Yay San Francisco!!! And it begins...


PDA






sharpie613
December 15, 2004, 08:49 PM
From the city you just love to hate....


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20041216/ap_on_re_us/gun_ban

SAN FRANCISCO - City residents will vote next year on a proposed weapons ban that would deny handguns to everyone except law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards.

If you enjoyed reading about "Yay San Francisco!!! And it begins..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Graystar
December 15, 2004, 08:51 PM
I was upset at this until I realized it would boost the murder rate.

R.H. Lee
December 15, 2004, 08:55 PM
If passed next November, residents would have 90 days to give up firearms they keep in their homes or businesses.
Yeah, well good luck with that. pffft.

hartzpad
December 15, 2004, 09:00 PM
I grew up in the East Bay and I currently go to school in Utah (where everything is legal). I love everything about CA except the cost of living and the politics. If I can't find a decent job in UT, there are plenty in CA and if I ever have to move back to CA, I will pledge to do all I can to raise hell with the anti-gun liberals there. News stories like this just make my blood boil! Why do they think that criminals will follow such a ban? Look at DC! Then again, this is the city whose District Attorney would not seek the death penalty against the guy that murdered a cop with an illegal AK47 and the same city which elected Gavin "Gayboy" Newsom. I swear, they better hope that I don't ever have to move back there because I will try to be the biggest thorn in their side. I would try and band all the "real" Californians from their honest homes outside of the coastal areas and fight for the rights that they should have. Kudos to guys like Jim March for doing all they do.

hartzpad
December 15, 2004, 09:03 PM
"How many residents would be affected by the ban is unclear, since California does not require residents to register handguns that are kept in a private residence of business."

CA doesn't require residents to register handguns?

What is this from the CA DOJ website?


Any person who moves into California and who brings any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is considered to be a "Personal Handgun Importer" and is required to do one of the following within 60 days:

Complete and submit a NEW RESIDENT HANDGUN OWNERSHIP REPORT form along with $19.00 to the Department of Justice. A separate report form and $19.00 fee is required for each handgun reported. NEW RESIDENT HANDGUN OWNERSHIP REPORT forms can be obtained from California Department of Motor Vehicles' offices, licensed firearms dealers, local police and sheriff's departments, the California Department of Justice Firearms Division at (916) 263-4887, and from the Online Forms Page at this site.


Sell or transfer the handgun(s) to a California licensed firearms dealer or to another individual using a California licensed firearms dealer to conduct the transaction.
or


Sell or transfer the handgun(s) to a California police or sheriff's department. Persons choosing this option should contact the law enforcement agency for instructions prior to transporting the handgun(s) to the agency.

gbran
December 15, 2004, 09:16 PM
I don't live in SF, but go there often. My ccw is unrestricted, and while my home county issued it, this permit is a state permit. I assume this means SF will trump the state (and the constitution) and won't allow anybody to posess or carry in their fine city.

50 Freak
December 15, 2004, 09:20 PM
It won't happen, imagine SF having to compensate all of us gun owners in SF for their weapons. They cannot force everyone to give up their guns without compensating them. It will bankrupt the freaking city even more than it already is. FRUCKING STUPID POLITICIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Getting close to the point where I will start doing my voting from the rooftops.

Note to self...stockpile more ammo. Buy more guns!!!!!!!!!!!!

tyme
December 15, 2004, 09:29 PM
hartzpad, new purchases are recorded/registered, and people moving into California (technically) have to register their handguns, but there might be a loophole where guns that were in CA before the registration scheme began never had to be registered.

R.H. Lee
December 15, 2004, 09:33 PM
but there might be a loophole where guns that were in CA before the registration scheme began never had to be registered.
There is. ;)

Compliance is the issue. The more restrictive the law the lower the rate of compliance. They won't get a majority to 'turn in' their handguns. Ain't gonna happen. They can pass all the blissninny laws they want. There still will be crimes committed with handguns. Some of those 'crimes' will be the 'unlawful' possession of a handgun by a citizen using it in defense of his life. :(

Michigander
December 15, 2004, 09:36 PM
Hey, as long as it never amounts to confiscation, what's the harm?


