Early last November, I wrote about the San Francisco Proposition H move to ban weapons and ammunition from The City.
My comments at that time included "it's a SCAM" and "I'm not too worried". These comments were made while the voting was still going on ... before the measure was accepted by the voter!
I don't have a record of my outrage and disappointment when the measure was approved by a majority of the San Francisco Voters. I only have the memory of thinking: "Well, that's ONE city I'll never visit again!".
In fact, the blog article includes an Update in which I said:
The passage of Proposition H in San Francisco caught me unaware. I knew those people were crazy, and I knew that they were stupid, but I had no idea of the extent of their mania.I guess I'm not the only one who thought this measure was to zany to be believed.
Here's what the current article had to say:
SAN FRANCISCO – A state trial judge sided Monday with the National Rifle Association in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco.
Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by an alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. The NRA sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.
In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.
"My clients are thrilled that the court recognized that law-abiding firearms owners who choose to own a gun to defend themselves or their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem," NRA attorney Chuck Michel said. "Hopefully, the city will recognize that gun owners can contribute to the effort to fight the criminal misuse of firearms, a goal that we all share."
The decision was not unexpected. In 1982, a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law.
But years later, in 1998, a state appeals court upheld West Hollywood's ban on the sale of so-called Saturday night specials, small and cheap handguns that city leaders said contributed to violent crime. And three years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Los Angeles and Alameda counties, saying local governments could ban the possession and sale of weapons on government property, such as fairgrounds.
That decision, however, did not address the issue of private property sales and possession, as outlined in the San Francisco law.
Some background is needed.
Here is the text of the measure.
The "Coalition Against Measure H" presented arguments against.
The NRA pulled out all the stops.
An Oakland NGO called "The Independent Institute" didn't like it at all.
And somebody who blogs under the name "Homeland Stupidity" had some really 'hurtful' things to say:
I really LIKE this guy!
The usual left-leaning suspects are spouting off the usual tripe about this measure.
“We had a record 88 homicides last year,” said Supervisor Chris Daly, a leading advocate of the measure. “We’re in the 70s now this year. Most of them are handgun-related. It’s clear that the city has yet to figure out how to get a handle on the problem. A ban — that type of gun control can play a part in stemming the tide of violence.” — San Francisco Chronicle
There is precisely one gun store in the city and county of San Francisco, and it declined comment.
Now, what the usual left-leaning idiots who don’t understand gun violence and criminal behavior at all don’t seem to understand is that these guns used in street violence are almost never “legally” obtained. That’s right, the law already prohibited these criminals from obtaining the guns they somehow got! This is what we call a black market. If Proposition H passes, the black market will simply expand if necessary to cover any additional demand for illegal guns.
“Those who are committing violence on the street don’t use legally obtained guns anyway,” said Larry Barsetti, a retired San Francisco police lieutenant. — Ibid.
Told you so. Police have been saying the same thing all over the country for years. That’s right, the cops want ordinary people to purchase, become familiar with, and carry guns to defend themselves.
“The facts are in and the record is clear: right-to-carry gives law enforcement, their families and our communities real protection from violent criminals,” said James J. Fortis, executive director of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America.
And the real losers here will be the law-abiding citizens of San Francisco, who will have one less option for defending themselves from criminals.
And I didn’t even get into the fact that Proposition H probably won’t stand up in court. The California Supreme Court has previously ruled that only the state can regulate possession of firearms.
“We’ve crafted the measure carefully so it has a chance to withstand a challenge of state pre-emption,” Daly said. “The NRA’s going to have some good lawyers, but I don’t think they’ll be as good as my lawyer, Dennis Herrera, the city’s lawyer, the people of San Francisco’s lawyer.” — Ibid.
You asshole. The people of San Francisco deserve protection from violent crime, not to have it taken away from them. Don’t fall for Daly’s (and the left’s) bullshit. Vote for the right to defend yourself and your family from violent criminals. Vote NO on Proposition H.
He was bang-on right about the "... Proposition H probably won’t stand up in court..." thingie.
One of the neat things about this blog/website (it doesn't exactly follow the format of a 'blog', which makes it even more intriguing) is that he allows some very disagreeing (and disagreeable) people to make comments, and leaves those comments for our edification.
Here's the first comment, just for example:
Oh my goodness, where can I start?
Let's fisk this ho-dad, shall we? (Apologies for the redundancy.)
This guy's daughter makes a statement, and he doesn't stop to think it through for himself. Congratulations on your absolute faith in your daughter, but that doesn't make her right.
The right wingnut who published this nonsense stated: “Police are up in arms against the measure.”
That was enough to make me realize he has no credibility. Which police? My daugher is a Police Officer and would love to see all handguns outlawed. What good are they? Statistics are very clear that most handgun homicides are committed by family and friends in domestic violence. The majority of citizens do not have the skill to defend themselves with a gun they purchased “for protection.”
MOST police are against confiscation of civilian arms, that doesn't mean ALL of them are. He asks "what good are they?", and we can only suggest that most of us don't need a gun until we need it very badly.
He should ask his daughter what their average response time is to a 911 call. He doesn't cite the source for his statistics, but we can assume it is the same for every other anti-gun nut who cleaves uncritically to the "43-to-one" gun deaths are caused by guns in the home" nonsense... which is a falatious argument based on a biased premise.
As for his claim that "The majority of citizens do not have the skill to defend themselves with a gun ...", that claim only serves to support the suggestion that MORE, rather than LESS citizens should be trained in safe gun-handling skills.
Nowhere does he suggest that a trained civilian is incapable of defending himself, his home, his family with a gun. Where does he think that criminals learn how to use a gun?
Next, the respondant avers:
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws AND THE POLICE will have guns.He concedes that criminals ("outlaws") will have guns, regardless of the laws that are prevelant in the community. I wonder if he is aware of the difference between the SFPD response time to a 911 call and the time it takes for a home-invasion to result in civilian injury? The police are charged "to protect and to serve", but the police are not legally obliged to protest civilians from injury ... only to make a 'best effort' attempt to find the malefactor AFTER injury has been visited upon the civilian.
And their record is none too good even in this ex post facto function
Let's move on ....
I am a former gun shop owner (the Outdoorsman that was located on the 700 block of Columbus Ave.) and am scared to death of the damn things.Well, that's encouraging.
Daddy is a "FORMER gun shop owner", but he is "scared to death of the damn things."
That may help to explain why his business failed.
Then he says:
Go back to your muzzle loading squirrel guns the framers of the Constitution were referring to and keep the red coats at bay.
Apparently, this comments-writer doesn't realize that:
- Criminals (outlaws) aren't using "muzzle loading squirrel guns";
- The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify the type of firearm which is appropriate for civilian ownership, and;
- Proposition H would outlaw private ownership of "muzzle loading squirrel guns".
Consider: If there were no handguns available, where would the criminals get them?
Let the handgun madness stop. And let San Francisco lead the way.
Well, Ron, in the words of Jeff Goldblum portraying Dr. Ian Malcolm in "Jurasic Park":
Life will find a way.Similarly, Outlaws Will Find A Way.
Consider that England has outlawed guns for nine years. Guns, knives, swords ... any deadly weapon you can imagine.
The Yobs still manage to find a way.
The innocents ... suffer.
Is this "The Way" you envision for San Francisco?
I thought not.