San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom stands up to the gun lobby

[Union Label]

Granted its a very safe city to this in so I don't think there will be any fallout in his area.

*** PRESS RELEASE ***

MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM SIGNS STRICT ANTI-GUN LAW CO-WRITTEN BY D.A. KAMALA HARRIS
San Francisco’s Laws Now Toughest In Nation

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today Mayor Gavin Newsom, joined by District Attorney Kamala Harris and Police Chief Heather Fong, signed a new law co-authored by D.A. Harris that strengthens San Francisco’s anti-gun laws.

“Now San Francisco has the toughest anti-gun laws in the country,” said Newsom. “We are committed to getting guns off the streets.”

The new law, co-sponsored by two members of the Board of Supervisors, Ross Mirkarimi and Sophie Maxwell, prohibits the possession or sale of firearms on city property, requires firearms in residences to be in a locked container or have trigger locks, and requires firearm dealers to submit an inventory to the chief of police every six months.

“It's essential to public safety to keep illegal guns and the criminals who use them off our streets,” said D.A. Harris. “This legislation will help keep guns away from children, out of schools and parks, off the black market and out of the hands of criminals. I thank the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for passing this legislation.”

Today Newsom, D.A. Harris and Fong held a press conference to sign the law and to display guns obtained in the “Gifts for Guns” event hosted Saturday by the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice and the police department.

Gifts for Guns is the city’s first-ever gun buy-back program. Residents were invited to turn in operable firearms in exchange for gift cards from Safeway and Wells Fargo Bank. One-hundred nineteen guns -- including five assault firearms and two sawed-off shotguns -- were turned in and destroyed. The program protected the anonymity of participants.http://sfgov.org/site/mayor_page.asp?id=65294

[virginia mountainman]

1. To bad he wont stand up to the CRIMINALS USING THE GUNS...

He just wants to hound the law abiding, and keep the good people of SF from protecting themselves..

Their will be fallout...As I campaign for Democratic candidates here in Virginia, I constantly find myself answering questions about "Feinstein" and gun control...

And why should they trust democrats when it comes to gun control. It is hard to argue that we defend peoples civil rights, when we attack "the ones we don't like"

EDIT, I would like to know how Mayor Newsom defines "STREETS" I wonder if that includes peoples homes??

[ComerPerro]

10. I see. So you are a single-issue voter who despises Democrats

[virginia mountainman]

11. did you not read my post....

I mentioned that I RUN INTO the "democrat anti-gun talk" WHILE STUMPING FOR DEMOCRATS....


I am NOT a single issue voter, I just don't compromise on the Bill of Rights, do you compromise your principles, like repukes do?

[ComerPerro]

12. I did read your post, and that's what it says to me.

[Squatch]

13. Now, now boys...play nice.

Don't make me pistol-whip the two of you. :evilgrin:

[virginia mountainman]

14. I just remebered...

Nearly ALL, of our LOCAL DEMOCRATS, here in Virginia, are fairly rabid pro-2nd Amendment...

The problems arise, when a URBAN Democrats get on NATIONALLY BROADCAST TV, and say things like..

"Mr and Miss America, turn them all in"... "No one needs a gun like that" "Only GANGMEBERS use them"....ETC ETC....

Then we local dems, have issues with our local voters, as repukes try to paint us all with the same "anti-gun" brush... Don't forget, the Million Mom March, and the Brady campaign, are RUN by Republicans.

[ComerPerro]

15. ok, fair enough. But part of the problem is with the rural Dems, too.

They have to understand that guns being targeted are not hunting rifles. The cities have problems with gun violence, it is a real problem. There are ways to solve the problem aside from banning all guns, definately. But I have some family in rural areas (Republicans, bleh) who get angry even at the idea of having guns registered. Basically, they think a gun should have fewer ownership and usage requirements than a car!

It is damaging when Dems are seen by rural voters talking about gun control, yes. But part of the problem is when those in rural areas fall for Repig propaganda.

[virginia mountainman]

18. You talk of...

The rural voters falling for it...

my thoughts on this are a bit different, let me explain..

I see it as OUR Democratic leaders being lead astray BY REPUBLICANS....As I said above, the LEADING anti-gun outfits are all RUN by repukes...We have DEMOCRATS on TV, regurgitating the obvious lies, word for word, from Sara Brady.


For example, when they make insane statements about the power of the "so called assault weapons" When ANY REAL, firearm users know, that they are actually very weak, in relation to normal hunting rifles..

When McCarthy is asked a pointed question about what she intends to ban, in HER SIGNATURE legislation, she is rendered totally speechless, and looks all the world like a incompetent buffoon...Yes, I get questioned about that, when stumping for democratic candidates..

Heck watch her vacillate for yourself, on her own legislation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryCe4yoRVaA

MSNBC, CNN, all these major networks get watched "down here" in flyover land. And when a "D" is on TV, talking like an idiot, "like she did" wanting to ban things, that she did not even know about.

YOUR DAMN RIGHT, I get questioned about it from the folks.

Most people are happy with background checks and such, but when you talk about banning certain guns, (THE SAME GUNS THAT PEOPLE LEGALLY OWN AND USE RESPONSIBLY) No way in HELL will we get any headway.

Why Register them? Do you want Bush, or Chaney, to be able to print out a list of who "owns what" and "where they live"? And please don't mention we register cars...Cars, are NOT mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and besides, last week I taught my 10 year old daughter, how to drive the farm truck, in the field...

She is obvioulsly under age...
The truck had not been registered in nearly 10 years...

and It was PERFECTLY LEGAL...

[ComerPerro]

19. show me where handguns and automatics appear in the bill of rights

[virginia mountainman]

20. The word...ARMS....

Definition...

arm /ɑrm/ noun
1. Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.
2. arms, Heraldry. the escutcheon, with its divisions, charges, and tinctures, and the other components forming an achievement that symbolizes and is reserved for a person, family, or corporate body; armorial bearings; coat of arms.
–verb (used without object) 3. to enter into a state of hostility or of readiness for war.
–verb (used with object) 4. to equip with weapons: to arm the troops.
5. to activate (a fuze) so that it will explode the charge at the time desired.
6. to cover protectively.
7. to provide with whatever will add strength, force, or security; support; fortify: He was armed with statistics and facts.
8. to equip or prepare for any specific purpose or effective use: to arm a security system; to arm oneself with persuasive arguments.
9. to prepare for action; make fit; ready.
—Idioms10. bear arms, a. to carry weapons.
b. to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces: His religious convictions kept him from bearing arms, but he served as an ambulance driver with the Red Cross.

11. take up arms, to prepare for war; go to war: to take up arms against the enemy.
12. under arms, ready for battle; trained and equipped: The number of men under arms is no longer the decisive factor in warfare.
13. up in arms, ready to take action; indignant; outraged: There is no need to get up in arms over such a trifle.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Richard Steele]

36. No, "arms" sufficient to keep our freedoms secure from tyrannical rulers. As they intended.

Hey, if you really believe that "muzzle loader" arguement,
then you'd have to also agree that free speech doesn't
apply to radio, TV, or the internet.

And the 5th amendment doesn't prohibit "questioning" suspects
with an electric cattle prod...

Right?