:mad:

R.H. Lee
December 15, 2004, 10:17 PM
btt

sharpie613
December 15, 2004, 11:34 PM
What's really scary is that despite all evidence to the contrary, the city still thinks this is a good idea. And, it opens up the door for Oakland and Richmond to enact their own bans, and from there, to spread like a cancer to the rest of the Bay, which is one third of the voters of the state.

San Francisco is just dumb enough to vote for such a thing, too. :banghead:

Standing Wolf
December 15, 2004, 11:43 PM
San Francisco is just dumb enough to vote for such a thing, too.

Not only vote for it, but vote for it with great, loud pride.

http://www.yellowtruck.com

Jim Diver
December 15, 2004, 11:49 PM
SF tried this about 15-20 years ago under Fienswine. It was struck down by the courts as the city did not have the right to do such things.

It's gonna go no where.

Stickjockey
December 15, 2004, 11:50 PM
SW, is that link supposed to lead to the Budget Rent-a-truck site?

Sindawe
December 15, 2004, 11:51 PM
I suspect that the SF Supv. have been smoking those flowers instead of wearing them in their hair.

wasrjoe
December 16, 2004, 12:05 AM
SW, is that link supposed to lead to the Budget Rent-a-truck site?

SW is kindly suggesting to the poster he quoted that he or she move.

QuarterBoreGunner
December 16, 2004, 12:19 AM
hartzpad- same city which elected Gavin "Gayboy" Newsom.
Totally unnecessary dude. You want to make cheap shots, great, but it adds nothing to the overall conversation and cheapens whatever valid points you might have to make.

Just saying.

As for this... unpleasant idea being floated by our intrepid board of supes... well I've already voiced my opinion over on www.calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net). Legally it will never fly so I'm not over concerned by it, it's just a fuzzy feel good symbolic gesture. Which I will pointedly ingnore no matter what the outcome.

hartzpad
December 16, 2004, 12:23 AM
By "Gayboy" I was referring to how he never mentioned his intentions in his campaign, got elected and out of nowhere declares that gay marriage is now legal in S.F.

sharpie613
December 16, 2004, 12:29 AM
SW-

As soon as the lady and I can save up enough money to move, we are headed to Seattle. The taxation rates here are atrocious, and I don't like the idea of being a criminal for what's in my safe.

Seattle is just hippie enough for the lady and friendly enough to things that go bang for me, and the weather is amenable to both of us. I can't see raising a family and not be able to protect them.

torpid
December 16, 2004, 12:38 AM
By "Gayboy" I was referring to how he never mentioned his intentions in his campaign, got elected and out of nowhere declares that gay marriage is now legal in S.F.

Yeah, imagine trying to institute gay marriage in San Francisco of all places!!!

Totally out of nowhere! :rolleyes:

(joshin')

Zundfolge
December 16, 2004, 12:52 AM
SW is kindly suggesting to the poster he quoted that he or she move.
That or rent a truck and get some fertilizer and some diesel and ... nevermind :evil:

odysseus
December 16, 2004, 01:14 AM
SF tried this about 15-20 years ago under Fienswine. It was struck down by the courts as the city did not have the right to do such things.

Help me understand this though, are not handguns illegal in Washington DC? Isn't there then a precidence for this kind of ban?

Of course DC's ban is a big fat joke since crime has increased even since it's inception...

Sindawe
December 16, 2004, 01:33 AM
DC is Federal property. NOT a State or Territory.

SIGarmed
December 16, 2004, 02:06 AM
By "Gayboy" I was referring to how he never mentioned his intentions in his campaign, got elected and out of nowhere declares that gay marriage is now legal in S.F.

Not to mention brushing off California law because what he was doing wasn't even legal. It was a symbolic thing don't you see and they're the only ones who can break the law and get away with it don't you know. Typical leftists only screaming about pushing their extremist agenda.

Maybe a pro-gun mayor somwhere in California should start issuing CCW to everyone who wants them, or better yet allow the sale of assault weapons in town.

One can only wish.

stv
December 16, 2004, 02:14 AM
It'll never fly, but I'm going to write all sorts of letters starting tonight.

