Ravenwood - 12/17/04 07:45 AM
Thanks to reader Steve Scudder for sounding the alarm about this one. Apparently San Francisco is so impressed with how well the total gun ban in Washington D.C. has worked to prevent crime, that they are hoping to duplicate it on the Left Coast.
The proposed voter referendum (tyranny of the majority) to ban guns will be on the ballot for the next election, possibly as early as November 2005. Given San Francisco's liberal history, it will very likely pass.
San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. Sometimes, in order for people to learn their lesson you need to go ahead and let them make a mistake. Unfortunately, this mistake is likely to leave many law-abiding people dead.The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses. [...]
If approved by a majority of the city's voters, the law would take effect in January 2006. Residents would have 90 days after that to relinquish their handguns.
Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly had this to say about the gun ban:
"The hope is twofold, that officers will have an opportunity to interact with folks and if they have a handgun, that will be reason enough to confiscate it," he said. "Second, we know that for even law-abiding folks who own guns, the rates of suicide and mortality are substantially higher. So while just perceived to be a crime thing, we think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city."I'm very happy that this guy moved out of the city, because if this passes (and sticks) I shan't return to San Francisco ever again.
UPDATE: Publicola has more.
UPDATE2: Taranto points out that the mortality rate is the same (100%) for gun owners and non-gun owners alike.
Apparently, it's fine with the politicians of S F if others (non-residents) possess within their jurisdiction. Here is a portion of the proposal, verbatim:
It is not the intent of the people of the City and County of San Francisco to affect any resident of other jurisdictions with regard to handgun possession, including those who may temporarily be within the boundaries of the City and County.
Article XI of the California Constitution provides Charter created counties with the "home rule" power. This power allows counties to enact laws that exclusively apply to residents within their borders, even when such a law conflicts with state law or when state law is silent. San Francisco adopted its most recent comprehensive Charter revision in 1996.
Since it is not the intent of the people of the City and County of San Francisco to impose an undue burden on inter-county commerce and transit, the provisions of Section 3 apply exclusively to residents of the City and County of San Francisco.
Hmm...sounds like the citizens of SF are about to be set up by their leaders as sitting ducks.
One can only hope that the good citizens of San Francisco will take a look at the results of this kind of legislation in D.C., Chicago and Great Britain and stand up for their rights. Perhaps then, they will adopt the credo, "Cold, dead hands" as opposed to becoming defenseless, cold, dead victims.
(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
