POLITICS: D.C. Gun Ban In San Francisco?

In San Francisco, five Board of Supervisors have submitted a straight-out handgun ban referendum for the city. The only people allowed to arm themselves with a handgun would be the police, security guards, or members of the military. All others would be required to turn in their handguns within 90 days. The proposal will be up to a vote next November.



In San Francisco, 4 out of the 11 Supervisors can bypass a Board vote on a proposal and submit it as a referendum. They submit the proposal to the Department of Elections, and a referendum is taken the upcoming partisan election.

Another point to note, is in the AP article, they cite Bill Barnes as an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly. However, on Chris Daly's information page on the website, the only listed aides are Lena Gomes and Tina Tom.

Bill Barnes an active Democrat in the San Francisco Democratic Party. It might be assumed that he is an unlisted aide to Daly.

Coincidently, this news account is presented on the day, when 213 years ago, the Bill of Rights was ratified.

[edit on 12-15-2004 by BeingWatchedByThem]

Nice just another small piece of our second amendment rights getting taken away. Do they really think criminals will turn in their guns Only law abidding people will and it will leave criminals with all the guns

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Nice just another small piece of our second amendment rights getting taken away. Do they really think criminals will turn in their guns

Only law abidding people will and it will leave criminals with all the guns

Nice - just another example of jumping the gun. No second amendment rights have been taken away. It's going to referendum, and if it passes (which is doubtful) it is what the people want, so worry about losing your guns if you will, but no rights have been lost in the process.

Originally posted by Relentless

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Nice just another small piece of our second amendment rights getting taken away. Do they really think criminals will turn in their guns

Only law abidding people will and it will leave criminals with all the guns

Nice - just another example of jumping the gun.

No second amendment rights have been taken away. It's going to referendum, and if it passes (which is doubtful) it is what the people want, so worry about losing your guns if you will, but no rights have been lost in the process.

That is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Look. Go read the United States Constitution and see if you find the word DEMOCRACY in there anywhere. I'll even pay you if you do find it. I am confident that you won't so I know I will not have to pay. You'll never find it because THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. This country was founded as a Republic(See Article 4 Section 4), more correctly a Constitutional Republic. That means that no matter how bad you want to vote away a right (or part of a right as is this case), our FORM OF GOVERNMENT DISALLOWS IT!!!!!!!! So stop thinking that this is a Democracy. I'm tired of it. A Democracy is MOB RULE. That means that with a simple vote, all your rights can be taken away - NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. Use your brains and read.

Originally posted by n01ukn0w
That is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Look. Go read the United States Constitution and see if you find the word DEMOCRACY in there anywhere. I'll even pay you if you do find it. I am confident that you won't so I know I will not have to pay. You'll never find it because THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. This country was founded as a Republic(See Article 4 Section 4), more correctly a Constitutional Republic. That means that no matter how bad you want to vote away a right (or part of a right as is this case), our FORM OF GOVERNMENT DISALLOWS IT!!!!!!!! So stop thinking that this is a Democracy. I'm tired of it. A Democracy is MOB RULE. That means that with a simple vote, all your rights can be taken away - NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. Use your brains and read.

Where the hey did that come from? I think you missed my point and I decline your challenge since the Constitution does not deny the right of states to determine what can go to referendum, so I do not know what you are shouting about, and I wasn't making a point about Democracy. Perhaps you should read, and then and only then use your brain.

Ultimately, I cannot see the people giving up the right to their currently permitted guns, does anyone? Putting it on the ballot, though frivolous, will confirm where the people stand on this. That being the case, what is all the concern about?



[edit on 12/17/2004 by Relentless]

I'm sorry. You obviously do not understand that a local referendum does not over rule the Constitution. I do agree that it is highly unlikely that anything like that would pass. But still, any referendum dealing with this particular issue is a Democratic Instrument that violates Article 4 Section 4 of the United States Constitution. I do understand what referendums are and I hope this clears up my point.

Its the same here in Chicago, if you didnt have one before the mid 80s, you cant get a permit so you cant have a hand gun in the city.

But they aren't revoking the right to be armed, especially not in a well trained militia, they are controlling handguns, which are widely used by criminals. Don't you think its worth not being allowed to carry a handgun in that city if it can drastically reduce the amoung of murders and violent crimes? You could still own a rifle, shotgun and the rest.

Your going to to have crime and murder with out guns. I think we should have our rights, people are going to die regardless.

Yes but one has to admit that the majority of these murders are commited with easy to obtain and easy to conceal and use handguns. If the citizenry was only allowed to use larger weapons, well, they couldn't sneak into a club with a rifle. And if the handgun was illegal in that city then when the policefind the criminal, they can also get him for owning an illegal weapon.

A regulation on the types of guns allowed is not an infringement of the right to bear arms and organize into militias.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Your going to to have crime and murder with out guns. I think we should have our rights, people are going to die regardless.

Yes you will still have deaths, but a lot fewer deaths. That is the important point I think.

Originally posted by Kriz_4


but a lot fewer deaths. That is the important point I think.

I dont think this is true, I guess we will agree to disagree.

Washington DC has a total ban on firearms ownership and is the murder capital of the USA.

Go figure.

Right across the Potomac River, in Alexandria Virginia, where firearms ownership is legal, the murder rate drops dramatically.

Concealed Carry Laws, educate yourself to them. Hands down they deter crime. Period.

Criminals thrive when they know the populace is unarmed.

Its bad enough that handguns are being taken away, but will the citizens actually be reimbursed for them? I know that if I owned a desert eagle .50, or Sig, or some other very expensive handgun, I would not comply unless reimbursment was made BEFORE I turned my handgun in. And I still wouldnt turn them all in.

The thing about this handgun ban is that this will not get rid of hand guns. Where I live at, I could have a 'clean' handgun in a matter of hours of needed. This is just in lil ol Louisville Ky. Imagine how fast you could get it in SanD, or DC. All this is going to do is make illegal handguns skyrocket.

[edit on 12/17/04 by Kidfinger]