San Francisco Bans Handguns

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm firmly of the opinion that we should encourage ALL conservatives in California to move out, to all the states bordering California.

Then build a conservative 'wall' of legislation that would isolate the state. I already boycott a lot of californian goods.

We need to get more strict with illegal immigration, and if california wants to leave their border open, then the oregon/nevada/arizona borders on california need to be buttoned up then.

Just let Atlas Shrug. give up on the state and let the liberals hang themselves. All intelligent business people would be best served leaving and going to AZ or NV.
 
mvpel,

I don't think he was saying he wanted to move because of open carry. Consider how hard it is to even get a concealed permit in that part of Kalifornia.

I moved from San Diego about 4 years ago (to Arizona). Couldn't be happier! :D
 
azredhawk44.....That is already happening. Why do you think California is on the brink of bankruptcy. The real income producers can't get out of California fast enough. When they run out of rich people to tax, either because they moved out of state or are now poor from already being overtaxed, where do they think they will get this money from? Socialism is self-defeating. The only thing I am disappointed about is the conservatives keep just managing to plug the holes just enough that the socialists keep hanging on. Let the libs just have nasty California without any opposition and let them run it right into the ground. The other states need to be regularly reminded how not to govern.
 
If you must go to the movies see if there is an indie film playing and buy your ticket for that but go see whatever you want once in the theater. :D
 
What?

But if the Conservatives move out of California, who will pay income tax? The 60s tuned out-turned on liberal hippies welfare payments might go unpaid?
 
I have some half-formed thoughts on this (or maybe my thoughts are only half-baked, I don't know).

First, most anti's say that the 2nd is not for ordinary citizens. It's for the "militia." Hokay, lets accept that for now....But that brings up a couple of questions; if the "militia" are the only ones allowed to own weapons, does SF no longer HAVE a militia? Or, did they just ban the militia in SF? Afterall, a militia without weapons isn't really anything more than a gathering of defenseless people conveniently put into one place so that they can be rounded up faster.

If so, doesn't the banning of the militia defeat the 2nd amendment since a militia is "required" (necessary) for a free state?

And, since when can a state tell the Federal gov't what to do? The constitution requires that there BE a militia for national defense, so banning one in SF is the equivalent of the state saying that the Feds can't have a militia in SF. Which violates the constitution AND says that SF will not participate in the defense of the nation.

Secondly, the citizens must turn in their weapons. Isn't that a "taking" in violation of the takings clause since the law doesn't provide for the gov't to pay for the seized weapons/property?

And, how are they going to enforce it? Start a gun owners list and use that for warrants to search for contraband weapons?

I predict a HUGE fight over this one. Maybe, in light of the Katrina debacle, we'll see some sort of ruling on the RKBA. And, if I were a citizen of SF, I'd rent a storage locker in some other area and put my weapons there for the time being.
 
Good argument, Rob P.

In light of the fact that they also had a referendum forbidding the military from recruiting on HS and college campuses, they have made a very clear statement that they do not want any form of citizen's militia, national guard, army or other armed force presence in SanFran.

That would make a really interesting court case...
 
I guess it is time for Californians to say "come and get them", I don't think the police want to do it anyway, and they really wouldn't want to have armed confrontation with thousands of armed gun owners.
 
My experience with the Sacramento area police would indicate they definitely want to take them. Even the few who might not want to will fall back on that they "are just following orders" when the day comes. The question is will you let someone take them. If so, you don't deserve them to begin with.
 
When I had the misfortune of 'living' in California I was one of the dopes who registered my AK47 during the early 90's amnesty period. Before I left California they had made owning that rifle in its original state numerous felonies. I did move it out of state prior to that law taking effect and I did get a notice in the mail that I was to certify the weapon had been permanently neutered or 'turned in' along with some threatening language. I sent a letter back stating the gun was no longer in their jurisdiction so they can go, ahem..., go do something with themselves and leave me alone. Then I got a visit from the local Sheriff's Department insisting to know 'where' the gun was. Again I stated it was not in their jurisdiction and therefore their interest in it was over and that was all I was willing to say. Then they told me I had to tell them exactly where it was or I'd be prosecuted for obstruction. I told them I would certify it was no longer in California and nothing beyond that. I can't even begin to tell you how angry this made these folks (which made it a lot of fun!). After a lot of threats they apparently let it go as I heard nothing else about it the last few months I was there.

Any poor, dumb, SOB's who live in SF who are planning to move your guns elsewhere beware that it might violate the law where you move the gun to 'store' it there without being a resident so DO NOT let the SF cops scare you into thinking you need to tell them where the gun is, and thus possibly incriminating yourself. All they have a right to know is it is not within their jurisdiction any longer. If they want you to prove anything explain to them that the burden of proof is on them, not you.
 
