What the hell is going on in SF?

[AlaskaP5]

Banning handguns in a major city is just rediculous.
What they should have done, was make it manditory to have handguns registered and if you are caught committing a crime with an unregistered handgun, then the penalty should have raised.

The law abiding responsible gun owner who registers his gun and attends safety classes should not be punnished.

Now people will have guns and no-one will know who does. Much more unsafe IMHO

 

[GrandBelialKey]

guns begat guns, just like crime begats crime. who knows... maybe it will make the city safer, maybe it's just a ploy to throw more of the minority population in jail..... who cares ? california is for crazy people anyways....

 

[Mr. Win]

who cares... write you congressman or something.

I do wonder if it applies to fisherman, i dont know a single fisherman that doesnt always carry a gun.

edit: found my answer

1. Handgun violence is a serious problem in San Francisco. According to a San Francisco Department of Public Health report published in 2002, 176 handgun incidents in San Francisco affected 213 victims in 1999, the last year for which data is available. Only 26.8% of firearms were recovered. Of all firearms used to cause injury or death, 67% were handguns.
2. San Franciscans have a right to live in a safe and secure City. The presence of handguns poses a significant threat to the safety of San Franciscans.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

Section 2. Ban on Sale, Manufacture, Transfer or Distribution of Firearms in the City and County of San Francisco
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.

Section 3. Limiting Handgun Possession in the City and County of San Francisco
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. Specifically, any City, state or federal employee carrying out the functions of his or her government employment, including but not limited to peace officers as defined by California Penal Code Section 830 et.seq. and animal control officers may possess a handgun. Active members of the United States armed forces or the National Guard and security guards, regularly employed and compensated by a person engaged in any lawful business, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment, may also possess handguns. Within 90 days from the effective date of this section, any resident of the City and County of San Francisco may surrender his or her handgun at any district station of the San Francisco Police Department, or to the San Francisco Sheriffs Department without penalty under this section.

Section 4. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective January 1, 2006.

Section 5. Penalties

 

[yashooa]

Now this quote is great. I thought you could not legislate morality and yet apparently it is just dandy to do if it is so called leftist "morality."
Plus all the combine moral "wieght" of SF has to come to a grand total of about a gram.
"We now have the moral weight of the city behind us, and it's definitely a valuable asset to have in our corner," said Bob Matthews, an activist for the proposition."

 

[Matthew]

yea moral weight my ass.

the thing is, how many guns you think this will keep from the people comitting the majority of the crimes?

 

[Mr. Win]

What happened to good ole fashion fist fights???

 

[SilverBulletES]

Well, better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Stupid hippies, they deserve the Scorpio Killer.

 

[wicked]

holy ******* s***, these reasons and more is why california should be cut off the country and shipped out to sea. I can't stand those backwards ass flip flopping asshole hippies. They don't even know how to be a ******* hippy, they are too busy trying to be screaming douche liberal. Horray for living your life by a title.

dude we are not all like that,we just have a few retarted ass places her SF.and berkely are the worst of the ******* fools.

every day there is a protest in berkely.I ******* hate those god damn dirty hippies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[GrandBelialKey]

What happened to good ole fashion fist fights???

rap music.

 

[uclap5]

........

 

[winty87]

OH kick ass. I'm not in Jesus land!

 

[.paul]

rap music.

BUWHAHAHAHAH

I'll drink to that (cheers)

 

[slayer4u]

i guess if youre bill clinton you could read it that way...everyone else would read it as separate rights, etc. im suprised no one has challenged it up to the SCOTUS in either DC or Chi.

Yes but you see it's not one mans job to decide what the constitution says or implies and how it pertains to today's society. There is however a group of people that do exactly that. I'll give you a hint, they work at a courthouse DC.


It's all about checks and balances remember? Congress may pass a law banning firearms but it has to get the presidents seal of aprooval and after that the supreme court has to decide weather the constitution alows it and weather it's time to amend the constitution to fit todays times.

My point is that it has nothing to do with how the liberals or conservitives interpet the constitution. that is why the founding fathers saw fit to establish an independent judiciary.

 

[chaosProtege]

lets assume for a minute that this handgun ban was truly sucessful. just for gits and shiggles, lets say all the world banned all gunpowder weapons and such and erased all knowledge of how to build such things. so now no one has guns. that should end violence, since everyone used guns before. we all have enough sense to know that will never happen. criminals will resort to swords and bows and arrows if they have to. s***, they'd probably go so far as to just chuck rocks and their fellows.

my point here is that you cant stop crime by taking away their weapons. THEY ARE ALREADY CRIMINALS. IE LAWS ARE FOR THE LAW ABIDING. the only real way to stop crime is to find the source, which ironicly, is society. any one ever seen a dog chase its tail?

 

[slayer4u]

lets assume for a minute that this handgun ban was truly sucessful. just for gits and shiggles, lets say all the world banned all gunpowder weapons and such and erased all knowledge of how to build such things. so now no one has guns. that should end violence, since everyone used guns before. we all have enough sense to know that will never happen. criminals will resort to swords and bows and arrows if they have to. s***, they'd probably go so far as to just chuck rocks and their fellows.

my point here is that you cant stop crime by taking away their weapons. THEY ARE ALREADY CRIMINALS. IE LAWS ARE FOR THE LAW ABIDING. the only real way to stop crime is to find the source, which ironicly, is society. any one ever seen a dog chase its tail?

Them might even revert to catapolting livestock at thier adveraries.

 

[chaosProtege]

LOL, monty pyton style.

 

[PhreakV]

lets assume for a minute that this handgun ban was truly sucessful. just for gits and shiggles, lets say all the world banned all gunpowder weapons and such and erased all knowledge of how to build such things. so now no one has guns. that should end violence, since everyone used guns before. we all have enough sense to know that will never happen. criminals will resort to swords and bows and arrows if they have to. s***, they'd probably go so far as to just chuck rocks and their fellows.

my point here is that you cant stop crime by taking away their weapons. THEY ARE ALREADY CRIMINALS. IE LAWS ARE FOR THE LAW ABIDING. the only real way to stop crime is to find the source, which ironicly, is society. any one ever seen a dog chase its tail?

when was the last time that someone could fire 16 arrows in rapid succession (i.e. semi-auto style) in under 30 seconds?
your point is valid that this doesn't attack the source, but it takes away alot of the power. its like taking Nazi Germany's power away from Hitler and making him fight with bows & arrows. pretty sure even the French could've taken him then (maybe with a bit of help from the English, but you get the idea ).

it'd be nice to take away the source but barring that, the people of SF have decided to at least make an attempt. if it fails, have no fear that it will be repealled but why crap on their parade just for even trying?

 

[chaosProtege]

i'm not crapping on anyone's parade; just making a point. i applaud every attempt at violence prevention and i truly hope its successful.

 

[wicked]

the problem in SF is most the people that have guns there don't legally own them anyway.

 

[chaosProtege]

my point here is that you cant stop crime by taking away their weapons. THEY ARE ALREADY CRIMINALS. IE LAWS ARE FOR THE LAW ABIDING. the only real way to stop crime is to find the source, which ironicly, is society. any one ever seen a dog chase its tail?

yes.........