San Fransisco to ban gun ownership?

[mailin 0]

I hadn't heard anything about this until this article. I hope that the citizens of San Fransisco prevail.

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0503/outright.html

Quote

Gay Libertarians oppose San Francisco gun ban

Several Libertarian groups in the San Francisco Bay area have joined with members of gay gun rights group the Pink Pistols, Gun Owners of California and other advocacy groups in condemning a proposed ban on firearms within the San Francisco city and county limits.

"San Francisco has already made it inordinately difficult to defend one's self while on the street, at the ATM or while using public transit, by their overly strict policy in granting concealed handgun permits,” said Michael Acree, chair of the San Francisco chapter of the Outright Libertarians -- a group that promotes the Libertarian Party to the gay community.

“Now they plan on making it equally difficult for us to defend ourselves and our loved ones in the places we live, by confiscating our handguns from our very homes and apartments," Acree said. "I do not want to be turned into a sitting duck by the board of supervisors."

The proposed law would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2006 -- and city residents would have to surrender their handguns within 90 days of that time, to avoid penalties. The proposed law would also prohibit the local sale of other firearms and ammunition.

"While the right of self-defense is the most important principle here, there is also the matter of taking property by threat of force, without just compensation," said Richard Newell, vice-chair of the San Francisco chapter of the Outright Libertarians.

"In my book that is called robbery," Newell said. "We support the Gun Owners of California and the California Rifle and Pistol Association in their legal efforts to block this proposal from ever making it to the ballot."

Jen

Arianna Frances

[kelpdiver 2]

there has been a little conversation on it.

A couple supervisors got enough votes to put it on next year's ballot. Odds are it will pass a city vote, then get shot down by the courts the same way a similar move in 1982 went. It's a state matter.

Nevermind the practicality aspects.

[craddock 0]

Quote

Nevermind the practicality aspects

????

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Nevermind the practicality aspects

????

Figure at least 20% of this pacifist city owns firearms. The voters go to the polls in early November, and if passed, these people would have until the end of March to move, lose the weapons, or become felons. The union of the Pink Pistols, the NRA types, and the Libertarians will file immediately to have this law struck down, but barring an injunction that will take considerably longer than 5 months. Since the city doesn't know who has weapons, most will probably choose to hold on until the legal issues are settled.

There's also the minor issue of the city trying to confiscate property without compensation. Or that now the violent gangs that were the 'inspiration' for this legislation would still be armed and killing each other, and perhaps more people now.

Given that the proposed law is clearly illegal in the state of California, one would question the actions of the city supervisors.

Actually, no. It's the grandstanding tactics typical of Chris Daly.

[craddock 0]

And here I thought you meant the practicality aspects of the law, not enforcing it. I am glad I asked.

Josh

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And here I thought you meant the practicality aspects of the law, not enforcing it. I am glad I asked.

That topic is already well covered.

But no, I won't be surrendering mine. I like having them more than I like Chris Daly.