Washington DC may get competition as "Murder Capital"

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I just don't get how some people get so bent out of shape about a city voting for a ban, I mean it is their freakin city, and if you don't like it move somewhere else, there are enough cities in the US to suit every purpose.

Law-abiding people shouldn't be forced to move just because some city politicians are bigoted against guns.

The same would be true if a city tried to ban any other class of citizens who weren't bothering anyone, whether it be homosexuals, christians, blacks, or anyone else.

It's not good enough just to say, "well if the black don't like being banned, they can just move somewhere else." The principle is wrong, and shouldn't be tolerated.

Maybe we should ban people from this forum who use a thumbnail picture of SpongeBob Squarepants. After all, if you don't like being banned here, you can always go find some other forum. What does it matter whether the criteria for the SpongeBob ban is justifiable or not? Eh?

[JohnRich 4]

A new wrinkle on the proposed San Francisco gun ban:

Excerpt:
"The City's new proposed weapons ban initiative may be aimed at the violent and criminal, but the law could also hurt one of The City's most venerable posh auction houses.

Drawing arms collectors from around the world, Bonhams and Butterfields on San Bruno Avenue generates millions of dollars auctioning off antique arms and modern sporting guns. During a two-day auction on Dec. 7 and 8, Butterfields raised $1.8 million selling everything from a World War II-era Walther hammerless pistol to a 1938 Colt single action Army revolver.

"As written, the law seems broad and overreaching," said Paul Carella, Butterfields' director of arms, armor, modern and vintage sporting guns. "If the terminology is so broad that I can't even sell a gun to an out-of-towner, it doesn't make sense to me. We generate a lot of business for the City of San Francisco and it would seem foolish to shut that down."

Gun ban campaign manager Bill Barnes said the auction house has little to worry about... He also said there will be plenty of time for wrinkles in the law to be ironed out. The Board of Supervisors will have the ability to amend the law after the voters enact it, he said."

Source & full story: Examiner

"Just trust us", he says... Yeah, right.

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

I just don't get how some people get so bent out of shape about a city voting for a ban, I mean it is their freakin city, and if you don't like it move somewhere else, there are enough cities in the US to suit every purpose.

Law-abiding people shouldn't be forced to move just because some city politicians are bigoted against guns.

Wrong, it is going to a vote, you know where all the people, not the politicians, in the city get the chance to go and put an X in a box. It is called democracy.
I remember that one town somewhere in the USA voted that every house had to have a gun, that is fine too, the people voted for it, it was their choice, and I don't have a problem with that either.
I think you have a problem with people sho don't agree with your position rather than just accepting that not all folks think like you.

Quote

The same would be true if a city tried to ban any other class of citizens who weren't bothering anyone, whether it be homosexuals, christians, blacks, or anyone else.

It you take a look at anti-discimination laws the only protocted minorities are:
race, color, national origin, sex (gender), marital status, sexual orientation, age, pregnancy, disability, religion, or veteran status.

Notice how gun owners are missing.
If every minority group had protection nothing would be illegal, I'm in a minority group of BMW owners, why shouldn't I drive my car at 140mph, my car is safe at that speed, I'm in a minority group called skydiving, why should I have to get a waver to jump over a stadium, I mean it discriminatory to think I might be a terrorist. If you are a smoker in CA and many other places you cant smoke in many public places, even bars, should smokers be granted minority status, should they have the right to smoke where they please?
Explain to me why should gun owners be granted protected minority status, what is so special about them?

Quote

It's not good enough just to say, "well if the black don't like being banned, they can just move somewhere else." The principle is wrong, and shouldn't be tolerated.

It is absurd comparing the right to own a gun with racial discrimination.

Quote

Maybe we should ban people from this forum who use a thumbnail picture of SpongeBob Squarepants. After all, if you don't like being banned here, you can always go find some other forum. What does it matter whether the criteria for the SpongeBob ban is justifiable or not? Eh?

It could happen if HH decided it for some reason and then I would change my picture and I wouldn't bitch about it, many things are banned from dz.com, personal attacks for instance, should we start a campain to protect those who are banned bacause they commited a personal attack?

[Kennedy 0]

I am really very happy that people as ignorant of the legislative process as you are do not have much influence on government at any level.

As to your "every home must have a gun" comment, the place is Kennesaw, Georgia, and no one is actually required to own or keep a gun. There are exceptions for anyoen who doesn't want to keep a gun in their home.

