003 or 2004.

P.S.
I don't personnally believe in banning handguns/shotguns for protection or "sport".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican

Can you please provide a source for that statistic (in bold). I believe DC has been the murder capital of the US as late as 2002. But I having a hard time finding stats that DC is the Murder Capital for either 2003 or 2004.

P.S.
I don't personnally believe in banning handguns/shotguns for protection or "sport".

---

By volume, Chicago was the 2003 murder capitol, not DC. Chicago had 599 murders in 2003. :eek: Chicago is another city with a gun ban. Notice a pattern here? DC rates their murder rates as per capita, Chicago does not.

The stats I have for DC show this:

2003 murders: 248
2004 murders: 188

The 2003 numbers are concrete, the 2004 numbers might move + or -, they take forever to release the official reports. In 2002, the worst year in DC history, they had 262 murders. As a point of reference DC has around 600,000 people and had 248 murders in 2003. San Fran has roughly 800,000 and had 87 murders in 2003. DC is a scary place. :(

I'm not sure why San Fran is even going to pursue this, the idea just doesn't work and in the national media it reinforces the "crazy liberal" southern California stereotype. It's been tried in DC and Chicago, those cities have the among the highest murder rates every year. Why punish law abiding citizens? They did this before in 1982 and it was overturned, why bother again? Are they going to send police door to door to confiscate firearms from their legal owners? I feel sorry for the cops who get assigned that duty.

Quote by Reds4Life: ".....why San Fran is even going to pursue this....it reinforces the "crazy liberal" southern California stereotype."

Uh, not to quible here but San Francisco is definately not southern California. :)

Rem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by remdog

Quote by Reds4Life: ".....why San Fran is even going to pursue this....it reinforces the "crazy liberal" southern California stereotype."

Uh, not to quible here but San Francisco is definately not southern California. :)

Rem

---

That's right anything North of Bakersfield is considered Oregon. ;)

Ridden down by an overwhelming sense of guilt, criminals will, in fact, obey this law and refrain from possessing illegal handguns. With the entire source of the crime problem eliminated, those same criminals will then have no choice but to begin obeying all laws. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Ahhh, I can hear ol' John Lennon singing "Imagine" as I type this.