[ComerPerro]

38. well, in order to stand up to the US government, you are going to need

grenade launchers, rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns, fully automatic assault rifles, and a fuckload of napalm.

Couldn't hurt to have some helicopters, jets, and a nice stockpile of missiles.

[Richard Steele]

40. I guess the lack of those things is why the Iraqi resistance was utterly defeated so quickly?

And the same reason the USA won that decisive victory in Vietnam.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bjorn Against]

61. Does that include nuclear arms?

Or is it safe to say the word arms did not cover as broad of a range of weapons when the Constitution was written as it does today? If you are arguing that the words of the second amendment covers all types of arms then you are essentially arguing that the freeper down the street from you should have the right to posses chemical and biological weapons.

So do you acknowledge the founders did not intend the second amendment to include all the types of weapons we have today, or do you advocate the right of some Republican billionaire to have his own private stash of nuclear arms?

[ComerPerro]

63. According to the gun nuts, there is nothing wrong with private armies

[derby378]

21. Show me where the Internet and cable TV appear in the Bill of Rights

:shrug:

[ComerPerro]

24. I am not the one who made the rediculous argument

I was reffering to the idiot who said that cars aren't like guns because they aren't in the bill of rights.

But, yes, according to his logic, we don't have a right to the internet. But at least we still have our guns!

[virginia mountainman]

25. It was YOU, that mentioned "registration" first.

Not I....

[qdemn7]

43. Show me where

It says anything about radio, television, and the Internet. :spank:

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

110. They're in there along with T.V., radio, the Internet...

[qdemn7]

45. Owning guns is NOT about hunting,

Or Hunting rifles or shotguns. I don't hunt, not opposed to it, just not interested. There are 80,000,000 guns owners in the US, and 15,000,000 registered hunters. To put it another way, 80% OF GUNS OWNERS DON'T HUNT! That 80% own guns primarily for self-defense. So anytime anyone starts talking about "We don't want to take your hunting guns away" that's an instant red flag. That means people who want to take guns away from the 80% of us who don't hunt.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ComerPerro]

64. thanks for proving you are a single-issue voter

[qdemn7]

71. Bullshit!

You don't know how I'm going to vote.

[benEzra]

77. He merely stated a fact...that most gun owners don't own guns for hunting.

Only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners is a hunter. Hunting ranks a distant third behind (1) defensive purposes and (2) recreational target shooting as a reason for gun ownership in this country.

[Book Lover]

49. Newsom is doing this partly in response to a handful of daylight on-street shootings in the City

And pardon me, but we good people of San Francisco have different concerns gun-wise than your Virginia neighbors. How many daylight on-street shootings have there been in your *state* lately?

[obama_girl]

2. he should run for a senate seat!

I really like this guy.

[SteveM]

111. That whiff of prohibition: ummmm, so sexy! (nt)

[David__77]

3. I'm completely pro-gun rights, but this doesn't sound overly-restrictive.

So long as citizens can purchase and maintain firearms in their home, I'm OK with it. But coining this law as "anti-gun" sounds like there's a goal to ban them completely, but that pesky constitution is standing in the way.

[merh]

16. Dems have a problem with presentation.

I am pro-2nd amendment (as well as all the rest of the amendments), but I have no qualms with regulations that seek to protect society from an abuse of the freedoms it guarantees. Gun regulations or restrictions such as what this law apparently provides do not equate to banning and are not violations of the 2nd amendment. Gun management would be a better way to present the legislation or something that doesn't give the impression that the proponents for the legislation are against gun ownership by citizens and the 2nd amendment. Slander and libel laws restrict freedom of speech if it is harmful, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater has been ruled illegal as it threatens the safety of the public. We have to think in those terms and craft the message so that we are not restricting the rights, just trying to protect society from an abuse of the rights.

[derby378]

26. I think you're on to something, here

A well-regulated militia should know how to manage its guns, after all. Sounds promising.

[merh]

30. "WELL REGULATED"

means managed - and as has been pointed out in the past, the "militia" is not private citizens.

Nobody wants your guns derby78.

:hi:

[derby378]

31. Actually, we are...

But that's something that the SCOTUS may have to take up in the case of Parker v. DC.

And I've seen too many Democratic legislators who have actually said that they want to confiscate firearms that I cannot afford to take chances.

[merh]

39. Bull shit

What legislators what to confiscate firearms and which firearms do they want to confiscated, some, a particular type, all?

[derby378]

41. Dianne Feinstein wanted to confiscate a wide variety of semi-automatics

Said she'd have done it during the 90's, but the Senate votes weren't there.

[merh]

42. Feinstein does not equate to "many Democratic legislators"

and the confiscation of "a wide variety of semi-automotics" does not equate to a ban or a full fledge confiscation of all weapons.

Try again. Regulating weapons does not equate to the desire to take your guns from you.

Speech is regulated, yet we still enjoy freedom of speech.

[derby378]

44. Feinstein said, and I quote...

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in," I would have done it. I could not do it. The votes weren't there.

This is not regulating firearms - this is confiscating them.

I also refer you to the original version of Illinois HB2414, which would have confiscated semi-automatics from gun owners throughout the state. This bill had heavy backing from Illinois Democrats, including Gov. Rod Blagojevich. So yes, I do know whereof I speak.

[merh]

46. This is regulating weapons

removing a particular type of weapon does not equate to banning. Confiscating one type of weapon does not equal banning all weapons.

And, I repeat, Feinstein is one dem and you said "many Democratic legislators", where are the many?

Speech is regulating, there are laws against harmful speech, yet freedom of speech is alive and well.

Try to be honest, confiscating semi-autos does not equate to confiscating all weapons or a ban on all weapons, thus it is not a violation of the 2nd amendment.

.

[derby378]

48. Excuse me?

Did you even read my last post?

Besides, you said it yourself: "Confiscating semi-autos..." That is a violation of the Second Amendment. My God, even full-automatic weapons have not been fully confiscated yet in America; they are regulated, and heavily so, but they have not been completely removed from civilian hands.

And semi-automatics have legally been in the hands of American civilians for over a hundred years. You want honesty? Read your history books, starting with John Moses Browning and the Remington Autoloading Repeating Rifle.

[merh]

50. Confiscating a type of weapon is not a violation of the 2nd amendment.

You have the right to keep and bear arms, just not any gun you want. Can you own a tommie gun or a bazooka?

Just as there are laws against speech that is harmful, so too there can be laws against guns that pose a greater risk to society.

Regulation does not equate to bannings. Banning would be taking away all weapons and leaving you unable to own any. Regulating certain weapons does not take away your right own other weapons, thus there is no 2nd amendment violation.

[derby378]

54. Once again, read the above posts - and brush up on American gun laws

You and I can both own "tommy guns." It's just easier to get the semi-auto version than the full-auto version, and since the Unification Church now owns Auto-Ordinance (manufacturers of the Thompson gun), I'd rather not give Sun Myung Moon any of my money.

BTW, a bazooka is not a gun. We are only discussing guns here. Please focus.

[merh]

55. LOL, I am well aware of American gun laws.

It appears to be you that needs to brush up on your 2nd amendment.

""the right of the people to keep and bear arms." NOT "the right of the people to keep and bear guns."

