NEWS: San Francisco to Vote on Handgun Ban

Concerned by a 28 percent increase in homicides, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors may be set on banning handguns within city limits. The gun lobby has already vowed to take court action if the ban goes into effect. The proposal which would go to the voters in November would bar residents from keeping guns, and also bar the selling of guns or ammunition within city limits.




While I support the ban on assault rifles and the like, this goes way to far, and I doubt that it would stand up in court at any rate. I doubt that this measure would have a huge impact on gun crimes in the city as all the surrounding areas will not have the controls in place. Even if they did, if someone wants a handgun, they will get one.

I did not support the assault weapons ban, and I most certainly will not support any legislation that bars citizens from legally owning handguns. As you stated, FredT, all banning does is keep the weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals can still get a gun whenever they wish.

Originally posted by nathraq
I did not support the assault weapons ban, and I most certainly will not support any legislation that bars citizens from legally owning handguns. As you stated, FredT, all banning does is keep the weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals can still get a gun whenever they wish.

Did anyone even think that the brilliant minds that wrote the constitution didnt' have crimminals during their time? The 2nd amend doesn't say "except crimminals". Once we started that "game" it isn't long before all citizens will be crimminals when it comes the owning guns. Punish the CRIME.................Any ban on any weapon woner by anyone is unconstitutional..........

[edit on 20-1-2005 by DrHoracid]

FredT states "I doubt it would stand up in court at any rate."...well I live in New York City...and we have a similar ban, so it obviously stands up in court. No hand guns in the city limits and it's very stiff penalty...something like 3 or 5 years...but don't quote me on the length of time.

Why don't they just give everyone a handgun and ammo to carry around at all times. After all "An armed society is a polite society". I know I wouldn't try to break any laws when everyone around me is carrying a gun

Originally posted by sybok8021
FredT states "I doubt it would stand up in court at any rate."...well I live in New York City...and we have a similar ban, so it obviously stands up in court. No hand guns in the city limits and it's very stiff penalty...something like 3 or 5 years...but don't quote me on the length of time.

You left out the word "permit" no handguns with out a "permit" in NYC.

I find the American situation allowing assault weapons to be available to the public - at all - incredible, lunatic even.

I also think the rest of this regarding the handguns is about reducing the murders and the accidents and basically drying up the supply to the criminal world.
You have to start somewhere although in one location in a country awash with firearms does seem asking a lot.

Maybe you are just too far gone to ever change and will just blythly suffer the revolting consequences of these weapons forever. Sad.

I mean you are aware it doesn't have to be like this, hmm?

You do know that there are many places in the world where the people do not have personal firearms and are still perfectly 'free' and have also the benefit of far less murder, maiming and accidental death and injury, right?

Just my thoughts....

Hi, I'm a murderous thug, now I'll go and turn in my glock, my tec-9, and my mac 10 (already converted to full auto). I usually ignore all laws of society in my selfish, racially and financially motivated gang-banging...but this law I'll follow.

Yeah, right.

What's really sad is they'll probably say they're being "fair" and allowing a concession for permit holders..except it's practically impossible to get a permit unless you are a) rich and/or famous b) a politician or movie star's bodyguard.

Just like the first "gun control" laws passed centuries ago in England, where the English Longbow was banned by the King because it allowed the peasants to fight on equal terms with the ruling "nobility", gun control is simply a tool to keep the lower classes from having a chance to rebel, while the rich upper classes find ways to keep themselves protected, with "assault weapons", full automatics, and heavy-caliber rifles.

At least long guns aren't affected yet. I still prefer a good 12 ga. for home defense (00 Buck) and one ounce slugs for longer range work.

That the countries that crow about being "gun free" are typically a) invaded frequently or b) have repressive socialist/communist dictatorships?

Or seem to be having real trouble with armed groups of terrorists running around blowing up trains and busses? Seems the terrorists aren't listening to those laws, perhaps it's time to go back and pass another one so they'll listen?

What's odd is, in a few countries that have little gun violence or many laws against them, that the laws are largely ignored and very sporadically enforced. It's amazing how many Canadians own rather impressive arsenals of hardware I can't even get in the US without contacting the drug dealers.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I find the American situation allowing assault weapons to be available to the public - at all - incredible, lunatic even.

I also think the rest of this regarding the handguns is about reducing the murders and the accidents and basically drying up the supply to the criminal world.
You have to start somewhere although in one location in a country awash with firearms does seem asking a lot.

Maybe you are just too far gone to ever change and will just blythly suffer the revolting consequences of these weapons forever. Sad.

I mean you are aware it doesn't have to be like this, hmm?

You do know that there are many places in the world where the people do not have personal firearms and are still perfectly 'free' and have also the benefit of far less murder, maiming and accidental death and injury, right?

Just my thoughts....

Phougedaboudet says:

"At least long guns aren't affected yet. I still prefer a good 12 ga. for home defense (00 Buck) and one ounce slugs for longer range work."

The only firearm I keep loaded my home is a Mossberg 500 12-ga. shotgun with an 18" cylinder bore barrel. But I would never use #00 buck or even #4 buck in a home. There is simply too much chance that the .22 cal (#4) or .30 cal (#00) balls will penetrate interior walls and kill my kid asleep in the next room (or the neighbor, if you're in an apartment).

At typical home intruder distances (~3 meters/10 feet) target loads/quail loads (#7/8 shot) have a 4-6 inch pattern at three meters and same lethality as the buckshot loads, yet they the individual shot pellets will not penetrate a 4" drywall/insulation inner wall.

Why take a chance on overpenetration and the killing or injuring of a family member?

The law will never fly. Everyone has the right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment gives us that right. Sure they can ban the sales in the city, but they can not say the citizens cannot own one.

Originally posted by sybok8021
FredT states "I doubt it would stand up in court at any rate."...well I live in New York City...and we have a similar ban, so it obviously stands up in court. No hand guns in the city limits and it's very stiff penalty...something like 3 or 5 years...but don't quote me on the length of time.

This is wrong. I live in New York City as well and while laws make it tough to get a handgun legally, it is possible.

Alcohol is more dangerous for society than handguns are. Alcohol is closely linked with violence. About 40 percent of all crimes (violent and non-violent) are committed under the influence of alcohol. In 2001, more than half a million people were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present — an average of one person injured approximately every 2 minutes.

Alcohol related problems

So why not go after a problem that is much more prevalent than handgun deaths?
Here is a good link that backs up arguments for allowing handguns.

This is most likely a case where a polititian wants to get his name in the paper as a do gooder. Is he running for reelection against a tough oppenant?


[edit on 20-1-2005 by cryptorsa1001]

My guess is that the Pink Pistols will "shoot this down".

This same tired argument seems to never die. Ban all guns and there will be less shootings. Ban all guns and the only ones with them are the criminals (doing the shooting). How can anyone possibly argue either side?

Although our european members may not understand it, many of us like our guns. We have them for varied reasons such as;

Hunting for food (yes, quite a few Americans still do this. I'm not one.).
Target shooting as a sport (Me).
Self Defense (I'll wait for the silly arguments).
The grand finale......
The basic and primary reason for the Second Amendment.
To Keep The Government Afraid of it's Rulers.

We never even need to take up arms ( I hope). Just the fact that we outnumber ANY army on the planet should be enough to keep things in check....mostly.

[edit on 20-1-2005 by Fry2]

Some things aren't just right and this is definitely one of them!

There should be a law against trying to outlaw handguns and any other firearm!

This is the United States of America for crying out loud!