Memo To All Burglars, Robbers, Rapists and Terrorists
The wonderful, beautiful, picturesque City and County of San Francisco welcomes you with open arms.
Enjoy!
Publicola has the text of the proposed law.
Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition shall be prohibited.
. . . Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, no resident of the City and County of San Francisco shall possess any handgun unless required for professional purposes, as enumerated herein.
What's really funny is that, according to my reading, the law doesn't prohibit people traveling to or through San Francisco from carrying a pistol. Apparently the supervisors are only concerned about gun violence committed by
residents of San Francisco. So if you're just visiting,
have at it.
Also, the proposed law prohibits the sale or transfer of handguns at the same time as it outlaws their very possession. Oh, but you can turn them in to the SFPD within 90 days. And i'm sure the City won't just turn around and sell them, either.
And let's not forget the obvious. This law, if enacted, will increase criminal gun violence in the City. Guaranteed.
It's been about eight years since Frank Jordan lost his bid for re-election, and the City has been on a downhill slide ever since. It's really a shame, because i do love San Francisco.
Posted by: annika at
07:07 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Damn gurlfren, I'll have visions of sugarplums dancing in my head tonight. Yea, that and Santa as a woman in a thong.
Posted by: Casca at December 18, 2004 09:05 PM (cdv3B)
2
The reason it applies only to residents is to avoid conflict with state law. If it covered possession by non-San Franciscans then it'd be on weaker legal ground with respect to Cali's pre-emption law. But since Cali law is really attrocious on carrying a weapon for defense outside the home I don't think they saw it as a big deal. In effect the only places that will allow possession of a handgun for defense are motels where out of towners are staying or private homes that have out of town guests.
& it bans all sales of all firearms & ammunition within the city - not just handguns. So if anyone who lives in Frisco has a mind to buy anything delaying might not be a good idea.
Difi pushed something similar through in 82 & it was struck down by the courts. I'd like to say that will happen again but I'm thinking they're trying a slightly different angle that may let the courts give them a pass on it. So despite my hopes that some judge will have some common sense, I'd say there's a good chance this will stand up in court.
& the correct link to the text of the law is http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/059776.php#059776
I must get around to fixing the url thing on my template.
Ya know, there are some decent law schools in places that don't want you to be a victim.
Posted by: publicola at December 19, 2004 10:27 AM (5QO6F)
3
what about reimbursing for the cost of the gun.
most handguns are fairly expensive (200-700), and competive shooter guns are probably worth a grand or more.
Could it be struck down based on that whole?
Posted by: cube at December 20, 2004 07:55 AM (nyNr0)
4
Annie: Don't forget gay-bashers, too. SF shouldn't just be a place for homosexuals; it should also offer a safe home to violent psychopaths who hate them.
cube: No. They have the option of moving their guns out of the City, or selling them. Thus they don't lose the economic value of the guns (for the most part, at least). I'm pretty certain this isn't a taking, as the Supreme Court understands the term.
Posted by: Matt at December 21, 2004 08:12 AM (SIlfx)
5
Something about that peninsula infects the mind, in good ways and bad.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at December 23, 2004 12:57 PM (FPdMX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
18kb generated in CPU 0.0134, elapsed 0.0686 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0599 seconds, 166 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
