San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban

[CVX]

SAN FRANCISCO – San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.

The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.

Barnes said the initiative is a response to San Francisco's skyrocketing homicide rate, as well as other social ills. There have been 86 murders in the city so far this year compared to 70 in all of 2003.

"The hope is twofold, that officers will have an opportunity to interact with folks and if they have a handgun, that will be reason enough to confiscate it," he said. "Second, we know that for even law-abiding folks who own guns, the rates of suicide and mortality are substantially higher. So while just perceived to be a crime thing, we think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city."

The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal, however, by Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group. Sam Paredes, the group's executive director, said the state has for years had a "pre-emption law" on the books that bars local governments from usurping the state's authority to regulate firearms.

"The amazing thing is they are going to turn San Francisco into ground zero for every criminal who wants to profit at their chosen profession," Paredes said. "People are going to be assaulted, people are going to be robbed, people are going to be pushed around by thugs and the police are going to be powerless to do anything about it."

Under the language of the measure, the ban would not apply police officers, security guards, members of the military, and anyone else "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment."

If approved by a majority of the city's voters, the law would take effect in January 2006. Residents would have 90 days after that to relinquish their handguns.

Five supervisors on Tuesday submitted the proposed ban directly to the Department of Elections, one more than the minimum needed to get the measure on the ballot without signatures from registered voters. The next election is scheduled for November 2005, although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has talked about calling a special election before then.

Besides Daly, the sponsors include Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Tom Ammiano, Bevan Dufty and Matt Gonzalez, the outgoing president of the 11-member Board of Supervisors. Consisting of four Democrats and a Green Party member, the group is nonetheless considered "ideologically diverse" by San Francisco standards, Barnes said.

How many residents would be affected by the ban is unclear, since California does not require residents to register handguns that are kept in a private residence of business. Only 10 people in San Francisco have been issued concealed weapons permits allowing them to carry guns and the city has only three licensed gun dealers, Barnes said.

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.

Penalties for violations have not been set, but would be recommended by the mayor in consultation with the police chief, the sheriff and the district attorney, according to language in the measure.

Barnes said that since initiative was crafted with input from the city attorney's office and an outside consultant to avoid potential conflicts with state law, the supervisors were confident it would withstand legal scrutiny.

"We'll see when and if it's litigated," he said.

[commie_kalafornian]

Today this law will not be challenged. I already know what the 10th Circuit Court is going to say. The 10th has been very well known as a zoo of hippie illogic and border line communist idealism.

But....

Sandra O'conner is now retired. Maybe AFTER GW appoints a new justice will all this foolishness finally go away.

[MicahLorain]

Originally Posted by commie_kalafornian

Today this law will not be challenged. I already know what the 10th Circuit Court is going to say. The 10th has been very well known as a zoo of hippie illogic and border line communist idealism.

But....

Sandra O'conner is now retired. Maybe AFTER GW appoints a new justice will all this foolishness finally go away.

Hopefully you do too.

[commie_kalafornian]

Originally Posted by Jives

Hmmm...get rid of guns and gun crimes wil go down. That makes sense.

As a matter of fact it's a great idea....and it will never happen. Americans are too much in love with their guns. (See" "Bowling for Columbine")

A ten year study by the Center for Disease Control says something else.

After 2 million dollars and an examination by social scientist, statisticians, doctors, and scientist something else other than what you posted.

"Centers for Disease Control (CDC) committee has reported that it cannot find any evidence that gun-control laws reduce violent crime" - http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0310220911.asp

What is 'makes sense' really is a very prejudiced and unscientific political opinion based on loose facts from the street and what people 'hear'.

[anastrophe]

Originally Posted by commie_kalafornian

Today this law will not be challenged. I already know what the 10th Circuit Court is going to say. The 10th has been very well known as a zoo of hippie illogic and border line communist idealism.

california is in the ninth circuit, not the tenth.

You can ban guns in Sanfrancisco till the cows come home and still there will be enough to sustain an army regiment till the cows come home.

Does anyone honestly believe a law abiding citizen will turn over all of their guns? Maybe a few of their registered guns, but not ALL of them.

Foolish to even try.

Oh and since the criminals will still have them and the police are not capable of being everywhere at once, the murder rate will increase the same as before.

Does anyone have the number of actual gun related murder stats to compare last year to this year? it just says homocide rate, not the gun related death rate.

[commie_kalafornian]

Originally Posted by anastrophe

california is in the ninth circuit, not the tenth.

Thanks for the correction. I think you got the point though? Don't you agree that the 9th basically is the laughing stock of the court system?

[commie_kalafornian]

Originally Posted by Jives

It's funny that this topic comes up occasionally. Here is one of my experiences with guns.

Once, when I was a teenager, I went rabbit hunting with 6 of my friends. We had been drinking all day and split into two groups. Our first mistake. My friend and I circled around to the East and the other group went West. As my friend and I poked our heads over a hill to spot a rabbit, a bullet ricocheted off the sand between our heads and sprayed sand on both our faces.