Tell me, is San Franciso going to let anyone who doesn't want to give up their handgun have an exception? From the place the spawned Dianne Feinstein? I doubt it.


You know, I bet the SF city council and the ninth circuit (circus) court of appeals would probably get along grandly.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Wrong, it is going to a vote, you know where all the people, not the politicians, in the city get the chance to go and put an X in a box. It is called democracy.
I remember that one town somewhere in the USA voted that every house had to have a gun, that is fine too, the people voted for it, it was their choice, and I don't have a problem with that either.

It is democracy at its worst, IMO. The rights of the minority are not repected by the majority. Only one step above a dictator, according to Plato and Aristotle.

I would be reluctant to move anywhere in this country that either forbid or mandated my posession of firearms.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

It is democracy at its worst, IMO. The rights of the minority are not repected by the majority. Only one step above a dictator, according to Plato and Aristotle.

The tyranny of the many, they called it, I believe.

Pure democracy is a scary thing.

That's why we have a Republic based on Representative Democracy. I've not heard of or read about a superior system, existant or otherwise.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[sfc 1]

Quote

I am really very happy that people as ignorant of the legislative process as you are do not have much influence on government at any level.

Just to put your mind at rest I'm not even an american, at least not for another 2 years and then at that point I'll have the same amount of influence on the government as you, one vote.

Quote

As to your "every home must have a gun" comment, the place is Kennesaw, Georgia, and no one is actually required to own or keep a gun. There are exceptions for anyoen who doesn't want to keep a gun in their home.

So they have a law saying you have to have a gun, but if you don't want to you don't really have to, well that really makes a lot of sense.

Quote

Tell me, is San Franciso going to let anyone who doesn't want to give up their handgun have an exception? From the place the spawned Dianne Feinstein? I doubt it.

I have no idea, and as I said earlier I don't care about this particular law, I don't live there and I don't own a gun why should I bother to read the details. I'm sure you could do an on-line search and find out if you are really interested.

Quote

• Quote

[Nightingale 0]

Gun owners shouldn't need to be protected by anti-discrimination laws, as they already have the protection of the second amendment.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Gun owners shouldn't need to be protected by anti-discrimination laws, as they already have the protection of the second amendment.

Now if only that were actually enforced...

(inclusion via the 14th for the states would be nice, as well)

ah, wishful thinking.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Wrong, it is going to a vote, you know where all the people, not the politicians, in the city get the chance to go and put an X in a box. It is called democracy.

Go back and review the part where we talked about how a democracy should respect the rights of law-abiding people who aren't bothering anyone.

Quote

I remember that one town somewhere in the USA voted that every house had to have a gun, that is fine too, the people voted for it, it was their choice, and I don't have a problem with that either.

That town (Kennesaw, Georgia) is not throwing people in jail who don't own a gun. San Francisco is saying they'll do that.

Quote

It you take a look at anti-discimination laws the only protocted minorities are: race, color, national origin, sex (gender), marital status, sexual orientation, age, pregnancy, disability, religion, or veteran status.

So it's okay with you if we discriminate against other classes of people, just because they aren't in that list? Wow, what a strong stand on human rights and freedom!

Quote

Explain to me why should gun owners be granted protected minority status, what is so special about them?

The Constitution.

Quote

It is absurd comparing the right to own a gun with racial discrimination.

You're the one who thinks it's okay to discriminate against certain classes of people, just because a few people don't like them. That's what's absurd. But, hey, it worked for Hitler.

[Kennedy 0]

OK, so the city says granting rights to some and not others does not create a class seperation. (water fountains anyone?)

How is granting some people the right to keep a gun, but not others, different from licensing?

And they cite Michael Moore's movie as not only justification but as the reason they must proceed.

Quote

Bid for handgun ban faces hurdles
S.F. measure's legal, practical obstacles

Suzanne Herel, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, December 17, 2004

San Francisco supervisors want to make the city the second in the nation to ban the ownership of handguns, but whether such a law would prove to be more than symbolic remains to be seen.

First, legal challenges are being readied by those who see the proposed law -- set to go to voters next fall -- as bucking state law, which says law-abiding citizens do not need permits or licenses to keep handguns in their homes.

Then there are practical hurdles: How do you enforce a ban in the absence of a public registry of gun owners in California? And of what value is such a measure for police, who already have the authority to take guns from criminal suspects?