Rumpled
December 16, 2004, 03:29 AM
SIGarmed sayeth
"Maybe a pro-gun mayor somwhere in California should start issuing CCW to everyone who wants them, or better yet allow the sale of assault weapons in town. "

Not so many years ago, the police chief of Isleton issued CCW's to pretty much anyone qualified under the law, even residents of other jurisdictions. So many, that it was more than the population of said armpit. This PO'd many other chiefs and sheriffs - now you can only get a CCW in the jurisdiction that you live in, and the mayor has nothing to do with it.

stv
December 16, 2004, 07:26 AM
Some more info:

Here's the text of the decision that struck down the 1982 ban:

link (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/doe_v_san_francisco.txt)

Good reading there. SSDD.

El Rojo
December 16, 2004, 09:55 AM
It is pretty simple really. You just use the tactic they are already using in making the guns illegal, but allowing current residents to register their firearms and not bring anymore in or transfer ownership within the city. I could only imagine the cost to the city to make a database and do registration. Maybe one of you pro-gunners can get that new job and be the worst employee the City of SF has ever had!

Now why are the mini-handgun bans in LA and other places good while this supposedly will be against the law? Is it all firearms vs. just evil class?

The good news is this will never spread beyond the cities. Rural California would never go for it on a local level and on the state level it would be too much at once.

Graystar
December 16, 2004, 10:12 AM
Here's the text of the decision that struck down the 1982 ban:It has been my experience that Democrats pay no attention to the lessons of history. They think that every idea they have is new and untried...and will work as planned. It’s one of their great fallacies.

LAR-15
December 16, 2004, 11:56 AM
How many CCW permits are there in San Fran?

And would Sean Penn be exempted by this ban?

alcmaeon
December 16, 2004, 02:09 PM
"It'll never fly, but I'm going to write all sorts of letters starting tonight.
__________________
Why aren't you on calguns.net? "


That's just it though, the voters WILL vote it up in SF, than you have to fight it in court and what happens if you get a Judge who has the same anti-gun agenda who decides to make new case history and supports the ban? Better that in never makes it to law but if any city in the are outside Berkeley could pass this crap it is SF.

bill2
December 16, 2004, 02:13 PM
How many CCW permits are there in San Fran?

And would Sean Penn be exempted by this ban?
___________________________

Sean Penn lives in Marin County, just north of S.F, on the other side of the Golden Gate bridge. and besides, you know he's one of the intellegentsia, so he shouldn't have to be restricted by any gun laws. (major major sarcasm here).

Wildalaska
December 16, 2004, 02:29 PM
Make an interesting issue for SCOTUS

WildplottinandscheminAlaska

carebear
December 16, 2004, 02:53 PM
See people, THIS is why the Jews run everything. They take the LOOOOOOONG view. ;)

Russ
December 16, 2004, 04:21 PM
When DI Fi was Mayor or what ever she was in SF, they tried this also. The law was struck down because they said this was a State matter and handguns could not be banned by the city. I bet it will fly through now and none of the liberal judges will make any attempt to over turn it.

Too bad really. SF is one of the most beautiful cities in the US. They just need to move most of the people out and re-populate the city with normal thinking people.

I'm not holding my breath. :rolleyes:

stv
December 16, 2004, 04:21 PM
Sean Penn got his permit from Marin County, not SF. IIRC he lives in Marin County.

I don't know whether non-residents will be exempted while visiting - but we'll find out.

Nehemiah Scudder
December 16, 2004, 04:30 PM
It's a general vote, right?

If it passes won't it be the "will of the people"?

It'll be interesting to see how the vote turns out.

odysseus
December 16, 2004, 04:38 PM
It's a general vote, right?

To me this is still a second amendment issue. Take all the emotional misinformation out of their debate, and still they have nothing. So if Atlanta Georgia decides through a vote of their people to legalize slavery, is that ok? No. It's unconstitutional, and so is banning legally obtained and owned firearms. It smacks of socialist facism. Call what it is. This is no joke to me. :barf:

BB62
December 16, 2004, 04:55 PM
"How many CCW permits are there in San Fran?"

According to the article mentioned, 10 WHOLE PERMITS have been issued!!!

Yippee!! :-\

Can someone tell me how to quote a previous post?


BB62

Nehemiah Scudder
December 16, 2004, 04:56 PM
I wouldn't vote "yes" on it, but I have to admit that I largely don't care about it.

It's their business. It'll get worked out in the courts I'm sure no matter how the vote turns out.

66gt350
December 16, 2004, 06:56 PM
gbran wrote:

My ccw invalid in SF?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't live in SF, but go there often. My ccw is unrestricted, and while my home county issued it, this permit is a state permit. I assume this means SF will trump the state (and the constitution) and won't allow anybody to posess or carry in their fine city.

