Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on December 16, 2004, 01:39:38 PM
-
I just heard on the radio that we get to vote to ban handguns next year.
Anyone hear anything about this?
I am sure the stupid people of this state will vote it in just like they voted in the stemcell bill...:mad:
-
Will Ahnold favor a handgun ban?
-
No suprise you could see this coming.
-
I saw it on the news this morning. It just San Francisco, not all of Cali.
-
They did not name the bill it was just a snipped on the radio.
Still if it is on the balet he can't do ****.
I cant find anymore info on this though.
-
Indy you sure? I am pretty sure San francisco was not mentioned. I also thought they were already banned there?
-
Supes want anti-gun law
Measure would ban possession by city residents.
By Alison Soltau and Bonnie Eslinger | Staff Writers
Published on Thursday, December 16, 2004
URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/121604n_guns
E-mail this story | Print this page
Five city supervisors concerned with gun violence in San Francisco have created a ballot measure asking voters to prohibit the possession of handguns in The City and to ban the sale, manufacture and distribution of firearms in The City.
The bold move Wednesday triggered expressions of support from many civic leaders and an instant declaration of war from the powerful and litigious gun lobby.
"This will reduce homicide, suicide and domestic violence incidents involving guns," said Supervisor Chris Daly, who registered the November 2005 ballot measure with supervisors Matt Gonzalez, Bevan Dufty, Michela Alioto-Pier and Tom Ammiano.
The ordinance would prohibit San Francisco residents who are not in law enforcement from possessing a gun with a barrel fewer than 16 inches long, according to Bill Barnes, spokesman for the campaign.
A majority of voters would need to pass the ordinance, and then San Franciscans would have 90 days from Jan. 1, 2006, to surrender guns without fear of penalty. Non-residents, however, would not be subject to the possession law.
The ordinance campaign is "going on the road" in January for a year-long, all-out effort to persuade voters to support it, according Barnes. Campaigners hope to persuade community groups and are anticipating support from those affected by the 101 California Street massacre, where a gunman killed eight people in 1998.
Barnes said the gay community, still mindful of the 1978 assassination of Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone, would likely sign on, as would many in the African-American community, which was hit hard by slayings this year.
But the "wheels of opposition" are turning, said Chuck Michel, spokesperson for the California Rifle and Pistol Association.
"San Francisco has been cracking down on law-abiding gun owners while their gang problem runs rampant and they are looking for a scapegoat for a problem they have failed to control," he said. "This will be a very contentious and expensive fight for taxpayers."
Daly said he "didn't feel bad" about the gun lobby and the three licensed gun retailers and one manufacturer The City would put out of business.
Anti-violence campaigner Cathy Tyson, whose son was murdered, said the measure would reduce violence: "Normal, average people don't need guns."
A spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom said he had "no position yet."
-
Thanks Indy!
Still lame but less lame then I thought..
Like banning guns in the city will stop criminals from using them lol.
-
"This will reduce homicide, suicide and domestic violence incidents involving guns," said Supervisor Chris Daly, who registered the November 2005 ballot measure with supervisors Matt Gonzalez, Bevan Dufty, Michela Alioto-Pier and Tom Ammiano
LOL now all the bad guys know where to go for home invasions.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Barnes said the gay community, still mindful of the 1978 assassination of Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone, would likely sign on
Have they considered banning Twinkies?
-Sik
-
Originally posted by wombatt
"This will reduce homicide, suicide and domestic violence incidents involving guns," said Supervisor Chris Daly, who registered the November 2005 ballot measure with supervisors Matt Gonzalez, Bevan Dufty, Michela Alioto-Pier and Tom Ammiano
LOL now all the bad guys know where to go for home invasions.
The ordinance would prohibit San Francisco residents who are not in law enforcement from possessing a gun with a barrel fewer than 16 inches long, according to Bill Barnes, spokesman for the campaign.
Wonder if I could get a Taurus Tracker .44 made with a 16.1" long barrel :)
-
Still if it is on the balet he can't do ****.
LOL.
Look up the word "Veto".*
*referring to a State bill.
-
Seems to me this would be unconstitutional.
-
Non-residents, however, would not be subject to the possession law.
In other words, criminals just visiting the area can carry.
-
it is pretty amazing how few people in this world know what they do and don't need... I suppose that we are fortunate to have someone in power to make those decisions for us.
lazs
-
It all has to do with the haves and the have nots, See the goverment elite can be trusted but us peons below there feet can not...