I looked up to see the other group about 40 yards away laughing like crazy. We yelled, 'You almost killed us you idiots!" but they only laughed more, so I yelled, "Now I'm going to kill all of you!" and raised my rifle to fire. I wasn't really going to kill them, so I waited for them all to dive behind a nearby rock, then I stiched the ground above the rock 6 or 7 times.

They, mysteriously, got mad and yelled back, 'Hey We almost shot you on accident, you're trying to shoot us on purpose!" and then they shot back at us. Now they didn't really want to kill us either, but both sides were now engaged in a macho head trip.

We ran around for two hours, shooting at each other with live ammunition. At one point as I stood behind a very skinny tree, I could hear the bullets hitting the other side, whack! whack! I looked around to see a friend of mine running from tree to tree and I shot at his heels to make him "dance". Well, one of the bullets ricocheted off a rock and went right up his arm, not breaking the skin, but leaving a burn trail all along it.

That was enough, we stopped and realized just how stupid we were being. Besides, nobody wanted to tell the other guy's mom he was dead, and we didn't think just leaving a dead guy there was a good idea, so we were at a loss as to what to do if one of us actually got killed.

But later that night, we came across a car full of other teenagers passing us in the wash as we drove around looking for a party in the hills. I'm not quite sure to this day, who said what, but before you know it all 7 of them and all 6 of us were out of the cars and fighting on the dirt roadway.

As I polished off the guy I was fighting, I looked to see my best friend, fallen and unconscious. As I watched, a big kid gave him a vicious kick to the face. His head snapped back at a crazy angle and I instantly knew for a fact that he was dead.

In my even more intoxicated state than I had been earlier, I immediately decided that since they had killed my friend, it was my duty to kill all of them. I went to the trunk of the car and got my Marlin Model 60 semi-automatic, 16 shot .22 rifle out and drew down on the bunch of them.

I screamed, "I'm gonna kill every one of you sons of b***hs!!" But in the last second before I pulled the trigger, a little voice whispered "Don't do it." So I pulled off and shot into the air. Needless to say, the other boys jumped into their pickup as fast as possible and, during the time they spent trying to get it started, I walked around it, shooting their headlights, tailights and fenders off.

As they pulled away, my friend on the ground woke up and said, "What happened? Did we win?" He wasn't dead after all, so I almost annihilated seven men.....

for absolutely nothing.

I decided I wasn't responsible enough to have a gun, and went to sell it. Another friend of mine came to my house to buy it. He said, "let me hold it", to which I replied, "OK, but not the gun and the clip at the same time." since he was so dense that light bent around him. But he kept whining that he could buy it if he didn't know how to use the clip. so I finally showed him and gave him the clip, but told him not to insert it.

In two seconds he had the clip in, the bolt pulled back, and since he ws holding the trigger, when the bolt closed, the gun fired.

The bullet bounced off the hardwood floors, shot through the wall into the next apartment where two young children were playing. Luckily, by the Grace of God himself, no one was injured, although they said that their cat lost one of it's nine lives.

So you can see that I have the attitude that guns seem to cause more trouble than they're worth, that they often are seen as a solution to a problem that does not need that kind of a solution, and that nothing but bad luck and trouble seems to come from owning one.

To this day I still don't own a gun, and I've never needed one. Now that I'm 40 years older, I have debated buying one, to protect mysef and my wife while traveling or from burglars.

But I never seem to get around to buying it, I guess because I still remember that ill-fated day when I was 17.

What gun business you should do for youself is your business. What I do about my gun business that does not violate the rights of others is my business and mine alone. Until a lawful gun owner breaks the law with his/her gun activity, any activity is thier business alone and none of mine. Once someone breaks the law, that is between a judge and jurry. What you did is criminal. What you did, you are the sole responsible party and not me or millions of gun owners. I am highly offended by the fact that anti-gunners can connect some kind of political idealism that can pass the criminal responsibility from someone else to me. I don't know what common law doctrine or political ideas they use to be able to blame me for someone elses criminal activity, but they are doing it.

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by Jives

It's funny that this topic comes up occasionally. Here is one of my experiences with guns.

Once, when I was a teenager, I went rabbit hunting with 6 of my friends. We had been drinking all day and split into two groups. Our first mistake. My friend and I circled around to the East and the other group went West. As my friend and I poked our heads over a hill to spot a rabbit, a bullet ricocheted off the sand between our heads and sprayed sand on both our faces.

I looked up to see the other group about 40 yards away laughing like crazy. We yelled, 'You almost killed us you idiots!" but they only laughed more, so I yelled, "Now I'm going to kill all of you!" and raised my rifle to fire. I wasn't really going to kill them, so I waited for them all to dive behind a nearby rock, then I stiched the ground above the rock 6 or 7 times.

They, mysteriously, got mad and yelled back, 'Hey We almost shot you on accident, you're trying to shoot us on purpose!" and then they shot back at us. Now they didn't really want to kill us either, but both sides were now engaged in a macho head trip.