A bazooka, like a nuke, like all sorts of explosives are arms. You can't own them can you.

And I have read all your posts and nothing in them alters a thing I have posted. To outlaw private ownership of certain arms/weapons to protect society is not a violation of the 2nd amendment. You can own and bear all the guns you want that are legal. No one wants to take your guns, they just want to regulate the ownership of certain weapons that pose a great threat to public safety.

[beevul]

65. Disingenuous.

"A bazooka, like a nuke, like all sorts of explosives are arms. You can't own them can you."

Can you show a law preventing private ownership of a nuclear weapon? Its YOUR claim, back it up, IF you can. The debate over the nuclear strawman has already been had. And noone could find a law then either.


And yes, bazookas can be owned privately. So can tanks, fighter jets, flame throwers (which aren't classified as firearms but instead as agriculturul tools) mortars, claymores, machineguns, and the ammunition for all of the above, IIRC. Theyre called destructive devices, and regulated under the NFA. But they AREN'T banned. Thourough background check, plus a 200 dollar tax on each weapon and each round of mortar/bazooka ammo.

"To outlaw private ownership of certain arms/weapons to protect society is not a violation of the 2nd amendment."

See Parker vs DC for a ban on handguns overturned on second amendment grounds. Besides, even if what you say is true, the burden is on the banners to show that the banning is justified.

"No one wants to take your guns."


Ok. Kucinich is authoring a handgun ban. HR1022 - authored and sponsored by the usual suspects - would ban tens of millions of privately owned firearms.

Between those 2, that would cover the bulk of privately owned firearms in america.

So who exactly would you have to be talking to when you say "No one wants to take your guns", and what guns would they have to have...for your statement to be true?

Like I said, disingenuous. Or ignorant. If someone can point to a banned firearm, then there is a firearm ban somewhere banning it.

[merh]

67. Not disingenuous and not ignorant.

It is you that is disingenuous. To regulate weapons and arms does not equate to banning all arms thus the regulation does not equate to a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Are you telling me that you can own a nuke? Is not the ownership of explosives limited or can any citizen go out and stock pile explosives?

Restrictions relative to the ownership of weapons that seek to protect society does not equate to bannings.

The banning of one weapon or arms is not an infringement of your 2nd amendment. You can still own and carry legal weapons.

[beevul]

70. Ok, then just incorrect and/or unsupported.

It is you that is disingenuous. To regulate weapons and arms does not equate to banning all arms thus the regulation does not equate to a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Now you are just playing word games. You are claiming that a ban on some is not a ban on all and therefore not a ban at all. Thats just plain dishonesty. And, like I said, a BAN on handguns was overturned in DC on SECOND AMENDMENT grounds. So you are apparently wrong. Do you really think that all firearms would have to be banned for it to be a violation of the second amendment? I wonder how much of the first amendment would be left with your standard applied to it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Lets see, 1 government sponsored religion - perfectly acceptable since they are not all banned...you know, congress didn't make a law respecting ALL religions or preventing free excercising of ALL of them. 1 government sponsorted newspaper - perfectly acceptable since they're not all banned. The press may still use a hand cranked printing press and print one government sponsored word - perfectly acceptable, because due to ALL words or mediums not being banned, this is not an abridgement. The people may peacable assemble and may each say one government sponsored word - perfectly acceptable since not ALL speech is banned this is not an abridgement. Thats the logical conclusion of your rights violation test, applied to the first amendment the same way you applied it to the second. That you would foolishly and shortsightedly allow such a precident...Boggles the mind. Seems like a great thing eh? Until its used against you, and by then, its far too late. If you think for a second, that the opposition would not use it when they are in power, especially after getting beat over the head a few times with it, I got some Arizona oceanfront property to sell you.

Are you telling me that you can own a nuke? Is not the ownership of explosives limited or can any citizen go out and stock pile explosives?

No, I am telling you that YOU said that one can not own a nuke or a bazooka, then did not support the specifics of that claim. I then said that a bazooka and its ammunition were covered under the national firearms act, and were controlled NOT banned. The fact is, you have not shown one thing that can not be legally possessed by a law abiding individual with a clean record. You have made claims, but not supported them. I also said that the nuclear strawman debate has already been had, and a law could not be found as far as I can recall that would prevent someone from going through the necessary background checks and permit processes necessary to possess/build/own a nuclear weapon. But again, it was YOU that said one couldn't be owned, so thats your claim to be backing up.

Restrictions relative to the ownership of weapons that seek to protect society does not equate to bannings.

Cute. If something has restrictions placed upon it, who is allowed to own it then? Noone? Then its a BAN not a restriction. Like I said. If you can show a banned item, theres a ban somewhere banning it. Theres just no way around that I'm afraid. No matter what words you use or what order you use them in. If theres a process whereby someone can own a thing, then its just not a ban. At some point, if that process becomes overly lengthy and an filled with unnecessary burden then an attempt is being made to "ban" the item without actually banning it. If something can not be owned, under any circumstances, its banned. Its really that simple.

The banning of one weapon or arms is not an infringement of your 2nd amendment. You can still own and carry legal weapons.

Thats your opinion, and your entitled to it, even if is not a fact. The banning of handguns was overturned in DC as a violation of the second amendment. They didn't ban shotguns or rifles, yet it was overturned all the same. Again, you are wrong. See parker vs DC.

[merh]

75. What is this, the infamous gun lovers tag team exercise?

There is case law that supports my opinion, SCOTUS and various federal circuits. Your ignorance of the case law does not mean that I am the one that is uninformed. You do know that Parker is on appeal, that means that it is not "decided". The Parker case is the first time a gun law was struck down on Second Amendment grounds by a federal court. The Parker decision is at odds with existing federal and SCOTUS precedent that have held that "reasonable restrictions" to promote "the government's interest in public safety" are permitted by the Second Amendment. Activists judges of the district at their best or rather, their saddest, imho. Rather than standing up for the rule of law and the public, the two-judge majority caved in and substituted their policy for those of the elected to serve the District of Columbia. Add to that the fact that the case does miss a very odd distinction that separates it from all other circuits, DC is not a state.

While the case is on appeal, isn't that law still in effect?
http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/occ/section/2/release/11422/year/2007/month/4

And you have yet to provide me with anything that supports your notion that regulating and/or restricting the private citizens ability to carry or own the "arms" of their choosing is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

The right to regulate is part of the language of the 2nd amendment, is it not?

.

[beevul]

78. Not hardly.

Your just not sizing me up too well I'm afraid. I don't own any "assault weapons", nor do I intend to. I don't own any "large caliber rifles, nor do I intend to. I don't even own a shotgun. So trying to paint me as a "gun lover" while entertaining, really misses the mark.

There is case law that supports my opinion, SCOTUS and various federal circuits. Your ignorance of the case law does not mean that I am the one that is uninformed. You do know that Parker is on appeal, that means that it is not "decided". The Parker case is the first time a gun law was struck down on Second Amendment grounds by a federal court. The Parker decision is at odds with existing federal and SCOTUS precedent that have held that "reasonable restrictions" to promote "the government's interest in public safety" are permitted by the Second Amendment. Activists judges of the district at their best or rather, their saddest, imho. Rather than standing up for the rule of law and the public, the two-judge majority caved in and substituted their policy for those of the elected to serve the District of Columbia. Add to that the fact that the case does miss a very odd distinction that separates it from all other circuits, DC is not a state.

