San Francisco’s Last Gun Shop Standing Could Be Forced to Close Because of New City Ordinance

[SecularMotion]

The owner of the last gun shop in San Francisco is afraid he will be forced to close the business because of a new ordinance that would force him to videotape all gun sales for the city’s police department.

San Francisco Supervisor Mark Farrell is expected to formally propose the ordinance to the city’s Board of Supervisors in September.

“What we are doing is essentially closing what amounts to a loophole between federal and state law and making sure that San Francisco continues to stay at the forefront of gun control legislation in our country,” Farrell said.

High Bridge Arms, the only place one can legally purchase firearms in San Francisco, is such a rarity that it has become a tourist attraction. But it won’t be for long if owner Steve Alcairo is forced to install this new videotaping system.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/san-franciscos-last-gun-shop-standing-could-be-forced-to-close-because-of-new-city-ordinance/

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. I don't want to get dragged into this argument, but

what I find astonishing is that there is a retailer anywhere who does not yet have a video camera system in place.

ETA: the word "not", which kind of makes the sentence a whole lot different. People seemed to know what I meant regardless.

[gejohnston]

5. the article says he does

the ordnance would require the sale itself be on tape and be turned over to SFPD.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Naturally all of the Controllers who assure us they support the right to self-defense and

absolutely do not support taking away people's guns are opposed to this sort of regulatory harassment. I know the OP has made these assurances in the past so I have no doubt we enjoy his support.

Right?

[beergood]

3. "videotape all gun sales " agree

Last edited Thu Sep 10, 2015, 11:22 AM - Edit history (2)

the proles can not be trusted, they must always be monitored to ensure obedience.

[sarisataka]

4. And surely you must be

opposed to this.

Or do you believe a business engaged in an activity that is Constitutionally protected per SCOTUS ruling should be forced to close by burdensome local regulations?

[appal_jack]

6. Forget 2nd Amendment issues; this violates the 1st, 4th, and 5th.

So a municipality wants to compel the production of recorded media (1st Amendment violation), and routinely search such privately-owned media (4th Amendment violation), wherein images of customers engaging in lawful transactions might be used against them in a form of involuntary testimony (5th Amendment violation).

But sure, gun-grabbers always respect the Constitution.

-app

[Eleanors38]

7. 3 words, Secmo: County Line Liquors. (nm)

[Eleanors38]

8. Murder rate up 71%? One store?