I was at my local gun shop today and the topic came up. He said that in San Fran that it is illegal to carry concealed weapons, eventhough the permit is valid in the entire state of California. If you are caught you are in violation of either city or county law, I don't recall. And they will confiscate your weapon and CCW permit and mail it to the issuing offical. The you have to go and explain why you were packing and maybe you'll get your gun and/or permit back. And you will probably have to face the judge.

that's just one more reason, why i'll never go there!!

50 Freak
December 16, 2004, 07:16 PM
I don't know if your info is correct. A CCW issued in ********** is good for the entire state of **********. I know as I have one and carry is quite often in SF. No run in with the SFPD yet (knock on wood). But I'm not too worried about it. Even they have to follow the laws of the land.

66gt350
December 16, 2004, 07:35 PM
I'm pretty sure that my info is correct. This was the second time, and from to indepent and reliable sources. The other was during the CCW course. The instructor said the exact same thing about carrying in SF.

Standing Wolf
December 16, 2004, 07:36 PM
It has been my experience that Democrats pay no attention to the lessons of history. They think that every idea they have is new and untried...and will work as planned. It’s one of their great fallacies.

If leftist extremists were capable of learning from mistakes, they'd grow up and become Libertarians or Republicans.

big poppa
December 16, 2004, 08:29 PM
san francisco= stupid stinking tree hugging hippies !
this town needs to be flushed into the bay :banghead:

QuarterBoreGunner
December 16, 2004, 09:31 PM
My city is so much fun... I don't even know where to begin.

And 66gt350- you are incorrect. As a resident of San Francisco AND a ccw holder, I can tell you that whoever told you that is full of it:
1) the permit is issued through the Department of Justice and is good ANYWHERE in the state, with the exception of Federal Property. Other than that, you're good to go.
and
2)such a practice as you describe would so illegal that it doesn't even bear discussing.

Now I have to go write some letters...

schizrade
December 16, 2004, 11:55 PM
You have a CCW in SF?! How the hell did you get one!! :eek:

50 Freak
December 17, 2004, 12:20 AM
He almost had to get killed. I'm not joking. :what:

I got mine through more easier ways.

Fiero
December 17, 2004, 01:17 AM
Quarter,

I have to take issue with a possible blanket inference that municipalities don't pass laws of this type, which seem to stand. Some may interpret your response to mean that municipalities don't have misdemeanors that can nail you, and your firearm.

A neighboring city to mine prohibits any public carrying of firearms within the city limits. To conceal is of course against state law, and open simple display is equated to brandishing in this jurisdiction. Their "ace in the hole" is that you are unlikely to have the resources to fight the confiscation of your firearm, and if you did, so what? You would be in the vast minority, and they would still enforce it to all others with lesser means.

It stinks, it really does. A local gun shop won't even sell open belt holsters that the city finds would be "too concealing" or "too open". I had to go directly to the manufacturer on one occasion and appeal that they would not buy-then sell to me a particular model which simply "displays too much of the weapon".

I'm not saying that it is right. I'm saying that these little peon "townships" do adopt old tombstone-like "no guns in town" laws that they will enforce, by force.

El Rojo
December 17, 2004, 01:32 AM
Yeah, my CCW instructor and the county sheriff issuer said that the permit is good state wide and only warned me about carrying out of state. And that is why I like having a CCW from Kern County. Let the liberals cry all they want, I am packing!

JoeSF
December 17, 2004, 02:27 AM
San Francisco is sayng that their state charter allows them to make special laws to deal with special situations. To avoid conflict with state law they are going ot allow transients to posess handguns within city limits, but not residents. (Thats what is supposed to have messed up the Feinstein law.)
If this vioaltion of the constituion were to be upheld why wouldn't it set a precedent for other communities and maybe other issues?
Maybe a conservative community that considers abortion murder for instance will argue that its residents can not receive abortions in the city limits. I wonder if liberals are anxious to deal with a Roe vs Wade challange in the supreme court?

Strings
December 17, 2004, 09:00 AM
Regarding cities passing misdeamenor laws (and enforcing them against those with "lesser means"): why couldn't a large number of Cali residents purposely push the issue, and then file a class-action suit? Maybe I'm just being ignorant here, but it seems to me the idea would have SOME merit...