We ran around for two hours, shooting at each other with live ammunition. At one point as I stood behind a very skinny tree, I could hear the bullets hitting the other side, whack! whack! I looked around to see a friend of mine running from tree to tree and I shot at his heels to make him "dance". Well, one of the bullets ricocheted off a rock and went right up his arm, not breaking the skin, but leaving a burn trail all along it.

That was enough, we stopped and realized just how stupid we were being. Besides, nobody wanted to tell the other guy's mom he was dead, and we didn't think just leaving a dead guy there was a good idea, so we were at a loss as to what to do if one of us actually got killed.

But later that night, we came across a car full of other teenagers passing us in the wash as we drove around looking for a party in the hills. I'm not quite sure to this day, who said what, but before you know it all 7 of them and all 6 of us were out of the cars and fighting on the dirt roadway.

As I polished off the guy I was fighting, I looked to see my best friend, fallen and unconscious. As I watched, a big kid gave him a vicious kick to the face. His head snapped back at a crazy angle and I instantly knew for a fact that he was dead.

In my even more intoxicated state than I had been earlier, I immediately decided that since they had killed my friend, it was my duty to kill all of them. I went to the trunk of the car and got my Marlin Model 60 semi-automatic, 16 shot .22 rifle out and drew down on the bunch of them.

I screamed, "I'm gonna kill every one of you sons of b***hs!!" But in the last second before I pulled the trigger, a little voice whispered "Don't do it." So I pulled off and shot into the air. Needless to say, the other boys jumped into their pickup as fast as possible and, during the time they spent trying to get it started, I walked around it, shooting their headlights, tailights and fenders off.

As they pulled away, my friend on the ground woke up and said, "What happened? Did we win?" He wasn't dead after all, so I almost annihilated seven men.....

for absolutely nothing.

I decided I wasn't responsible enough to have a gun, and went to sell it. Another friend of mine came to my house to buy it. He said, "let me hold it", to which I replied, "OK, but not the gun and the clip at the same time." since he was so dense that light bent around him. But he kept whining that he could buy it if he didn't know how to use the clip. so I finally showed him and gave him the clip, but told him not to insert it.

In two seconds he had the clip in, the bolt pulled back, and since he ws holding the trigger, when the bolt closed, the gun fired.

The bullet bounced off the hardwood floors, shot through the wall into the next apartment where two young children were playing. Luckily, by the Grace of God himself, no one was injured, although they said that their cat lost one of it's nine lives.

So you can see that I have the attitude that guns seem to cause more trouble than they're worth, that they often are seen as a solution to a problem that does not need that kind of a solution, and that nothing but bad luck and trouble seems to come from owning one.

To this day I still don't own a gun, and I've never needed one. Now that I'm 40 years older, I have debated buying one, to protect mysef and my wife while traveling or from burglars.

But I never seem to get around to buying it, I guess because I still remember that ill-fated day when I was 17.

All you have really proved is that YOU certainly should not have any access to firearms. Your drunken teenage antics are ample proof of that.

As for your second story, there are a few puzzling points. First of all, a Marlin Model 60 doesn't have a detachable "clip." (I believe you are referring to a box magazine, which is often erroneously called a "clip.") The Model 60 has a tubular magazine that is permanently mounted below and parallel to the barrel, and into which rounds must be loaded one at a time. So either your indoor incident was with another gun, or you are mistaken about which model you owned.

Second, if your friend's argument was that he needed to know how to "use the clip," why would you expect that he would heed your warning not to insert it? Also, if it is necessary to practice insertion and removal of a box magazine, this can be done with an empty magazine. There was no reason to hand your untrustworthy friend a magazine that was loaded with cartridges. You exercised very bad judgement and share in the responsiblity for the negligent discharge of your gun.

You may be a fine person, but in the situations you describe you behaved like a dangerous fool. No, you should not possess firearms.

[Captain Ray]

First of all, a Marlin Model 60 doesn't have a detachable "clip." (I believe you are referring to a box magazine, which is often erroneously called a "clip.") The Model 60 has a tubular magazine

Are you sure about that? I am not sure.. but if memory serves me.. The Model 60 from marlin, like the modell 99 is magazine fed.. not tubular.. I could be wrong, but thats just off the top of my head...

I have a model 25 Glenfield that I thought was more or less like the Marlin model 60.. As near as I can remember.. the only diference between the model 99 and the 60 is the former had a walnut stock.. and the 60 had a stock made of birch. Both were bolt action, autoloaders that had a magazine that held 15 rounds. I think that the model 60 was scaled back to 7 rounds in 1994 because of the assualt weapon ban.. (Terrorist really like .22 caliber rifles.. and bayonnetes!! Drive by bayonneting are all the rage among neer-do-well criminals you know!?!?)

This is all off the top of my head.. I would have to really look into it to be sure.. I will take your word for it though.. just thought I would ask.

Raymond