While the case is on appeal, isn't that law still in effect?
http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/occ/section/2/r...

I refer you to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x140875

It is entitled "DC Court of Appeals denies En Banc Hearing in Parker vs. DC/Fenty gun case". That leaves DC with the USSC which they may appeal to. Unless DC does appeal, AND unless the USSC takes the case, AND unless they overturn it, it stands. What were you saying about being uninformed? That being the case, after saying what you said above, its clear that you havent even read the parker decision.

And you have yet to provide me with anything that supports your notion that regulating and/or restricting the private citizens ability to carry or own the "arms" of their choosing is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Here, read this:



That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely
barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The
protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same
sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as
limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. See Ward v. Rock
Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (“overnment may
impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of
protected speech . . . .”). Indeed, the right to keep and bear
arms—which we have explained pre-existed, and therefore was
preserved by, the Second Amendment—was subject to
restrictions at common law. We take these to be the sort of
reasonable regulations contemplated by the drafters of the
Second Amendment. For instance, it is presumably reasonable
“to prohibit the carrying of weapons when under the influence
of intoxicating drink, or to a church, polling place, or public
assembly, or in a manner calculated to inspire terror . . . .” State
v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921). And as we have
noted, the United States Supreme Court has observed that
prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons does not offend
the Second Amendment. Robertson, 165 U.S. at 281-82.
Similarly, the Court also appears to have held that convicted
felons may be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms. See
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (citing Miller,
307 U.S. at 178). These regulations promote the government’s
interest in public safety consistent with our common law
tradition. Just as importantly, however, they do not impair the
core conduct upon which the right was premised.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

What you just read makes a clear differentiation between regulating and/or restricting , versus "regulating and/or restricting" as YOU use the phrase (bans), to mean banning certain classes of firearms but not all of them. One is allowed, one is not. I'd encourage you to read the entire decision, then tell me what part of it is wrong, and why. Its easy for one to throw out terms like "activist judges", but not quite so simple to back that up and show where they erred in the decision in question.

The right to regulate is part of the language of the 2nd amendment, is it not?

Not in the sense of the definition of the word, as you have used it consistantly, no.

[merh]

82. It is the decision of two activists judges that overturned or

ignored years worth of precedence to find that (1) the District of Columbia has the same rights as states, and, (2) that regulation of weapons/arms is not provided for in the 2nd amendment. SCOTUS has long upheld gun laws which seek to protect the public.

That the two judges refused to adhere to the SCOTUS rulings makes the claim that the judges are activist judges a legitimate claim. According to the DC AG's website, the matter is being appealed, I cannot know beyond that what will come of the Parker decision. I do know that the Parker decision did not alter any of the existing SCOTUS opinions upholding gun control legislation.

And I could care less about what guns you own or want to own or even if you own guns. I hate dishonesty and I consider it dishonest for anyone to claim that gun laws written to protect society are not contemplated by the 2nd amendment. Gun lovers need to be careful in this day and age, it is the republican/neo-cons that would take your weapons from you (see the Executive Orders) and they have stacked the courts. The true question may well be, what is a well regulated militia, and do the federal laws organizing and funding same (National Guard/Militia laws) establish said well regulated militia that takes from the private citizen the "right to keep and bear" unless they are part of said militia? A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There are those that argue that unless you are a part of the militia, you have no right under the 2nd amendment. That is what should bother gun lovers, imho.

[beevul]

83. Aparently you did NOT read it.

"It is the decision of two activists judges that overturned or ignored years worth of precedence to find that (1) the District of Columbia has the same rights as states, and, (2) that regulation of weapons/arms is not provided for in the 2nd amendment."

For what its worth, the en banc appeal was denied 5-4, so why were 2 judges activists and the other 3 not? And expectedly you didn't read the decision, as I suggested. Heres the first sentence from the excerpt I quoted:

"That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely
barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols."

Thats squarely in opposition of your claim that the court held that "regulation of weapons/arms is not provided for in the 2nd amendment". You are either being dishonest yourself, or are ignorant of the factual information in front of your nose

As I said, read the decision.

The true question may well be, what is a well regulated militia, and do the federal laws organizing and funding same (National Guard/Militia laws) establish said well regulated militia that takes from the private citizen the "right to keep and bear" unless they are part of said militia?

Federal law on the United States Militia:

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

Thats current federal law.

Furthermore, the part that says "well regulated" that everyone and their gun grabbing sister always quotes to support their gun grabbing claims, means what it meant when it was written. Not that it really matters, because it could say "a well fed militia" instead, and it wouldn't change the meaning of the amendment. Though I am quite sure there are those that would interpret that to mean that you can't possess a firearm unless you eat a properly nutritional diet regularly.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

90. Look...

I did not attack you personally. I simply pointed out that you were wrong.

I pointed out that you were wrong about bazookas, and you were.

I pointed out that you hadn't read the appeals court decision, and you hadn't. You didn't even know they appealed until it was pointed out to you.

I pointed out how flawed it is to read a civil right so narrowly, and it is.


I pointed out that YOU claimed that the courts ruled saying "that regulation of weapons/arms is not provided for in the 2nd amendment", when in fact they said "That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols."

Those things are here in this thread for all to see.

(Do you want to continue with the petty insults? I can out insult you any day of the week as well as out argue you relative to the legal opinions that have been handed down over the years regarding the 2nd amendment. If you want to play the petty games keep up with the petty insults. If you want true discussion then act like an adult and stop with the petty put downs.)

Look, I didn't insult you. I said apparently you didn't read the ruling. Thats short for "it appears you didn't read the ruling". Thats not a petty insult, thats an observation. One based on the fact you said "It is the decision of two activists judges that overturned or ignored years worth of precedence to find...that regulation of weapons/arms is not provided for in the 2nd amendment, when the decision of those judges you refer to CLEARLY stated "That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols." Saying that would would be an indicator that clearly you did not read the ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have said such a thing.

Once again, its there for all to see Logical, factual, and true.

As far as your ability to out insult me, well, pat yourself on the back. I'm sure you can. As being able to out argue me or anyone else? Well, maybe you can, but so far, you haven't and you aren't. What you have done, is make all kinds of claims, without backing much of any of them up. You have also shown quite clearly that you don't know quite as much about gun laws as you purport to. Bazooka ring a bell? That would be an example of both. NFA that regulates it (not bans) ring a bell? That would be an example of the latter. And those are but a few examples out of many.

Again, there for all to see.

I may have been abrasive, which is sometimes my style (hey, sue me) , but I never once attacked you personally. I just checked my posts, and unless I missed one, I could not find a single time. I guess we'll know if any of my posts get deleted. Or yours. Its you in fact that have hurled the personal attacks. And personal attacks are almost always a sign that the person doing the attacking is losing the debate.


And whats this?

"Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won’t be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody’s characterization. It is not a restriction, it’s a prohibition." - Robert Levy

What exactly is the purpose of quoting that that? What message are you trying to convey?

