Author Topic: Election results. Dont be Gay in Texas or a gun owner in SF (Read 2190 times)

Mighty1 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 09, 2005, 02:10:23 PM »

Quote

SAN FRANCISCO:-Approved: Prohibit sale of guns and ammunition, and ban residents, except for police, security guards or military personnel, from possessing handguns

This will not hold up in court.

9th circus court will uphold it but USSC will throw it out.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #16 on:** November 09, 2005, 02:22:10 PM »

I'm just waiting for the first person who refuses to turn in his guns and gets arrested. The fur is going to fly.

Sandman · « **Reply #17 on:** November 09, 2005, 02:40:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mighty1
This will not hold up in court.

9th circus court will uphold it but USSC will throw it out.

San Franciscans weren't thinking it through. What the really should do if this is the direction they want to go is simply ban the sale of ammunition.

lazs2 · « **Reply #18 on:** November 09, 2005, 02:46:49 PM »

I reload.

lazs

Seagoon · « **Reply #19 on:** November 09, 2005, 03:00:23 PM »

Hi Mighty1,

Quote

Originally posted by Mighty1
This will not hold up in court.

9th circus court will uphold it but USSC will throw it out.

Not necessarily, there are already longstanding defacto bans on handgun sales and ownership in D.C. and NYC, and none of these laws have ever been overturned by the SCOTUS.

I'm guessing the SF ban will probably prove surprisingly resilient as well.

I'm personally glad that SF will be joining NYC and D.C. as places where crimes committed with handguns will soon be over. If only all US cities were as enlightened murder would be a thing of the past.

- SEAGOON

Eden · « **Reply #20 on:** November 09, 2005, 03:09:23 PM »

How does making it illegal for honest, law abiding citizens to purchase handguns decrease the murder rate when most crimes involving handguns are committed with illegal weapons?

This is another law which instantly turns honest citizens into criminals (see NJ Assault Gun Ban).

Seagoon · « **Reply #21 on:** November 09, 2005, 03:15:41 PM »

Hi Eden,

Quote

Originally posted by Eden
How does making it illegal for honest, law abiding citizens to purchase handguns decrease the murder rate when most crimes involving handguns are committed with illegal weapons?

This is another law which instantly turns honest citizens into criminals (see NJ Assault Gun Ban).

Because then we will be able to say truthfully that only criminals own guns and prove that the only people who need to own a gun are people who want to commit a crime (like a owning a gun for a starters). See its true, guns are so evil they can turn a normally law abiding citizen into a felon. What more reason do we need to ban them?

Stick with the circular logic, it'll make sense someday.

Criminally Yours,

SEAGANGSTA

Sandman · « **Reply #22 on:** November 09, 2005, 03:28:35 PM »

Hey now... Seagoon made a sarcasm.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #23 on:** November 09, 2005, 03:30:18 PM »

I think you meant CHICAGO and DC Seagoon? AFAIK, in NYC it is still legal (although very difficult) to own a handgun.

And while those bans in Chicago and DC have stood so far, I dont think they have been seriously challenged, and I also believe they grandfathered in anyone who already lived in the city limits and legally owned a registered handgun. You just couldnt bring in any more. If someone could correct me if I'm wrong there?

SF is saying if you are a legal, registered handgun owner, you have until April (I think) to turn them in. That wont fly. You cannot force someone who legally owns and registers a handgun to turn it over to the govt. when you pass a law after the fact. If they had grandfathered all existing owners, there wouldnt be a legal leg to stand on (well, other than the 2nd amendment, but thats already been trampled) to prevent new handgun sales or registrations. They cant just declare guns already legally registered as suddenly illegal. Even California law precedent is against them.

Eden · « **Reply #24 on:** November 09, 2005, 03:31:30 PM »

So... I agree that only criminals will have guns..if they are banned that is (circular logic indeed) but my point is that owning a gun does not indicate the intent to use it for unlawful harm (lawful harm does exist - try and come into my house univited at night with the intent of hurting my familiy).

The view you have is distorted if you think that the ownership of a material object identifies you as evil. If, by your logic, a person owns any item that has the potential to take a life (kitchen knife, baseball bat, car) they should be considered potential criminals (do you have a car? do you have alcohol? - together they are a danger to life - you do not put them together do you? To do so would mean you have little regard for human life. I do not believe that most have so little regard for others. You should not have so much fear of others). It is silly to live in fear thinking that everyone is "out to get me".

Banning guns does not reduce violence...violence exists in the heart of the person commiting the act. Do not blame the implement..blame the person. We cannot sacrifice our liberties because of the acts of the criminal.

Eden · « **Reply #25 on:** November 09, 2005, 03:33:09 PM »

Star of Africa

Sadly the government can make you a criminal. NJ did this with their ban on assault guns (several years ago). Suddenly if you owned a WW2 M-1 carbine you were either to turn it in (with no compensation) or be a criminal.

Seagoon · « **Reply #26 on:** November 09, 2005, 04:06:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Hey now... Seagoon made a sarcasm.

Glad someone noticed.

PS: SOA, It is possible in law to declare that a previously legal commodity is now illegal and require owners to turn them in without compensation or face criminal penalties. The easiest historical examples would be drugs like Marijuana.

- SEAGOON

J_A_B · « **Reply #27 on:** November 09, 2005, 04:09:47 PM »

"SF is saying if you are a legal, registered handgun owner, you have until April (I think) to turn them in. That wont fly. You cannot force someone who legally owns and registers a handgun to turn it over to the govt. when you pass a law after the fact. If they had grandfathered all existing owners, there wouldnt be a legal leg to stand on "

They will, however, succeed in providing ammunition to the anti-registration crowd who suspects that the government is just keeping track of them to better confiscate the weapons.

J_A_B

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 09, 2005, 05:24:19 PM »

Wow, that didnt take long.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13124470.htm

The NRA has already filed suit against SF. And it looks like they'll probably win. I didnt realize the California state laws on this. SF is in conflict with state law as well as the Constitution. Even the nuts are conceding (except the city attorney) that the law will most likely be overturned.

Also, a look at what the SFPD has to say on it.

http://www.sfpoa.org/Journal/articles/october_05_article4.htm?id=24653

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #29 on:** November 09, 2005, 08:31:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eden
Star of Africa

Sadly the government can make you a criminal. NJ did this with their ban on assault guns (several years ago). Suddenly if you owned a WW2 M-1 carbine you were either to turn it in (with no compensation) or be a criminal.

Would a WWII Bolt action Japaneese infantry rifle also be considerded one of these?

Although to put it mildly its not in the worlds greatest shape having been stored on a shelf in a garage for the last 60 years.

I'm about to aquire one For the cost of one painted kitchen ceiling.