66gt350
December 17, 2004, 04:44 PM
Thanks QuarterBoreGunner for the correction. That is what i was told both at the CCW class and the local gun shop. I guess it's time to find a new shop that have their facts straight!!

Thanks

USAFNoDAk
December 17, 2004, 05:09 PM
It has been my experience that Democrats pay no attention to the lessons of history. They think that every idea they have is new and untried...and will work as planned. It’s one of their great fallacies.

The reason for this is elitism. In their minds, history did not have TODAY'S liberals and democrats to implement the ideas that they continually come up with. Just like people who continue to think communism is a workable society, despite the massive failure of the Soviet Union to create a utopia. Liberals just think that if THEY could be in charge, communism or socialism would be everything THEY promise it could be. Elitist fools are THEY, mostly. Legends in their own minds as well.

QuarterBoreGunner
December 17, 2004, 09:40 PM
schizrade- Ah...yeah, my application process was, shall we say, NOT the preferred method.

Fiero- I'll stipulate that you are correct in the caprice of city governments, small children and stray dogs... never know quite what they're going to do. But in my experience with SF LEOs, I’ve never endured a situation like 66gt350 described. Of course, I’ve never been made by LEO either, so there you go. Perhaps, SFs reputation as the far far far left, deepest pocket of blue in an already blue state, causes the anecdotal stories of gun store lore.

Yeah, it’s pretty weird here, I’ll grant you that, but it’s my home and I love it. Freaks and all it’s what I’ve known all my life and I think I’d be bored anywhere else. And if this bizarro law passes… I may have to begin that life of crime that the movies and TV make look so glamorous… though I was really hoping to be an International Jewel Thief™ I’d call myself the Pink Panther. What? Already been done? Darnit.

Nightfall
December 17, 2004, 11:47 PM
One way or another, this'll be interesting...

R.H. Lee
December 17, 2004, 11:50 PM
I wonder if a city could outlaw democrats from residing or doing business within city limits.

dartman
December 18, 2004, 03:34 AM
Sharpie613
Quote
"As soon as the lady and I can save up enough money to move, we are headed to Seattle. The taxation rates here are atrocious, and I don't like the idea of being a criminal for what's in my safe."
I don't know if Seattle is much better, but a little further east in the Snoqualmie Valley, things are a little more laid back. Why, I even know the names of every person on my street. And after living in a few places in Kali, this was a pleasent switch.
Plus we have a nice little range just down the road. :D

Langenator
December 18, 2004, 06:14 AM
While Seattle itself may be polically as blue as SF (I mean, they do send that McDermott freak to Congress every other year), state law pre-empts any local gun laws.

Good things can happen when the rest of the state gangs up on Seattle.

LadySmith
December 18, 2004, 06:30 AM
SAF BLASTS PROPOSED SAN FRANCISCO
HANDGUN BAN – 'WE BEAT THAT IN 1982'
Calling it an "ill-considered return visit of anti-gun bigotry," the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today blasted plans to put a handgun ban on the November 2005 ballot in San Francisco, California, reminding proponents of the measure that such a ban was declared illegal when first tried in 1982.

"This issue was decided by the California courts more than 22 years ago, and the gun ban extremists lost," recalled SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "Why some city supervisors want to waste the time, and money, of voters to revisit an issue that was unanimously trounced by the State Court of Appeals makes no sense. Even if the ban were to pass, it will not hold up in court."

In late June 1982, then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein pushed through a handgun ban in San Francisco that lasted only three months before it was overturned by the California State Court of Appeals. Twenty days after the ban was enacted, SAF took Feinstein and the city to court, ultimately beating the ban on Oct. 30 of that year. The city appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court, which allowed the Appeals Court ruling to stand in January 1983.

SAF is already in contact with the San Francisco Chapter of the Pink Pistols, a gay gun rights group, which opposes the ban.

Tom Boyer, spokesman for the San Francisco Pink Pistols said, "It grieves me that our board of supervisors would sacrifice the basic human right of self defense, depriving those who are the least physically able to defend themselves, for political gain."