[SteveM]

113. Gosh, Beevul, you turned him into Carthage after the Romans.

[SteveM]

112. Your mental rigidity is commendable. Obama is on record wanting to...

ban ALL semi-automatic firearms; rifles, pistols, shotguns. But I'll be left with some old Iver Johnson single-shot .12 gauge so my 2A isn't violated... until legislative fashion changes again. By the way, 80% of gun owners do not hunt. Wanna keep them from getting guns?

[krispos42]

99. That is true, and that is why it must be looked at very carefully

First off, the theory that "hey, if it's not in the Constitution we can ban it" stems from the opposite viewpoint of rights in general. It's suppose to be "I have a right unless it is specifically ruled otherwise in court" not "you don't have have a right unless it is specifically found in a courtroom ruling". The latter is the antithesis of freedom and, I believe, what the Founding Fathers were trying to set up. People who do argue that way wind up sounding an awful lot like Alberto Gonzales on things like, say, habeas corpus, for example. Something to think about.

Second, simply banning a certain type of firearms may or may not be against the Constitution. It has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

It has been noted in this thread that outlawing the false yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not a violation of the First Amendment. This is because the interests of public safety are sufficiently high and the infringement on the First is sufficiently low.

Okay, then how come we're banning semiautomatic rifles?

All rifles, combined, account for only about 3% of homicides in any given year. The word "rifle" int his case includes, single-shot break-action, single-shot muzzleloading, lever-action, bolt-action, pump-action, and semiautomatics. And "homicides" includes most hunting accidents as well as the "I'm gonna kill you!" kind.

So, how many non-hunting, non-accidental homicides occur every year in which the weapon of death was a semi-automatic rifle?

100? 200?

15,000 people killed per year. 10,000 of them with guns. 6,500 of them with handguns.

450 with any rifle.


It sure looks to me like the interests of public safety are low and the infringement on the Second are high.

[derby378]

100. And, no matter how many times merh tries to put lipstick on a pig...

...violating the Second Amendment is still violating the Second Amendment. And banning semi-automatic firearms is such a violation.

[beevul]

107. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say...

"It has been noted in this thread that outlawing the false yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not a violation of the First Amendment."

Would it not be more accurate to say that the yelling of fire is allowed BUT there are penalties for doing so when doing so abuses that freedom of speech? (yelling fire when there is none). Gagging someone to prevent them from doing so would be a violation of the first amendment (and a few others) no?

If you're alone in a theater and you yell fire, who is the injured party, and whos safety are you risking?

My point is, theres a difference between the curtailing of liberty, and the consequences of abusing it.

Banning (semi-auto) rifles isn't an act of consequences for abuse of liberty. Its curtailing of liberty.

Am I wrong?

[beevul]

66. Here, try these...

Rep. Neil Abercrombie
Rep. Gary Ackerman
Rep. Howard Berman
Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Rep. Lois Capps
Rep. Yvette Clarke
Rep. William Clay
Rep. Joseph Crowley
Rep. Diana DeGette
Rep. William Delahunt
Rep. Rahm Emanuel
Rep. Anna Eshoo
Rep. Sam Farr
Rep. Chaka Fattah
Rep. Bob Filner
Rep. Barney Frank
Rep. Raul Grijalva
Rep. Jane Harman
Rep. Mazie Hirono
Rep. Rush Holt
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee
Rep. Patrick Kennedy
Rep. James Langevin
Rep. Zoe Lofgren
Rep. Nita Lowey
Rep. Carolyn Maloney
Rep. Edward Markey
Rep. James McGovern
Rep. Martin Meehan
Rep. Bradley Miller
Rep. James Moran
Rep. Jerrold Nadler
Del. Eleanor Norton
Rep. John Olver
Rep. William Pascrell
Rep. Edward Pastor
Rep. Steven Rothman
Rep. Janice Schakowsky
Rep. Adam Schiff
Rep. Brad Sherman
Rep. Albio Sires
Rep. Louise Slaughter
Rep. Hilda Solis
Rep. Ellen Tauscher
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Rep. Diane Watson
Rep. Melvin Watt
Rep. Henry Waxman
Rep. Robert Wexler
Rep. Lynn Woolsey

Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

Is that enough to constitute many?

That bill would ban tens of millions of privately owned firearms, possibly over 100 million.

"Try again. Regulating weapons does not equate to the desire to take your guns from you."

How can you say that without knowing what kind of guns he owns?

[merh]

68. So they want the bill to be renewed.

As I have said, banning a certain weapon or type of weapons does not equate to violations of the 2nd amendment because folks can still carry other weapons. To state otherwise is an out and out lie. He can buy other, lawful weapons and still enjoy his 2nd amendment right.

There are laws against certain speech which is harmful, those laws do not infringe upon the 1st amendment.

The FCC can censor and license speech, those regulations do not equate to infringements of the 1st amendment.

Laws regulating weapons (as in licensure, taxation, limited use or ability to obtain, the outlawing of silencers and sawed off shotguns, trip guns, etc) do not equate to violations of the 2nd amendment.


And no, that list isn't that long and not truly "many" in the grand scheme of things.

:hi:

[beevul]

74. The devil, as always, is in the details.

You see, the original assault weapon ban, did not actually ban any weapons. It banned a bunch of scary features and some scary names.

Hr1022 while it may LOOK like a strait up renewal, is nothing of the sort. Apparently you didn't read the amendments to the original that HR1022 makes. HR1022 actually bans guns. Lots of them. Millions. Possibly over a hundred million.

As I have said, banning a certain weapon or type of weapons does not equate to violations of the 2nd amendment because folks can still carry other weapons. To state otherwise is an out and out lie. He can buy other, lawful weapons and still enjoy his 2nd amendment right.

Thats your opinion, but fact says otherwise. As I have repeatedly told you, a ban on handguns - NOT RIFLES, NOT SHOTGUNS - was overturned on second amendment grounds, in DC. Thats a fact.

There are laws against certain speech which is harmful, those laws do not infringe upon the 1st amendment.

And so there are. Those laws do not gag people to prevent the saying of that speech before they make it, however. One may not yell fire in a crowded theater for instance, but I bet you can't show me one theater that issues gags at the door to prevent it. Those laws also do not ban the usage of 1/3 of the words in the vocabulary possessed by the people. HR1022 is the equivalent of doing just that. A ban on on third or more of the arms in possession of the we the people. By your standard, it would be ok to ban all those words from speech, or hell...even ban MOST words, because people can use other lawful words.

Laws regulating weapons (as in licensure, taxation, limited use or ability to obtain, the outlawing of silencers and sawed off shotguns, trip guns, etc) do not equate to violations of the 2nd amendment.

You are partially right, however, silencers and sawed off shotguns are really NOT outlawed. They are tightly controlled, yes, but they are NOT banned. One may fill out the proper paperwork, aquire one, possess one, and own one legally. And you said you were well aware of American gun laws...feh.

"And no, that list isn't that long and not truly "many" in the grand scheme of things."

I guess my question to you then becomes, how many more than 51 does it take to qualify as "many"? Certainly thats plenty for republicans to label all Democrats as gun grabbers.

And lastly we have this:

"Try again. Regulating weapons does not equate to the desire to take your guns from you."

