Reply
Wed 9 Nov, 2005 10:08 am
San Fransico passd the stongest anti-handgun prohibition in the nation yesterday. Possession of a handgun within the city limits will be illegal when the law goes into effect.
Quote:SAN FRANCISCO
MEASURES: Voters take stand against guns, recruiting at schools
Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 9, 2005
San Francisco voters took a stand Tuesday against military recruitment on public school campuses, voted to keep firehouses open and approved the nation's toughest ban on handguns by making it illegal for city residents to possess them.
Proposition H, which requires city residents who already own guns to turn them in to police by April 1, was winning 58 percent to 42 percent with 98 percent of precincts counted.
The measure also makes it illegal to buy, sell, distribute and manufacture firearms and ammunition in the city.
Only two other cities in the country -- Washington, D.C., and Chicago -- have similar bans.
"San Francisco voters are smart and believe in sensible gun control," said Supervisor Chris Daly, who was among the four board members who placed the measure on the ballot. "If Prop. H gets some handguns out of San Francisco and mitigates some of the violence, then it's a win."
Prop. H opponents said a ban on handguns will not reduce crime, because criminals aren't likely to turn in their guns.
They also said the measure will be subject to costly legal challenges in court.
"It's not a solution (to gun violence)," said Mike Ege, a board member of the Coalition Against Prohibition. "Most people don't like guns, but they don't want the opportunity to access them taken away, because sometimes bad things happen to good people."
Complete disregard for the second amendment and I am hopeful someone takes this case up to the USSC and has this overturned.
Prohibitions against handguns do not violate the Second Amendment.
Quote:In a decision upholding a ban on the possession of handguns in the Illinois town of Morton Grove, the Seventh Circuit stated flatly, "possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms." The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review this decision.
The same court upheld an ordinance freezing the number of handguns in Chicago when it was challenged as a violation of the equal protection clause. The court ruled that the ordinance need only be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Since the legislation did "not impinge upon the exercise of a fundamental personal right," a higher level of scrutiny was not mandated.
In short, every federal court decision that has considered the issue has given the Second Amendment a collective, militia interpretation. Moreover, no gun control measure has ever been struck down as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Clearly, the federal government is free to regulate or prohibit the possession and transfer of firearms in order to promote the general welfare of the public.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/BeardAndRand.html
This is a really stupid unenforceable law, it makes mockery of the very concept of regulatory statutes.
dyslexia wrote:This is a really stupid unenforceable law, it makes mockery of the very concept of regulatory statutes.
If the intent of the law was to eliminate handgun possession, it would be but that is not the intent. Since people continue to murder, should we repeal homicide laws?
It's stupid in the same vein as "Just say no" to drugs, changed any behavior. This law is a policitical charade of pretense. Btw I am not at all talking about handgun ownership, I am only talking about passing unenforceable laws (you know, like prohibition)
What makes it difficult to enforce is that it is a city not a nationwide ban. Handguns are the weapon of choice for the criminal. I voted for the ban, my preference is that handgun ownership and CCW would be permitted to those who could prove they are responsible.
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:What makes it difficult to enforce is that it is a city not a nationwide ban. Handguns are the weapon of choice for the criminal. I voted for the ban, my preference is that handgun ownership and CCW would be permitted to those who could prove they are responsible.
That brings up the issue of how someone proves they are responsible. What criteria would you use? That's a serious question. I'm not trying to bait you here. I actually support that viewpoint Twin.
glad you asked, two criteria would be:
1) Clear criminal record
2) Proficiency in use of a handgun and knowledge of safe storage etc.
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:... Handguns are the weapon of choice for the criminal. ....
Do you expect the criminals to comply with the ban?
Did everyone need another reason to avoid Frisco?
unfortunately its too late to bring in gun control in the US, its way too out of hand to enforce, too many guns in the hands of too many idiots....commendable that at least some of the areas are trying to live without them. :wink:
KiwiChic wrote:unfortunately its too late to bring in gun control in the US, its way too out of hand to enforce, too many guns in the hands of too many idiots....commendable that at least some of the areas are trying to live without them. :wink:
Yes, yes, yes, like closing the barn door after the horses have already ran off.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace