Ban Ammunition/Gun/Parts Sales to SF Agencies

We need to start a campaign to pressure local politicians to forgo the exclusion clause for LEO, military, and security types in any further legislation.

It's a legitimate request. These pols have told us time and again that the various bans will result in a reduction in crime. Make them stand behind their stated goals. To even get something like this out into the public's eye would be a major triumph. It would also put a serious damper on the support given these administrations by the various LEO associations.

I am a little curious why, for example, an LEO isn't required to have locks built into his weapon, like the civilian. Why would an LEO, equipped with a radio and back-up, need high capacity magazines more than a civilian without either? If civilians, again without the resources of LEOs, cannot own body armor, then neither should our police. It would make it more dangerous if all of these restrictions went into place overnight, but they wouldn't. It took years to get where we are. However, just the thought that these things could happen would cause a violent upheaval in society. :)

Remember, it's for the children.:barf:
 
Gary H -
Find out which manufacturers of firearms and related equipment have contracts with the SF agencies of all types.

Post that information (i.e. email, fax #, phone #,...etc), and we can start from there. Then I suggest getting the same information for the agencies we wish to affect and let them know what's coming, and that it's coming from all over the country, not just their city.

We are not "punishing" the cops other than possibly symbolically. They'll still have their sidearms. They'll still have their ammunition. They'll still be able to do their job. Don't worry, it's not as if the city will send their LE men and women on the street with a ziplok bag of crushed red pepper and a few banana peels.

Hopefully we have enough impact to where the agencies must find other means to procure this equipment. Doubtful - but it's worth a try.

At the very least, we may be able to send a message to the companies who choose to do business with a city that has elected to ban the sale of the company's product to the regular population - as well as send a message to the agencies who hypocritically do business with firearms/ammunition manufacturers.

How many of you are from San Francisco?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. This is an attack aimed at the firearms community. Not just those within the firearms community who also happen to be within the boundaries of SF.

If you don't believe in the cause - your certainly entitled. Even though I may disagree with you, I believe the discussion is worth having.

Therefore, may I respectfully request starting a similar thread in order to discuss the rights/wrongs of this action while this thread is maintained as sort of a headquarters for those who do agree with the initiative. To have the "right/wrong" discussion in this thread will most certainly lead to it's closure.

And I agree - the gay jokes are not necessary.
 
"Therefore, may I respectfully request starting a similar thread in order to discuss the rights/wrongs of this action while this thread is maintained as sort of a headquarters for those who do agree with the initiative."

I dont think so, you are attempting to impact my profession negatively, and do it for a political goal. Y'all have taken upon yourselves to be the saviors of San Francisco and subvert the democratic process by endangering cops, and that is what you are doing, by effecting their firearms.

You dont like wht the voters did, dont live there. What gives you the right to muck about in someone elses backyard just cause you dont like it?

Their gun ban has zero impact where I live, but screw with the cops, you get the whole sandwich.
 
"You dont like wht the voters did, dont live there. What gives you the right to muck about in someone elses backyard just cause you dont like it?"

Unfortunately, we have to do exactly that. We have every right to do this, just like those same leftists have the right to apply political pressures pertaining to their own agenda in our back yards. And you better believe that they are doing exactly that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Just because I can't vote in their jurisdiction doesn't mean I have no interest there, and it doesn't mean that I can't apply every bit of pressure that I can there. Don't like it? Tough.

"Their gun ban has zero impact where I live,"

Ah, but it does, if you live ANYWHERE in the U.S. The legal & political precedent has been set, and the anti's everywhere will point to that precedent. Just watch.

"but screw with the cops, you get the whole sandwich."

Not necessarily. Not when it is made plain that the goal is furthering public safety and for the right for all citizens to bear arms, including RETIRED LEO's. Not when it is made plain that the pressure is put in place not to punish the SF LEO's themselves, but to punish the Pols and associated media who push this sort of insane legislation. What you fail to get is that the people do not exist for the sake of the LEO's, but the LEO's are instead there at the behest of the people. It is the "govermnent of the people, by the people..." thing -- ultimately we the people call the shots, not you LEO's. Your threatening the general public with law enforcement retaliation is nothing short of disturbing.
 
So where is the logic in a bunch of outsiders, who by general attitude really couldnt give a rodent's butt about SF, city of sodomites, pushing for crimping the supply lines to the police, because the voters of said city, ie, the people who actually live there, voted in a way with which the previously mentioned outsiders dont like?

The people voted for this, didnt they? So you want to change the outcome of an election by pressuring politicians to throw out a popular vote. And you dont even have a dog in this fight.......
 
Y'all have taken upon yourselves to be the saviors of San Francisco and subvert the democratic process by endangering cops
Click to expand...

Their gun ban has zero impact where I live
Click to expand...

Well, that about says it. They haven't come for you yet.

Pure democracy doesn't exist. The constitution was put in place to limit the government. It also limits democracy, at least until a 2/3 vote is demonstrated. So, the next big earthquake followed by violence disallows the 40+ percent of SF residence that voted against the measure to defend themselves, as per the second amendment, because you were not yet impacted. That's a fine attitude.
 
"......ultimately we the people call the shots...."

Unless you live in San Francisco and vote for something that people on the internet dont like :rolleyes:
 
Sendec....

Democracy is like two wolves a and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.


I never knew a city could vote to remove rights from any group of people.
Especially lawfull people.

Weird how things work.
 
Look, you guys wanna get all boo-boo lipped and storm the gates, have at it, just leave the cops alone, they did nothing to deserve having their safety impacted.