-
And will residents be compensated for the returned guns?
-
What's with all the b****ing on this board? For gods sake, this works out for everyone on this board.
Almost nobody on this board is from San Fransisco.
If the bill is passed, the city will serve as a model for future legislation. If it fails miserably, as many of you are whining, then it will be repealed and no other states will pass it.
On the other hand, if it lowers crime and homicides, then it demonstrates this type of legislation will work in American cities.
So, if nobody minds, just pipe down and we'll see in a few years what happens. I'm actually looking forward to the results because it will show with the greatest definition whether this can work in America.
God! :rolleyes:
-
shutup hawker
no one likes you:D
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
shutup hawker
no one likes you:D
Hey, if someone didn't say it, it would turn into one of those 200+ threads where Gixer says it works in New Zealand, someone says New Zealand isn't a real country, someone says repsect the dead who fought and died in WWII from NZ, someone says if America hadn't stepped in and saved your tulips in WWII you'd be speaking german, whoever said that last thing is a homosexual, blah blah blah.
Ad nauseum.
:D
-
Non-residents, however, would not be subject to the possession law.
So they feel that only people that live there cannot be trusted with guns. All others are fine and can be trusted. SF would rather be helpess I guess. More power to them.
Anti-violence campaigner Cathy Tyson, whose son was murdered, said the measure would reduce violence: "Normal, average people don't need guns."
How ironic.....her son was murdered. On the other hand we have his son, one of the "Normal, average people (who) don't need guns."
That's comedy.
-
All the 'Gang Bangers' will turn in their guns and you'll all be safer.
Right?
-
We had a orange county sheriff come in today for some reason. He talked and some kid asked him about gun control. He said if we lessen it that there will be more good people going to jail and if we increase it more crime will happen. Which i think is right.
-
if you outlaw hand guns only outlaws will have them. Normal average citizens who don't murder people will be turning in their guns while people who use them for crime will now have free reign.
People of San Fran enjoy your bed!
-
I visit San Francisco occasionally and frankly I'm relieved the law abiding three piece suit wearing effiminate yuppies with their Italian shoes and manicures won't be packing heat anymore. There was nothing more intimidating than going into a truly bad place- say, Top Of The Mark- and having some sissy in a thousand dollar suit stare you down.
Now I'll be the only one with a gun.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Hey, if someone didn't say it, it would turn into one of those 200+ threads where Gixer says it works in New Zealand, someone says New Zealand isn't a real country, someone says repsect the dead who fought and died in WWII from NZ, someone says if America hadn't stepped in and saved your tulips in WWII you'd be speaking german, whoever said that last thing is a homosexual, blah blah blah.
Ad nauseum.
:D
signature material if ever there was...
-
I grew up in Kennesaw, Georgia, a lovely town that passed a law REQUIRING all homes to have firearms. Crime rates plummetted, needless to say. Meanwhile, area that ban firearms show dramatic INCREASES in violent crimes. Why is it that even with all the evidence smacking themin the face liberals just don't get it?
-
hawker... we allready have an example or ten of this kind of legeslation.. Washington DC has even more restrictive gun control than what is propossed. Would you say that it is a good enough reason to not do it in other cities? or... are you like the die hard commies who say that commuinism really woill work it just hasn't been done rightr yet?
how many examples do you need? blusam pointed out the kennesaw Georgia experiment that made crime plummet.. Washington DC on one hand.... Kennesaw (and every concealled carry state) on the other.... hmmm... real smart them frisco guys eh?
It is proven that overcrowding in rat populations causes them to go insane. Big cities are overcrowded.
lazs
-
Originally posted by BluSamRN
I grew up in Kennesaw, Georgia, a lovely town that passed a law REQUIRING all homes to have firearms.