Really? If as you say, banning some guns really isn't banning, but regulation, how can you say that, not knowing if I own any of the guns you'd like to see "regulated" or not? If I do own some of them, then clearly that statement is a flat out untruth, is it not?
I mean, if you want regulated (banned) some of guns I own, then obviously at some point its going to be expected that they be turned in, otherwise your regulation does nothing, right? Then clearly you want to take away SOME of my guns. Which makes "Regulating weapons does not equate to the desire to take your guns from you" a flat out lie if I own guns you want regulated.

How can you make this statement to me or anyone else- "Regulating weapons does not equate to the desire to take your guns from you" - knowing what would be controlled but not knowing if I or anyone you might say such a thing to own any of them or not?

Please explain.

[merh]

76. He can get other weapons if the ones in his possession end

up being "illegal" under legislation passed to promote "the government's interest in public safety" as permitted by the Second Amendment. Since he can still own a gun or keep and bear an arm, as envisioned by the founding fathers, his 2nd amendment right has not been infringed. As I have stated previously, regulations and restrictions and even banning of a certain weapon that poses a "public safety" risk is not banning of all weapons and is therefore, not a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I can cite you cases other than Parker that have upheld the Brady Bill. Parker is on appeal and the law still exists until the court decides if it the Parker appellate judges were correct.

.

[beevul]

80. You missed part of it.

How can you make this statement to me or anyone else- "Regulating weapons does not equate to the desire to take your guns from you" - knowing what would be controlled but not knowing if I or anyone you might say such a thing to own any of them or not?

Please explain.

Oh, and would you just lay your cards on the table, and come right out and say what in your opinion WOULD constitute a second amendment violation? What would it take in your opinion, a complete and total ban on firearms?

[merh]

81. I did explain it.

Just because you or someone else owns a particular weapon that congress has decided must be regulated (as provided in the 2nd amendment), said regulation does not infringe upon your right to bear arms because you can go get other guns. The regulation or restriction of one weapon type does not equate to a banning of all weapons, thus there is no 2nd amendment infringement. The amendment doesn't say you get to own what you want to own because you want to own it.

I've addressed this is several different ways.

The banning of all guns, a statute prohibiting private ownership of all arms would be a 2nd amendment violation. It isn't that difficult a concept if you deal with it honestly and stop buying the lies sold to you by the NRA. And there has been no legislator that has sought to outlaw the private ownership of all weapons. You need to concern yourself with the Executive Order that would do just that during martial law.

[beevul]

84. You beat around the bush.

Just because you or someone else owns a particular weapon that congress has decided must be regulated (as provided in the 2nd amendment), said regulation does not infringe upon your right to bear arms because you can go get other guns. The regulation or restriction of one weapon type does not equate to a banning of all weapons, thus there is no 2nd amendment infringement. The amendment doesn't say you get to own what you want to own because you want to own it.

You are just wrong. There is NOTHING "provided" in the second amendment having to do in any way with the word regulated, as you use it.

The amendment, in fact, like the rest of the bill of rights, is a stated limitation on the power and scope of government. It tells the government what IT may not do.

The banning of all guns, a statute prohibiting private ownership of all arms would be a 2nd amendment violation. It isn't that difficult a concept if you deal with it honestly and stop buying the lies sold to you by the NRA. And there has been no legislator that has sought to outlaw the private ownership of all weapons. You need to concern yourself with the Executive Order that would do just that during martial law.

I am sure glad noone reads the first amendment as narrowly as you read the second. Its your opinion, and your entitled to it. And of course, people are free to embrace your philosophy, and free to complain about its unintended consequences...until the first amendment is read equally in an equally narrow light. Fortunately, people that read so narrowly the scope of a civil right, or the restrictions on governemt power, are in short supply now days, and hereabouts.

As fas as martial law, and an executive order outlawing the private ownership of firearms, well, that would be the beginning of a civil war the likes of which this nation has never seen. I hope for the sake of my children and theirs that it never happens. Incremental encroachment on civil rights on the other hand, thats here and now, and a clear and present danger. Not just for firearms either. See the thread where the cops break the leg of a female protester.

[merh]

86. The 2nd amendment provides for a well regulated militia

a citizen army. As part of this right, it provides for the right to keep and bear arms. The two thoughts, the two concepts are not separate, but part and parcel of the same right, thus, regulation is provided in the 2nd amendment.

I have not been "beating around the bush" - I have been totally honest and out front, it is you that hides behinds the mythys and lies of the NRA. Registering, licensing, regulating, even restricting ownership of "ARMS" is a function of congress under the 2nd amendment.

The simplicity of it is what you miss because you have been so entangled by the myths.

As long as there is a right to keep and bear arms, the 2nd amendment is not violated. Just cause you don't get to have the gun you want, due to the well regulated provision of the 2nd amendment (though you can have other guns that are lawful) doesn't mean your 2nd amendment rights are violated.

Again, worry about the executive orders that would take away your guns, all guns, and would violate your 2nd amendment. Go look what happened in NOLA after Katrina. That should be your worry, what the executive branch does, not legislators that want to protect the public.

[beevul]

96. I disagree.

The second amendment does not provide anything. It does not grant anything. It is a restriction on government. Just like the first amendment, just lke the 4th amendment. Just like the 5th amendment, and a few others too.The amendment, through restriction on government, AFFIRMS the rights of the people.

"it is you that hides behinds the mythys and lies of the NRA. Registering, licensing, regulating, even restricting ownership of "ARMS" is a function of congress under the 2nd amendment."

My opinions, beliefs, and stances are my own. I do not need anyone to formulate them for me. Registering, licensing, regulating, even restricting ownership of arms may be a function of congress, subject to constitutional scrutiny, but no such authority is granted, provided, or affirmed under by or through the second amendment. The amendment in facts states "shall not be infringed". It does not state "shall not be infringed except by congress". What shall not be infringed? The right to keep and bear arms. More specific, the right of the people to do so. I don't need the nra to tell me that. Thats what the words say. It may as well be written as "because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", because thats the meaning the second amendment was intended to convey. The first half of the amendment just says why the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not place conditions on the right affirmed, contrary to what brady, vpc, hci, gunguys, or the million mom march spew from their gun banning yaps.



A well rounded education, being necessary to the security of informed decision, the right of the people to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed.

Does that say that only those actually aquiring a well rounded eduaction may keep and bear books? Of course it doesn't. The people have the right to keep and bear books.

A well rounded defense, being necessary to the security of a competitive team, the right of the players to keep and bear footballs, shall not be infringed.

Does that say that players may keep and bear footballs only if they are part of a well rounded defense? Of course not. The players have the right to keep and bear footballs.

That right there shows the "militia" reading of the second amendment to be the hogwash it truly is, and reflects as much on any court that might espouse it as well. Some courts deciding on the side of the "militia" reading might make it legal binding precedent, but those courts have only the power to make it legal. They haven't the power to make that reading the correct one.




Registering, licensing, regulating, even restricting ownership whether it is or is not allowed, and/or to what degree, is secondary. The fact that doing one or more of the above on a nationwide scale is a recipe for political disaster, should be the priumary concern.