So SF bans guns and the crime rate increases (like Washington, DC??) then what. Seems that the politicians there can't see too far to the future because of where they have their heads (unless they have transparent belly buttons).
 
With apologies to all of you who live in CA...

This just gives me more incentive to drive out to western Nevada and relieve myself in the surf after CA slides off into the Pacific. I hope all of you who post here manage to find a way out of that loony bin before that happens.

The utopian insanity out there makes me appreciate KY sooooo much more. Yes, I'm patting my pistol right now...
 
San Fran gun ban, good thing!

I see this as goodness:

1. San Fran has high visability, the rest of the country will be watching for the net results of this asinine action.
2. Helps bring the issue of gun control to a head.
3. Higher murder rate in San Fran = less liberal voters.
4. The attractiveness of San Fran to criminals may draw them away from the rest of us.
5. Maybe some good court cases will come out of this.
6. Wake-up call for the rest of the country who are thinking gun control is the way to go, maybe they will wait and see how things go in San Fran.
7. All the more reason to prepare ourselves for the coming revolution, stock up now!
 
This proves the voters in Brazil are smarter than the voters in SF. ;)

The last time SF did this it was overturned. CA does have a state pre-emption law, but it is routinely ignored. Challenge based on the state law (again) would stand a better chance than a challenge based on any constitutional right since there is precedent for the former and not the latter in CA courts already.

The 9th (CA) and 2nd circuit courts have said there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. The 5th has said there is. Not sure about the others. The SCOTUS hasn't settled this yet.

Several problems:

The SCOTUS would have to say:

1. There is an individual right to keep and bear arms and
2. It applies to the states as well as the federal govt

Some protections of the Bill of Rights/individual rights/limits on the federal govt have been "incorporated" and applied to the states, but not all of them.

Some conservative judges are not fans of the idea of incorporation. They think there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, but it limits the federal govt, not the states. IOW, the feds can't infringe on the right, but the states are free to do so according to ther state constitutions.
 
In my opinion, the implementaton of this ban will make for some interesting observations from those of us in the free states. When forced confiscation takes place it will answer once and for all the following questions:

1) Will LE actively participate in what only can be describe as an immoral order?

2) What will happen with the violent crime rate when the entire city becomes a criminal protection zone? Will be interesting to compare to states that have passed "shall issues" laws...any bets on where "the streets will run red with blood"?

3) How many gun owners in SF will comply? Will this finally become the straw that breaks the camels back and drives someone to answer with lead? Californians are noted for rioting for far less....but I can't see gun owners burning down their own neighborhoods.

If any THR members are SF residents you have my sympathy. For those that elect to bail-consider North Idaho-but please leave all the liberal crap behind, we already have too many of "those Californians" trying to turn the area into the CA of the north.

Bri

Bri
 
Rob P. said:
And, how are they going to enforce it? Start a gun owners list and use that for warrants to search for contraband weapons?
Click to expand...
They have a gun owners list, at least of people who have bought guns in CA since the DROS/DOJ database scheme went into effect. I feel sorry for whoever lives in my old SFO apartment.
 
Gettin' ready for round 2

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6839

NRA to File Lawsuit Challenging
San Francisco Gun Ban

Wednesday, November 09, 2005



Fairfax, VA - Even with opposition from San Francisco law enforcement and major media outlets, Proposition H -- a measure banning the lawful possession, sale and manufacture of handguns and ammunition within city limits -- passed yesterday. The National Rifle Association (NRA) will file a lawsuit challenging this severe gun ban.



NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre stated, “We are disappointed, but this fight is just beginning. Lawful residents of San Francisco are being stripped of their freedom because of an illegal measure that defies common sense. We will fight this outrageous assault on the rights of law-abiding San Franciscans and I believe that we will prevail.”



Many San Francisco residents who initially supported the ban changed their opinion after NRA and local volunteers began voter education efforts throughout the city. The campaign received an additional boost when the San Francisco Police Officers Association condemned the gun ban, declaring it would "nullify the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense purposes.” Major San Francisco newspapers also voiced opposition to Proposition H.



In response to the passage of this proposition, NRA will lead a coalition of organizations to immediately file a lawsuit against this illegal ban in San Francisco. Proposition H, in addition to violating federal guarantees, also violates various California state laws and is therefore preempted.



Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist, concluded, “This is a hollow victory for the gun control lobby because this scheme is in clear violation of California law. We will file suit and fight this to the highest courts in the country until good sense prevails once again in San Francisco.”
 
If I were a firearms manufacturer or ammunition manufacturer, I'd find a way not to sell replacement arms, parts, or ammunition to anyone in officialdom in San Francisco right now. "Your citizens banned our products here."

For the sake of all of the citizen firearms owners in San Francisco, I sure am sorry that things have come to this pass.:( :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top