How do these ordinances work? Personally, I own a small arsenal, but guns give some people the heebie-jeebies and I don't see how the law can force someone to own a weapon he doesn't want to own. How do they enforce it? Is there a penalty for not owning a firearm? I can imagine some people buying the cheapest thing that qualifies as a firearm and leaving it unassembled in the box, locked away in the attic. That doesn't really accomplish anything except for wasting the homeowner's money.
ra
-
I don't think the criminal knows if you are buying a cheap gun and locking it away. It is an extension of the theory that more guns equal less crime that seems to be true... the more guns that are possibly available at any time or place... the less likely that criminals will indulge in impolite behavior.
people are more polite when they feel that there are penalties for impolite behavior... a screaming and ranting neighbor can be calmed by holding a tape recorder up to his face for instance.
lazs
-
Originally posted by BluSamRN
I grew up in Kennesaw, Georgia, a lovely town that passed a law REQUIRING all homes to have firearms. Crime rates plummetted, needless to say. Meanwhile, area that ban firearms show dramatic INCREASES in violent crimes. Why is it that even with all the evidence smacking themin the face liberals just don't get it?
Macomb County, here in Michigan in the early 90's allowed easier access to CCW's. Violent crimes plummeted. Of course you had the occasional "Brandishing a weapon" jackazz. If criminals walk in a store, restaurant, etc knowing that most could be packing, they move elsewhere.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't think the criminal knows if you are buying a cheap gun and locking it away. It is an extension of the theory that more guns equal less crime that seems to be true... the more guns that are possibly available at any time or place... the less likely that criminals will indulge in impolite behavior.
people are more polite when they feel that there are penalties for impolite behavior... a screaming and ranting neighbor can be calmed by holding a tape recorder up to his face for instance.
lazs
My question wasn't about how does it deter crime, it was more along the lines of how can the law force someone to own a dangerous weapon they don't want to own?
-
Hawker, you don't get it.
Whether it works or not, this ban is going to stick. That's why we fight it. It's not a "Test Period." This is the real thing!
Quick! Everyone duck under your desks!
-
Cathy Tyson
Anti-violence campaigner Cathy Tyson, whose son was murdered, said the measure would reduce violence: "Normal, average people don't need guns."
Normal, average people don't need some politian telling them what they do and do not need.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
They did not name the bill it was just a snipped on the radio.
Talk radio makes you dumber.
-
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
Bid for handgun ban faces hurdles
S.F. measure's legal, practical obstacles
Suzanne Herel, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, December 17, 2004
San Francisco supervisors want to make the city the second in the nation to ban the ownership of handguns, but whether such a law would prove to be more than symbolic remains to be seen.
First, legal challenges are being readied by those who see the proposed law -- set to go to voters next fall -- as bucking state law, which says law-abiding citizens do not need permits or licenses to keep handguns in their homes.
Then there are practical hurdles: How do you enforce a ban in the absence of a public registry of gun owners in California? And of what value is such a measure for police, who already have the authority to take guns from criminal suspects?
Supporters of a ban say it would curb gun violence in the city by reducing the number of weapons available. Bill Barnes, spokesman for the campaign, said many guns used in crimes were purchased legally -- and later stolen.
According to a report by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, 213 people were victims of 176 incidents of handgun violence in 1999, the last year for which the data are available. Of all firearms used to cause injury or death that year, 67 percent were handguns.
Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, one of five supervisors who signed off on placing the proposed law on the next ballot, said it was concern about guns' falling into the wrong hands that motivated her.
"You have to keep guns away from kids," said Alioto-Pier, the mother of young children. "We're not taking away people's constitutional rights. This is about ensuring the safety of people who live here."
But gun-owner-rights groups say that such a law would invite crime, not prevent it, by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and would not take guns out of the hands of criminals.
"Guns are being made the scapegoat for policy failures of the city," said Chuck Michel, spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Michel, an attorney, represents that group and the National Rifle Association. The proposed law, he said, "is based on the myth that if you disarm civilians, the bad guys won't have guns either. I think that's a bunch of baloney."
He added: "We're already in the process of putting together the petition for an injunction to try to keep it off the ballot."
The measure would ban handguns in San Francisco -- except for police officers, security guards, military personnel and others who require them for their job. Only 10 people in the city have permits to carry a concealed weapon, Barnes said.
By allowing some people to have handguns and not others, opponents say, the law would create a new class of people. And any requirement of permission to own handguns amounts to a license -- which, according to state law, cities are not permitted to require.
It was just this issue that torpedoed the last effort by San Francisco officials to ban handguns, in 1982, Barnes said. The drive was led by Dianne Feinstein, who became mayor after Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were shot to death in City Hall. This time around, Barnes said, the law was written to avoid any city participation in licensing or registration of guns, and he doesn't consider it to be creating a new class of people, as foes of the measure claim.
