San Francisco, NRA Make Deal on Handgun Ban

X

xnavy

New member
I would be in real trouble in this city cause I am not giving up any guns that I have paid for. This is total BS in my book. See below article

Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2005 10:03 p.m. EST
San Francisco, NRA Make Deal on Handgun Ban

The city of San Francisco and the National Rifle Association reached a deal Wednesday under which city officials will delay enforcement of part of a voter-approved handgun ban.

Voters on Nov. 8 approved banning the sale and possession of handguns in the city. Residents must get rid of their weapons by April 1. But the NRA and city agreed to extend from Jan. 1 to March 1 the deadline for banning sales.
In exchange, the NRA agreed to drop its bid for a temporary restraining order and will instead have the issue litigated in court, which should resolve it more quickly.

The measure was put on the ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, which was frustrated by the number of gun-related homicides. About 58 percent of voters approved it.
 
Did I miss something????
What the hell is the point of continuing to sell them for an extended period, if they are banned anyway? :confused:

California blows my mind. :barf:
 
I hate to go into human nature theories but I will say this, liberals don’t know what humans are made of. Let them find out the hard way.
 
Just to make sure... this is talking about gun shop sales, right?

Correct me if I am wrong.... But doesn't selling them in stores in spite of the fact that they will be momentarily banned, seem like it will inspire people to hoard up on illegal firearms? I mean... What else are they going to do with them? Buy them and than turn them in? Greatest waste of 500+ dollars ever?
 
At least it's giving all the individuals who possess half a brain, the chance to move elsewhere.

But really, why should they have to? :mad:
 
I recently taught in San Francisco. The makeup is about 40% asian, 40 % spainish(read Mexican) and 20% black. Whites are not to be found in my ex school.

The super liberals live on mountains, and, these groups all think that banning guns is going to stop the gangs, tong, black, etc. from selling guns and drugs? No way.

Plus, San Francisco is a haven for other drug dealers kicked out of other schools, who now go to SF schools on bart.

San Francisco is a drug dealers' haven. With the local folks, and a trial, you are about 38% convicted. Good odds.

The SF folks get the kind of situation they deserve. That said, I get the feeling a LOT of justice is done by gangs, rather then the police.

S
 
Something tells me that the idiot city council of San Francisco would not ever have budged unless it already knew that it is going to LOSE ITS ASS in court when this thing's challenge is heard.


-azurefly
 
San Francisco gun ban

San Francisco will be the next KILLING ZONE.
Cambodia had over a million people killed in their Killing Zone. Will San Francisco end up being the same way?
 
If they stop selling guns the gun stores will go out of business before the whole thing is litigated - still gots to pay rent. A de facto ban if you can't buy a gun.

The NRA are presumably protecting the gun stores and giving folks a chance to stock up.

Although why you would want to live in a backward third-world sesspit like San Fran is beyond me - I guess unless you are a drug using hippy or drug dealing scum.

G
 
Well it seems the issue is only about handguns, but why is this an issue anyway. The 2nd amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms. This law not only makes it illegal to sell handguns but to actually be in possesion of handguns. I would think the NRA should be able to win this hands down. If for some reason this law survives it will become the tip of the iceberg for other cities to follow.
 
Seems to me this is just giving residents of neighboring cities a bit longer to pick up on some great close-out prices at these stores.
 
a quote from an article relating to the subject:

Washington, D.C. is the only major American city that currently bans handgun possession by private citizens. Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, said San Francisco officials are remiss to use the District of Columbia's experience as a model.

"If gun control worked, Washington, D.C. would be the beacon. However, it's the murder capital of the United States," Arulanandam said.


Amazing.
 
S.F. Gun ban

Let those fools ban guns, it's their city. Let this whole ugly thing play out, it is the only way people will really wake up. Crime is a very complex human behavioral problem that has little to do, if anything, with the type of weapon used. To think that the crime rate will drop because guns have been banned is utter foolishness. But unless you are a citizen of S.F., there is little you can do about it. Normal people in S.F. (if any), should have gotten out and voted NO to the ban. Let S.F. people learn their lesson. Unfortunately, there will be unnessesary deaths, but that is the price the people of S.F. will pay to learn a simple lesson about crime. I've heard it more than once, many conservatives were liberals that got mugged.
 
So... is there a way the NRA can actually smack the city council with the legal costs, too?
Click to expand...

And I was wondering if there's any way the NRA could publicly tar & feather the council members after the unconst. law is ultimately overturned.
 
I'm not positive, but i think the extension on the sale of handguns allows gun owners to actually sell their handguns rather than just comply with the legislated theft of their property.
 
One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the fact that the ones (people/groups) that need it most are the first to give them up and/or force others to be disarmed as well.

I know that the civil rights movement played out in the '60's but it's still going on today. Yet the people that held their ground did so with firearms but now their sons and daughters are advocating all arms to be removed. This of course would be the Black American communities.

Then you have a group of people that have been persecuted since the beginning. This would be the Jewish People. They are still hated in the world, in just about every country with the United States being one of the only ones that aren't as anti as most. Yet their own leaders are advocating that everyone be disarmed. Don't they remember what their People went through? Do they really think that they are now safe? Don't they know that it's harder for what happened in the past to happen again if they have firearms?

Then you have the greatest majority in San Fran. The Homosexual Community. With all the bashing and the threats that they are subjected to, why would they wish to give up their greatest ability to defend themselves?

arrrgghhh, I just don't understand it.

Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top