"It is incredible," Gottlieb added, "that in a city where the government has supposedly taken a lead in defending individual rights and freedoms, it is still considered acceptable to practice social bigotry, so long as gun owners are the victims. This may come as a shock to the moral inquisitors in San Francisco, but gun owners have civil rights, too, just like any other social group. Those civil rights are not up for grabs at the whims of the Board of Supervisors, or even the popular vote. We fought this battle once, and we're not afraid to fight it again."

atek3
December 18, 2004, 11:00 AM
I can't wait to see the Pink Pistols get fired up over this.
I'm not worried about the ban.

atek3

wolf
December 18, 2004, 02:55 PM
LA already has a "small" handgun ban in place and is working on a total ban..it would pass in a hearbeat here..special intrests run this city..and only the remaining money/power that oppose certain issues supported by the city council , which is made up of a former LAPD chief and the mayor who is very "anti" and others, mostly liberal & extream liberal..downplay any opposition to their will..with 500+ homicides last year they have alot of support for a total ban.

say it aint so wolf..say it cant happen here..

ok kids..wolf aint goin to lie to ya..but consider this..really

LA banned silly string

wolf

55645
December 18, 2004, 11:05 PM
Not only are handgun bans possible, they are getting fairly common in northern Illinois. It is illegal to own or possess a handgun in the towns of Morton Grove, Evanston and Oak Park. In Chicago, all handguns must be registered and no new registrations will be accepted after March 1978.

Strings
December 19, 2004, 03:14 AM
55645: no new registrations WILL be accepted after March '78? Dude... where's the time machine you're using? :D

thorn726
December 20, 2004, 04:44 AM
now i see what all the talk is about-
well this is crazy-
First- already we have this problem of peeple gunnig down cops with
AK-47s, now criminals will HAVE to find these big guns. great.
i wonder will it pass, i think maybe , then struck down.

but for the people who are cursing democrats, flushing SF down the toilet, etc.
HEY- give them the right to do what they want.
YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAA-
you know what???????
we dont want you coming here shutting down our whorehouses (cough , i mean strip clubs. no i dont, i mean brothels. hehe)
and i dont think you want them or the thousands of BoYs or
the Drag queens or the rest of em.
with all these states and towns to live in, pick one that suits you nad be happy.
i fell its highly likely that most of the people suggesting death to hippies etc
go to church on sunday.
are you really supposed to hate on those you dont agree with?
or just leave them be and go your own way?

if those rubes want to toss their guns , they can.
rest assured, SF is not all of CA.

i dont like the idea either, but unfortunately i can see them passing this nonsense.
maybe i'll register in SF just to vote against it. not hard from here.
i am way more upset at the idea that much more powerful politicians continously
relate their right to bear arms with Hunting?!?!? insane.

the frustrating one is you guys who could carry in state and then one city you can't.
BUT= i am a night owl, i'm only moderately threatening white guy, and i walk around the tenderlion late at night. rather watch real life , its interesting.
SF is a very not dangerous city. you really have to look hard to find the areas people might even shoot at you, and the odds of being mugged = LOW
attacked for no reason = VERY low.
put the darn thing in your trunk and calm down, stop looking for trouble.
in 10 years of street crawling the closest i have come to being seeing a gun used is hearing stories, seeing small cal wounds over total nonsense between idiots who knew each other.

Heh - if you are a jewelery dealer or something, just carry a BIg gun i guess.

Gray Peterson
January 2, 2005, 09:25 PM
and i dont think you want them or the thousands of BoYs or
the Drag queens or the rest of em.

Excuse me, but I think you're forgetting something.

Not every gay man or lesbian is anti-gun. See the San Fran Pink Pistols? Guess who might actually file the lawsuit against the city?

So stop painting people with broad brushes, mmmkay?

Don Gwinn
January 2, 2005, 09:52 PM
Hunter, he make small joke-like object. . . . but that IS the law in Chicago.

When the ban was passed, it was feared that a ban would be struck down. So they phrased it as a registration law, then simply declared that no one can register a gun in Chicago. That continues to this day, but they did allow a short amnesty period in the '90's.

Strings
January 2, 2005, 09:58 PM
Don... I know. Almost got caught in the trap that is the Chicago area (thankfully, we moved out). I just had to giggle at the phrasing...

Of course, "small, joke type object" could be used to describe Little Dick, too, couldn't it? Granted, a very BAD joke, but still a joke...