The ordinance, which would go into effect Jan. 1, 2006, if passed by a simple majority of voters, also would prohibit the sale, manufacture and distribution of all firearms in the city.
That portion of the law has less effect on San Francisco, which is home to one gun shop, High Bridge Arms, whose online phone listing carries a slogan: "Stop crime before it starts." A store employee would not comment on the ordinance, and the owner did not respond to a request for an interview.
Two other dealers have permits to sell guns in the city.
The only other major city to have enacted a handgun ban is Washington, D. C., which did so in 1976. However, Congress has the right to supercede local laws in the District of Columbia, and in September the House of Representatives repealed most of the city's gun-control laws by passing the D. C. Personal Protection Act. The measure now is before the Senate.
The homicide rate in Washington, D.C., in 2002 was 9.4 incidents per 100, 000 people. In San Francisco that year, the rate was 5.2.
Supervisor-elect Ross Mirkarimi, who himself owns two handguns because of his job as an investigator in the district attorney's office, said he supported the ordinance.
"How many more Michael Moore films does it take to tell us that the Second Amendment is absolutely archaic, and other nations do it better than we do?" said Mirkarimi, who plans to donate or sell his own guns. "We should absolutely go forward with it despite the constitutional challenges."
However, he said, the legislation largely would be symbolic without enforcement.
Although gun sales in California must be recorded, residents are not required to have a permit for handguns kept in a private home or business, so it's unclear how many San Francisco residents would be affected by the law.
The initiative was filed with the Department of Elections this week by five supervisors representing a spread of ideology on the board -- Chris Daly, Matt Gonzalez, Tom Ammiano, Bevan Dufty and Alioto-Pier.
Alioto-Pier and Dufty often side with Mayor Gavin Newsom on issues. Newsom has not taken a position yet on the ballot measure, said spokesman Peter Ragone, though he has talked much in this past year about getting guns off the street.
Eric Gorovitz, West Coast director of the Alliance for Justice, who has spent a decade working for gun control policy statewide and nationally, said he thought the San Francisco measure was written in a way that would withstand legal challenge.
"I think banning handguns is the central issue for gun violence prevention, and it's been somewhat of a third rail -- people haven't wanted to talk about it," Gorovitz said. "It's a very good strategy for a community that has excessive gun violence."
Sam Paredes, executive director of the political action committee Gun Owners of California, couldn't disagree more.
"We think this is a disastrous idea," he said. "We think that if you disarm people in their own homes, you invite criminals to attack these people. Law abiding citizens are just prey. They walk in fear
-
"How many more Michael Moore films does it take to tell us that the Second Amendment is absolutely archaic, and other nations do it better than we do?" said Mirkarimi, who plans to donate or sell his own guns. "We should absolutely go forward with it despite the constitutional challenges."
So now Michael Moore is more important to the left than the Constituion?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So now Michael Moore is more important to the left than the Constituion?
Yeah, when I saw that line I knew it was strong chum :cool:
-
Thanks for sharing, I'm glad to know what intellecual and ideological base San Fancisco derives its policies from...
Consitution = bad!
Mike Moore = good!
:lol
-
"How many more Michael Moore films does it take to tell us that the Second Amendment is absolutely archaic, and other nations do it better than we do?" said Mirkarimi, who plans to donate or sell his own guns. "We should absolutely go forward with it despite the constitutional challenges."
...man, I couldn't figure out whether to laugh at somebody's stupidity, or have an angry siezure. So I emailed it to Jim K @ Moorewatch. He'll at least get a kick out of it.
-
ra,
I'm not really sure how they have enforced it over the years. When I was growing up, Kennesaw was more rural. so it probably did not need to be enforced. Good old boys were essentially given license to gun down any home intruder. Think about it; You're a criminal. You can either go to Atlanta, where it is a felony to carry a loaded firearm and have much better chance of success when attacking a target, or go to Kennesaw, where Bubba is waiting to plaster you with buckshot.
I've lived in other rural areas over the years and the results are the same in areas where there is a legal proliferation of firearms. I had a cabin on Carter's Lake in Muray County Georgia for three years and rarely locked my door. Why? Because I had a shotgun loaded with 3 1/2 inch magnum loads and a lake to dump any bodies. (One of the local sheriff deputies actually told me to shoot an intruder and dump him in the lake rather than call them should there be a home invasion.)
Robert Heinlein once wrote that an armed society is a polite society. If only we could get back to that mentality.