Boycott Rice-A-Roni for all I care, just dont screw with the police. You are talking lives....
 
Ignore sendec

Sendec: lead, follow or get out of the way.

The SF City Supervisors thought nothing of endangering lives when this Proposition was brought forward- how long did it take you think this obstacle up? You've obvioulsy never held a leadership position in your life, judging how you fall back on sentiment.

It is a relief to see the people doing something about this instead of ranting in chat rooms. A setback in the world's 5th largest economy needs to be reversed, because it will eventually affect the whole US. The AWB of 1994 has roots in 1989 in CA, and many states ignored the 2004 sunset.

Some places to start:
www.sfgov.org
www.crpa.org
www.tacr.us
www.nra-ila.org
 
"Boycott Rice-A-Roni for all I care,"

I shall. And any other company primarily doing business or headquartered there. Topic for another thread, though.

"just dont screw with the police. You are talking lives...."

Nope. Not even. Removing weapons from the hands of law abiding citizens does take lives, however. Remember, the police really CAN'T protect anyone who is attacked feloniously -- all they can do is respond to the attack after the fact (looking over the cooling corpses), and attempt to apprehend the perp -- too late for the defenseless true victims, now dead. Setting legal & political precedent for similar gun grabbers will also cost lives, however. Many more lives than the few LEO's who may or may not (if this is resolved quickly as I hope) be lost by this action. If, regrettably, the SF police (who are on the job VOLUNTARILY, I might add -- nothing is preventing them from setting aside their badge, or moving to another jurisdiciton) have to suffer, well, it is political hardball, after all.

"So where is the logic in a bunch of outsiders, who by general attitude really couldnt give a rodent's butt about SF, city of sodomites, pushing for crimping the supply lines to the police, because the voters of said city, ie, the people who actually live there, voted in a way with which the previously mentioned outsiders dont like?"

And since when do those you mention above get a pass from you when they push their own agendas outside of SF? Agendas which they most certainly do push outside of SF. Again, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If they would limit their activities to their own locale, and if their precedents did not influence other locales, then I'd say that it would be a good solution if we just erected a fence around that fever swamp and let them just go rot. But it doesn't work that way -- their little fever swamp breeds mosquitoes that still make their way here, so it actually does affect us -- even here -- whether we like it or not. And since it affects us outside of SF, it is therefore perfectly rational for us, outside of SF, to take an active part in what goes on there. Since we don't have a vote, we can't vote them out, therefore our options are limited -- we have to apply leverage by other means. Now, do you have any other suggestions pertaining to how to apply sufficient leverage? I mean, not pulling any punches type of leverage, since that's what we are facing?

Come on, I'm listening -- come up with some ideas. What can I, in Ga, do otherwise to significantly effect the local pols in SF to get them to back off of this idiocy? All I know is to hit them where it hurts, even if it hurts doing so.
 
Who arms the SFPD?

I can't find who manufactures the service weapons for the SFPD. Anyone know?

It's worth a try visiting those manufacturers' websites and letting them know what you think.

If all men are created equal, let's make sure the police are equal to the law-abiding citizens going about their daily lives.
 
"What can I, in Ga, do otherwise to significantly effect the local pols in SF to get them to back off of this idiocy?"

Uh. slick, why werent you so cranked before the election when you could have actually done something?

Now we'll have the usual bleating and chest-thumping........

So the five of you get together and write your letters. I'd be peed too, if I was asleep at the switch and let this happen....Now that the fox is in the hen house your golden moment has passed, good work.

Be sure to let the voters know that what they want means squat, you know what's best for them. Gee, where have I heard that logic disparaged before?
 
Boycotts are fine, but...

Boycotts are fine, but remember this: the practice was started by Irish peasants with nothing to lose.

The SF supervisors probably knew they would get away with this because the typical activist gun owner doesn't have much political influence. After all, does the board of Cisco Systems or Levi Strauss sponsor NRA matches? And they have quite a bit of influence worldwide.

How much influence do we have individually? Do we address our concerns by voicing them to our lawyer friends at the country club, or over drinks after the completion of a major deal, or to our lobbyist friends in Fairfax County?

We need to ask ourselves, how do we become more influential in society? If the SF Supervisors knew that the influenctial people in SF would have opposed this ban, the measure would have never come to light...

The Capitol didn't move out of DC when the handgun ban passed, did it? Has it been repealed yet?
 
Impressive, sendec

Sendec,

With defeatists and fault-finders like you, it's no wonder the RKBA is always under siege.

Why can't you be part of the solution?

But wait, that would require you to keep your comments to yourself and help things along. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
 
1. We can't even remotely agree on any course of action, so just how do you think cops lives are going to be put at risk? No action of our will result in a complete boycott..get real..The best we can hope for is to make things a bit more difficult. It is more of a protest action.

2. If the NRA suit goes to the Supreme Robes and they decide against, you had better bet that it will come down on you. Regardless of what we do, other than support the right person in 2008, we won't determine the outcome of this one. Maybe it is time to send the NRA another $100.

3. Think about the ammunition/gun maker. Short of every manufacturer taking part, they won't do anything, because they don't want a competitor to have the business. Anything that we do at this level is more symbolic.

4. God help the person that must defend themselves. For now, they might still keep a shotgun, but over time these will go away also.

5. Perhaps our rights will erode away, as long as they are taken away slowly and you don't feel threatened. Perhaps..
 
Rice-a-Roni (Golden Grain Company) is headquartered in Chicago, IL.

The SFPOA went public in opposition to the ban.

One of the 4 rules:
Know your target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top