Not Paying Attention
Specifically, they would prohibit the possession or sale of firearms on city property, require firearms in residences to be in a locked container or have trigger locks and require firearm dealers to submit an inventory to the chief of police every six months.
That sounds familiar. Rather like the gun controls in DC that were recently struck down. As to why:
The violence that has been generally confined to more crime-plagued neighborhoods crossed into a major tourist area Monday afternoon, with a shooting that left one person dead and put bullet holes through the front window of a popular restaurant.
Well, you can’t go shooting tourists!
And what’s the point if … new restrictions won’t do much to stop the gun violence escalating on city streets, one sponsor of the new laws said after the vote.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:20 am
As usual, no mention of Cali’s preemption law, which almost certainly makes this ordinance unenforceable. Friscans are convinced they’re a state unto themselves.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
If it’s called ‘tourist season’, why can’t we hunt them?
Regards,
Rabbit.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Once again the “legalized version” are being accomplices to the common criminals by attacking the RKBA of law-abiding citizens.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Right: Gangster buys gun (which is illegal anywhere in the U.S.) and then submits an inventory to the police chief. Sure– its the law after all. And no doubt the police chief goes straight out and arrests said gangster. Right. Problem solved.
(I’m sure the police chief will just love getting all those inventory reports, too, being as they have nothing better to do than spend time doing MORE PAPER WORK)
If not, said gangster dutifully installs a trigger lock on his illegal gun (it is the law after all). No doubt. So when said gangster goes out to shoot someone, he won’t be able to shoot them because of the trigger lock. Rriiiggghhht.
And what is this so-called “Constitution” thingy I’ve been hearing rumors of? Do you have any proof of it?
I can see how San Fran-style “gun law” could hinder the law-abiding by preventing an effective defense against crime, but I’d like to hear from a supporter who can tell us exactly how it is supposed to hinder the criminal.
You people in San Fran are freaking geniuses, so I’m sure it would be super easy for any one of you to explain!
July 25th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Its an election year and the crime rate has spiralled up, so there will be more of this type of thing in San Francisco.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:58 am
when will people learn the bans, list, locks and what not, will not reduce crime, and it will always cause people to be less safe?
July 26th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Funny how locking up the guns does not stop the criminals…
July 26th, 2007 at 8:43 am
“
”
Or, as we call it, the volksrepublik of MA…
July 26th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
“Gun-related homicides, injuries from shootings, and gun crimes in and around schools are becoming increasingly common, according to the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice.”
And with crime admittedly on the rise what do the San Fagcisco city fathers wanna do? Prevent the honest citizens from protecting themselves! It looks like one group of crooks protecting the others…
July 27th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
This isn’t the part of the DC law that was struck down (so far). DC effectively banned all handguns. IIRC, they required all handguns be registered, but haven’t accepted any registrations since the 70’s. The district court actually read Miller, and ruled that handguns are “militia weapons” and so there is a right to keep and bear them in federal territory. How much and what sort of regulation is allowed will be worked out in future cases. Whether the states have to obey the 2nd or it only protects your right against federal law and local governments in federally administered territory is also still to be determined – the SC hasn’t looked at that issue in regard to guns since long before they worked out the doctrine by which the 14th Amendment “incorporates” the 1st, 4th, etc. to affect the states. (Not that I can see any reason whatsoever that the 2nd should be treated differently, but hey, six of the Justices think that something you grow in your own garden to smoke yourself is in interstate commerce…)