Maybe the old man SHOULD have let mom beat the tar out of him...

schizrade
January 2, 2005, 10:42 PM
the frustrating one is you guys who could carry in state and then one city you can't.
BUT= i am a night owl, i'm only moderately threatening white guy, and i walk around the tenderlion late at night. rather watch real life , its interesting.
SF is a very not dangerous city. you really have to look hard to find the areas people might even shoot at you, and the odds of being mugged = LOW
attacked for no reason = VERY low.
put the darn thing in your trunk and calm down, stop looking for trouble.
in 10 years of street crawling the closest i have come to being seeing a gun used is hearing stories, seeing small cal wounds over total nonsense between idiots who knew each other.

Yet you live in Berkeley. Please. :fire: Tenderloin is full of junkies and prostitutes at night. Great way to ignore reality.

Try Mission (16th->Army St. and Mission St.-> Portrero), Excelsior, Ingleside, Hunters Point, Sunnydale/Visitacion Valley. Try living and working around 24th and Capp or coming home late at night past Sunnydale Housing projects. Ever seen a broad daylight ass beating with a baseball bat? Ever seen a guy pull a gun on a chick for not giving him her phone number? Ever watched a group of 5-10 men pull another off of a Street Car and drag him into the nearest house? Ever been attacked by a straight-up junkie for some money or your coffee? Ever had a Cop not care and 911 put you on hold when there is somebody outside of your door beating on it? Ever seen a city bus shot full of holes from 16 year old kids? I have lived here 2.5 years and I have experienced and seen all of this. That means it is common enough if you live and work or even pass through the areas listed above that you will see and experience these things too.

Hard to get shot? Sure. Not a lot of shootings here compared to Oakland.

Hard to get beat and robbed? No way.

thorn726
January 3, 2005, 06:29 AM
Excuse me, but I think you're forgetting something.

Not every gay man or lesbian is anti-gun. See the San Fran Pink Pistols? Guess who might actually file the lawsuit against the city?

no no you didnt get that correctly.

what i was saying is that we have some crazy weird people here who make crazy laws, that most of the people complaining about Californians wouldnt want to be here, and we don't want to go there, so why worry about what one crazy city does.
SF is NOT CA in general . not even close. THere are some very different people here.

i am not suggesting gays are pro gun or not, simply that the people complaining about SF laws would probably FREAK if we had the Folsom street fair in their town.
things are different here.
REality- SF is full of gUn lovers, they just don't vote and arentlegally allowed to own guns.
i say it again, the whole thing is senseless. pistols are just barely the weapon of choice on the street.

thorn726
January 3, 2005, 06:47 AM
Hard to get shot? Sure. Not a lot of shootings here compared to Oakland.

Hard to get beat and robbed? No way.

oh no man, i hear you there, and there are beatings handed out in oakland as well, often for the crime of being too light. happens all the time
and i definitely stay on guard in the mission. my main point was did i ever need to defend myself with a GUN in ELEVEN years of living around here,
NO. , most of it on or very near the streets of SF.
have i seen some of the things you mention=
sure, not as bad, but yes.
would you pulling out a .357 helped any of these scenes you describe?
very questionable .

BUT= these are all drug related idiots pummeling each other, not attacking the general public, outside of the bus incident.
and what good does your pistol do in that situation ? none.
sounds like a job for a RPG

the point i was making there was more that unless you are one of these idiots shooting dope, or are totally not paying attetion, its pretty easy to avoid being more than a bystander.
i know, you guys carry just in case of the super sick nut, i hear you.

really schiz i dont know how your post is related to the issue of pistols in SF

bobby68
January 3, 2005, 04:48 PM
Why should the nuts in San Francisco be left alone to destroy that city? it is a beautiful city and i bet there are a lot of folks who live there who do not like to see this political nonsense. What about their inalienable rights?

And worse, political activists don't just live and let live. they have to shove that garbage onto their neighbors too and we all know this. Look at Feinstein... U.S. Senator whose nonsense affects the whole country... I did not vote for her, or Boxer... who let them in the driver's seat? That's right, it's those clowns in San Francisco.

And the example where a girl refused to give her phone number only to have a gun pulled on her.. was she a doper? what if that were your daughter, or your wife?

I find it hard to take you seriously when you downplay the serious danger if being thrown to these wolves and being forced to break the law to protect yourself.

If you enjoyed reading about "Yay San Francisco!!! And it begins..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!