Supporters of a ban say it would curb gun violence in the city by reducing the number of weapons available. Bill Barnes, spokesman for the campaign, said many guns used in crimes were purchased legally -- and later stolen.

According to a report by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, 213 people were victims of 176 incidents of handgun violence in 1999, the last year for which the data are available. Of all firearms used to cause injury or death that year, 67 percent were handguns.

Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, one of five supervisors who signed off on placing the proposed law on the next ballot, said it was concern about guns' falling into the wrong hands that motivated her.

"You have to keep guns away from kids," said Alioto-Pier, the mother of young children. "We're not taking away people's constitutional rights. This is about ensuring the safety of people who live here."

But gun-owner-rights groups say that such a law would invite crime, not prevent it, by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and would not take guns out of the hands of criminals.

"Guns are being made the scapegoat for policy failures of the city," said Chuck Michel, spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Michel, an attorney, represents that group and the National Rifle Association. The proposed law, he said, "is based on the myth that if you disarm civilians, the bad guys won't have guns either. I think that's a bunch of baloney."

He added: "We're already in the process of putting together the petition for an injunction to try to keep it off the ballot."

The measure would ban handguns in San Francisco -- except for police officers, security guards, military personnel and others who require them for their job. Only 10 people in the city have permits to carry a concealed weapon, Barnes said.

By allowing some people to have handguns and not others, opponents say, the law would create a new class of people. And any requirement of permission to own handguns amounts to a license -- which, according to state law, cities are not permitted to require.

It was just this issue that torpedoed the last effort by San Francisco officials to ban handguns, in 1982, Barnes said. The drive was led by Dianne Feinstein, who became mayor after Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were shot to death in City Hall. This time around, Barnes said, the law was written to avoid any city participation in licensing or registration of guns, and he doesn't consider it to be creating a new class of people, as foes of the measure claim.

The ordinance, which would go into effect Jan. 1, 2006, if passed by a simple majority of voters, also would prohibit the sale, manufacture and distribution of all firearms in the city.

That portion of the law has less effect on San Francisco, which is home to one gun shop, High Bridge Arms, whose online phone listing carries a slogan: "Stop crime before it starts." A store employee would not comment on the ordinance, and the owner did not respond to a request for an interview.

Two other dealers have permits to sell guns in the city.

The only other major city to have enacted a handgun ban is Washington, D. C., which did so in 1976. However, Congress has the right to supercede local laws in the District of Columbia, and in September the House of Representatives repealed most of the city's gun-control laws by passing the D. C. Personal Protection Act. The measure now is before the Senate.

The homicide rate in Washington, D.C., in 2002 was 9.4 incidents per 100, 000 people. In San Francisco that year, the rate was 5.2.

Supervisor-elect Ross Mirkarimi, who himself owns two handguns because of his job as an investigator in the district attorney's office, said he supported the ordinance.

"How many more Michael Moore films does it take to tell us that the Second Amendment is absolutely archaic, and other nations do it better than we do?" said Mirkarimi, who plans to donate or sell his own guns. "We should absolutely go forward with it despite the constitutional challenges."

However, he said, the legislation largely would be symbolic without enforcement.

Although gun sales in California must be recorded, residents are not required to have a permit for handguns kept in a private home or business, so it's unclear how many San Francisco residents would be affected by the law.

The initiative was filed with the Department of Elections this week by five supervisors representing a spread of ideology on the board -- Chris Daly, Matt Gonzalez, Tom Ammiano, Bevan Dufty and Alioto-Pier.

Alioto-Pier and Dufty often side with Mayor Gavin Newsom on issues. Newsom has not taken a position yet on the ballot measure, said spokesman Peter Ragone, though he has talked much in this past year about getting guns off the street.

Eric Gorovitz, West Coast director of the Alliance for Justice, who has spent a decade working for gun control policy statewide and nationally, said he thought the San Francisco measure was written in a way that would withstand legal challenge.

"I think banning handguns is the central issue for gun violence prevention, and it's been somewhat of a third rail -- people haven't wanted to talk about it," Gorovitz said. "It's a very good strategy for a community that has excessive gun violence."

Sam Paredes, executive director of the political action committee Gun Owners of California, couldn't disagree more.

"We think this is a disastrous idea," he said. "We think that if you disarm people in their own homes, you invite criminals to attack these people. Law abiding citizens are just prey. They walk in fear."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/17/MNGARADH4O1.DTL

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*