"As long as there is a right to keep and bear arms, the 2nd amendment is not violated. Just cause you don't get to have the gun you want, due to the well regulated provision of the 2nd amendment (though you can have other guns that are lawful) doesn't mean your 2nd amendment rights are violated.

Well, you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that. On a federal level, the NFA is the toughest "restriction" on possession, and even it doesn't "ban" any guns. It may surprise you to know I actually support NFA restrictions on machineguns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices.

I do not, can not, and will not support any real and true ban, however.

"Again, worry about the executive orders that would take away your guns, all guns, and would violate your 2nd amendment. Go look what happened in NOLA after Katrina. That should be your worry, what the executive branch does, not legislators that want to protect the public."

Naa. Executive orders don't bother me much. They're the equivalent of throwing the frog into already boiling water. Any government doing such a thing in this country would be biting off more than they could chew. If it was done, and only 50 percent of gun owners resisted, our military would be outnumbered at ten to one or better, on top of being asked to kill friends family members and fellow countrymen. I don't believe anyone would be stupid enough to pull a stunt like that.

And I am fully aware of what happened in NOLA after Katrina. But that wasn't the executive branches doing. That was the doing of eddie compass. Local effort there. You might assert that the orders came from higher, and I'd be willing to listen, so long as you back them up with a reliable source.

Legislators that want to protect the public on the other hand...well, those legislators, and more than one presidential candidate propose banning of rifles used in less that 3 percent of all homicides. Thats plenty of reason to be worrying about them. Thats prohibition without sufficient justification, and the slow burn of incrementalism. Tis far more dangerous.

[slackmaster]

92. The McCarthy bill is FAR more than a renewal

Read up on it.

[krispos42]

98. It's a stunt, though

First off, no city, town, village, or county in Califoria can pass their own gun laws. SanFran keeps doing it, and it keeps getting overturned by the state Supreme Court. Minnesota has the same law.

Second, it requires that you store your guns in a particular manner. So.... how is that going to be enforced?

It's not going to be enforced until AFTER some kid shoots himself or his classmates. One more post-shooting charge to hang on to grieving parents.

Unless you think maybe that owning a gun takes away your 4th Amendment rights to privacy and the government (in this case, the police) can walk up to your door anytime they want with the list of guns you have registered with the state and demand to see how they are being stored?

And in order to get rid of the guns owned by the citizens, they first have to know who has what. They want to ban them completely because, after all, civilized, cultured people don't hunt and don't resolve their issues with violence, right? And once they know who has what, they start banning the sale, transfer, and inheiretance of certain types of guns.

Currently in Califoria 'assault weapons' had to be registered before a certain date (back in 2000) and henceforth cannot be transferred to any private citizen who lives in that state after that. Nor past that certain date can gun stores sells 'assault weapons' to anybody in California. So over the course of the next few decades, as people liquidate their gun collections, as people move out of state, and as people die, all of the 'assault weapons' in California will eventually be sold or given to people outside of the state, until there are no more left.

That's just one class of firearm. Handguns are next, you watch. Same restrictions. Past a certain date, you can't register them anymore. So gun shops can't sell them, people that move to California won't be able to bring them, if you move out and then move back you won't be able to bring them, and if you die you won't be able to pass them on to a California citizen.

And that will be how the ban goes. The government doesn't have the stupidity to try to grap the guns, but they will strangle them to death.

[-..__...]

4. If it sounds good... just do it.

I can just picture Newsom running around his desk with his fingers in his ears while screaming "LA LA LA LA LA... I CAN"T HEAR YOU... LA LA LA LA"...

San Francisco residents will be required to keep their guns in lock boxes or have trigger locks on their firearms under a law signed Wednesday by Mayor Gavin Newsom.

The law also makes it illegal to possess or sell firearms on city and county property and requires firearm dealers to submit an inventory to the police chief every six months.

The measure's co-sponsors concede that it will have little effect on the proliferation of illegal firearms.

:eyes:


More...

[scrinmaster]

33. "It won't reduce crime, but as long as we can hassle gun-owners, I'm all for it"

Holy shit, that mayor seems like a jackass.

[karlrschneider]

5. I suppose criminals are lined up around the block to sell their guns to the city.

:eyes:

[Ikonoklast]

6. Unenforceable

Are they going to go door-to-door and inspect the storage of every weapon in every home in the city? Will they get warrants, or just break in to do the inspection?

I guess San Francisco is going to stop and search everyone entering from outside city limits. I mean, does this law put some kind of 'criminal with a gun' force field around the city or something? Or will criminals read the law and say, "Damn! I just can't go there and commit felonies anymore! They have strict gun laws!"

This is just more feel-good gun law bullshit. It does nothing to keep criminals from committing a crime using a gun of any kind, but punishes law-abiding citizens.

And the Democrats keep wondering why they lose votes on this subject.

[Union Label]

7. The only part of this new law that makes me queasy

Is listed in your first sentence. In an earlier thread in the guns forum http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=141670 Ms. Harris said something that was very chilling. And in this post she is on video saying this. but other than that which I'm sure (hope) was just a mis-spoken phrase, I like this new law as a small step for gun safety.

"Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs,"

[Squatch]

8. Molon Labe

[Ikonoklast]

9. I remember reading that quote

I could give her one of mine....

"If you walk into my locked home without being invited, please make sure that the coroner has been called previous to your folly to expedite the removal of your corpse."

I wonder if she ever read the Constitution of the United States.

[Richard Steele]

17. Actually, that's EXACTLY what it means, Ms. Harris. nm

[tammywammy]

37. That makes me queasy as well

They can't be going home to home to search them. And if I lived in San Francisco with a gun, then they better damn well show up with a valid search warrant, because I sure as hell wouldn't just let them into my house.

[slackmaster]

95. We Californians can shoot people who break into our homes

The city won't be putting its officers at risk.

[Taverner]

23. And in SF you can still own a handgun

As long as it's registered and legal. You just can't conceal and carry. Sounds smart to me.

[scrinmaster]

32. Only because the courts ruled San Francisco's handgun ban unconstitutional.

[Taverner]

34. As it is

And you have no argument from me that it isn't such (wow! triple negative??)

What I meant was it was unconstitutional, and the correction was made.

[slackmaster]

93. Requiring people to keep handguns locked in their own homes is unconstitutional too

For the exact same reason Proposition H (handgun ban) was struck down by the courts.

[mulsh]

27. jt's a step up from when DiFi told people to " take your guns

over to Oakland and sell them over there."

[marmar]

28. Like I need another reason to love San Francisco.....

:loveya:

[Colobo]

29. That guy lacks the moral authority to stand up against anything.

[mitchtv]

58. Unlike St. Barak?

[Colobo]

60. Did Barack betray his campaign manager by cheating with his wife?

[knight_of_the_star]

35. I wonder

How would this affect people like cops who are generally allowed to carry their sidearms while off-duty to defend themselves just in case?

[slackmaster]

94. I don't need to see the text to give you a rock-solid guarantee

That GOVERNMENT employees at all levels will be exempt from the prohibition on carrying while on city property, and from the home storage trigger-lock requirements.

[stimbox]

47. How many of you are San Francisco residents?

[Union Label]

56. I'm not a resident anymore

But I was born there and I still have a lot of family there.

[NuttyFluffers]

59. not a resident, but visit regularly

:)

the shootings were really starting to get out of hand. and quite a bit of bridge and tunnel crowd bullshit really turned halloween to the shitter, which is tragic. we'll see if this "well regulating" has an impact. i think it probably will.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

89. I am seeing that a LOT these days...

about Cindy, Gavin...folks who aren't from here wanting to have a say in what the people of San Franciso think should be the best for them.

I don't like a lot of what Newsom does, but I am fine with this law. And I am perfectly fine in having Cindy run against Nancy.

But I am just a San Franciscan. I couldn't possibly know what is best for my town. :shrug:

[slackmaster]

103. I expect San Francisco's leaders to obey the law

Making up their own gun regulations isn't legal.

Although I don't live there, my concern is that if they keep pushing through illegal crap like this sooner or later a court may let it stand, setting a bad precedent that could affect the rest of us.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

104. If it is INDEED illegal, than...

a court would not let it stand.

And if a local court were to find it legal and it went on through the appeals process to the USC who also determined it was Constitutionally legal, oh well, there you are.

Then you could petition Congress to enact legislation to clarify the 2nd Amendment more to your liking.

Welcome to America. That's the way our legal system works. :shrug:

[slackmaster]

106. You're making an incorrect assumption here - Issue is state law, not federal

The illegality of the trigger lock requirement has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment or federal law.

The 4th Amendment presents a serious enforcement problem; and the federal "safe passage" law for people transporting firearms may gut the prohibition on possessing a gun on SF city property. Don't worry, lawsuits will be filed promptly.

But the larger issue is that California state law says only the state has the power to regulate firearms here. Other local measures have been thrown out before, for the exact same reason.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/12/MNGQ9JCVC15.DTL

Welcome to America. That's the way our legal system works.

Same goes for California. The trigger lock measure, and probably the special reporting requirement for gun dealers (of which there is only one in San Francisco), will almost certainly be thrown out.

[beevul]

108. Just a small nit...

"Then you could petition Congress to enact legislation to clarify the 2nd Amendment more to your liking."

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, congress has no direct impact in how the second amendment is interpreted. They do not have the authority to clarify things they did not author, let alone the meaning of constitutional amendments.
At times, they may apppear to take a stand, but its just grandstanding and lip service.

Not pickin a fight with ya or anything, just thought I'd mention the details. They're important. :hi:

[shance]

57. Anti gun laws in the midst of the Bush Administration - now THAT'S smart.

n/t

[xchrom]

62. ...

:applause:

[Jed Dilligan]

69. He's a slick, lying, drunken, yuppie bastard

who would rather use a dozen officers full-time to roust homeless people than solve an embarrassing backlog of gang homicides.

And then he does some damned gesture like this to look like he's done a damned thing about the problem.

He represents everything about the new SF that makes it impossible for me to live there anymore.

[qdemn7]

72. Yep, that's a good description of him.

Passing "feel-good" legislation that doesn't accomplish a fucking thing. That he KNOWS will be challenged in court, and probably lose. Like his last anti-gun bullshit. And will cost the taxpayer money to fight. All so he can make a fucking statement. :puke:

[slackmaster]

97. A majority of San Francisco's voters seem blind to his pandering

Fast-forwarding and abstracting this little Kabuki theater play:

It's an encore of Mikado Newsom's three-act tragedy in which he issued marriage licenses to a few hundred same-sex couples knowing full well the state would not allow it. Or the Proposition H handgun ban.

Act 1: With great fanfare, the Mikado boldly announces in a media event that the brave elders of the City are taking things into their own hands. By golly, they won't let the backward-thinking state of California at large force them to live under its arbitrary and capricious laws.

Act 2: The gratified voters and citizens party in the streets, celebrating their grass-roots victory over the oppressive state. The people of San Francisco will have self-determination! Flowers, music, dancing, hugs and kisses all around.

Act 3: Mikado Newsom solemnly announces that the cold, heartless machine of state government has crushed the free will of the People again. Everybody gets together and cries, group hugs for the cameras. The peasants sadly return to their workaday lives.

Gavin Newsom is the perfect demagogue for San Francisco. People seem to love this stuff. Meanwhile, the beautiful city by the bay continues to have one of the highest rates of violent crime in the state of California.

[NutmegYankee]

73. Just wrong.

Its wrong to tell owners how to store their weapon in their own home. What if someone is single and lives in a bad part of town and wants his weapon in the nightstand for protection?

It amazes me that people think gun ownership removes the owners from the protection of the 4th amendment too. There was another thread where the police chief said he'd have police break into homes to check that the law was being followed. Scary!

[SteveM]

114. I agree. The SF ordinance will fall like D.C.'s: both deny self-defense.

[cgrindley]

79. The gun lobby is not responsible for crime

what percentage of the nation's crime is committed by CCW permit holders?

[NeedleCast]

85. Oakland

Unless SF has a plan to re-locate Oakland to a location much further away, this law is going to do dick.

[hogwyld]

88. SF leads the way again!

I just wish our brothers in the legislature would have the same courage to stand up to the gun lovers. If I owned a gun, I'd have no problem with the police inspecting my residence. We need to make California a gun free zone.

[qdemn7]

109. Yup!!! Sure do!

We need to make California a gun free zone.

Just like those zealots that want to make __________ an abortion free zone. Two PEES in a mutant pod. (Pod PEEpul, that is) :spank: :grr:

[slackmaster]

91. The trigger lock requirement is unconstituational

The requirement for dealers to provide a special inventory to the PD probably is too.

State law specifically says that the power to regulate firearms in California belongs to the state. The city of SF can probably ban possession or sales on city property (no doubt there is an exception for the San Francisco PD and other government employees).

“It's essential to public safety to keep illegal guns and the criminals who use them off our streets,” said D.A. Harris.

Funny, none of these measures have anything to do with illegal guns. They're all about screwing with legally owned ones.

That's the real irony here folks: San Francisco's armed violent criminals will see this as making their jobs just a little bit easier and safer, if they care about it at all.

[NaturalHigh]

101. "We are committed to getting guns off the streets."

This law isn't going to do it. It will keep guns from some law-abiding citizens trying to protect themselves, but it won't do a thing to keep guns from criminals. Criminals don't mind gun laws. They will be happy that their intended victims are less likely to be able to fight back.

[slackmaster]

102. San Francisco had 96 homicides in 2005, and this won't do dick to reduce it

Giving it a homicide rate of 12.8 per 100,000 population, or the 27th highest crime violent rate among US cities with over 250,000 people.

By that measure, Los Angeles is a safer city than San Francisco. My city, San Diego, has about one third the crime rate of San Francisco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

[NeedleCast]

105. Which goes to show

that not all criminals are stupid.

If you're a predator, it's easier to prey on the weak than the strong.

[Aristus]

115. The practical upshot of this is that the NRA crazies have to abide by the law or else

they are no longer "law-abiding citizens" as they love to claim. B-)

[beevul]

116. There is no upside...

There is no upside to repubs saying "hey, the dems are not content just going after your guns, now they're trying to come in your house, and into your gun cabinet too", unless the repubs have to make that up.

For some reason, some Democrats are always going out of their way to make sure they don't have to.

[bleever]

117. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

Thank you.