POLIce oppose SAnf Fran handgun Ban !!!


PDA






thorn726
October 12, 2005, 03:05 PM
YES! even the police are aginst this stupid law
good article, great to see the police on our side

http://www.sfpoa.org/Journal/articles/october_05_article4.htm?id=24653

If you enjoyed reading about "POLIce oppose SAnf Fran handgun Ban !!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Henry Bowman
October 12, 2005, 03:08 PM
That will be a huge help -- if it gets reported by the MSM.

thorn726
October 12, 2005, 03:18 PM
well we're doing our best to report the heck out of it on tribe.net which is a really wide network of people, and bonus, it is full of the type of people who would vote yes, but are easily being convinced the law is a joke.

Norton
October 12, 2005, 03:21 PM
Did that really come from the police? Wow! :what:

That just goes to show you that just when you think you've got everything figured out, life can go and suprise you.

BowStreetRunner
October 12, 2005, 03:28 PM
wow!
BSR

jefnvk
October 12, 2005, 03:34 PM
While it was good, and unexpected, I did get a hint of 'it's bad because it includes off-duty and retired officers'.

Hopefully, though, that is not the message they are trying to convay.

odysseus
October 12, 2005, 03:38 PM
From their letter:
Societal Problem Not a Gun Problem
We need to look no further than across the bay in Oakland to find anecdotal evidence highlighting the need for citizens to have lifesaving options when facing violent encounters. Patrick McCullough has spent a decade reporting drug dealers to police. He is the face of the law-abiding citizen who lives with urban terror. When McCullough shot and wounded someone he believed was posing a threat to him, the Alameda County D.A.’s office found that McCullough acted in self-defense.[10] McCullough may not live in a gated community or be able to afford armed bodyguards, but he has an inalienable right to defend himself and his family.

Jeff Weise, 16, killed his grandfather, who happened to be a retired police officer, before stealing his guns and going on a killing spree on the Red Lake Indian reservation in Minnesota. “Everything that kid did that day, practically from the moment he walked out of his bedroom, was a felony,” said Joe Olson, a Hamline University law professor and president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance.

Olson concluded, “I don’t think any gun-control laws would have made a difference.”[11]

To believe that the proposed handgun ban would have an impact on handgun violence, one would have to assume that criminals would actually abide by the new law. After all, criminals are undoubtedly responsible for the high crime rates and firearm violence. Considering the very definition of a criminal, it would be hard to imagine that such enlightenment would occur. In fact, both reason and empirical research suggest that most criminals are attracted to places where they meet less resistance.

That was very refreshing to read from the city of SF! They aren't very liberty minded about citizen's rights - but they hit the right spot here.

HighVelocity
October 12, 2005, 03:40 PM
I'd be shocked if the police took any other stance.

1. Disarm all law abiding citizens
2. Violent crime in the city goes up
3. Police get blamed for increase in area crime.
4. City forced to hire more officers
5. City bankrupts itself
6. Police layoffs

Also, the way I understand it, the police would not be allowed to carry firearms off duty if this were to pass. :rolleyes:

R.H. Lee
October 12, 2005, 03:46 PM
Who cares what they do in SF? They can't even keep the bums from urinating and defecating on the streets, I don't see how they can enforce an anti handgun ordinance.

DeseoUnTaco
October 12, 2005, 03:51 PM
Great letter from the police. I commend them. I'm glad to see the mention of McCullough in their letter. He's one of a handful of people in Oakland with a CCW. He's probably the only working-class black man with a permit in Oakland. I wouldn't be surprised if he's the only working class black man to EVER have a permit in Oakland, despite the fact that lower-income blacks live in more dangerous areas and are far more likely to be targets of criminals than well-to-do white people. The letter made a point of that. Poor people have a right to life and to defend their lives, and they can't afford gated communities and they don't have bodyguards (like Mayor Newsom does).

It annoys me when I see people on this board saying such bad things about SF. Sure, there are some nuts there like Diane Feinstein, but there are also some sane and open-minded people.

By the way, on the subject of off-duty police officers: Just about the only people this law would affect would be off-duty police officers. I assume that most gun owners in SF would just ignore it, but off-duty police officers would actually have to comply with it until a court throws it out.

Carl N. Brown
October 12, 2005, 04:06 PM
:)

Carl N. Brown
October 12, 2005, 04:10 PM
If it is defeated (and hopefully when) the proponents
will tell the MSM that the mean evil gun lobby shot
down their common-sense reasonable gun bill.
No mention of San Francisco Police Officers Assn.

geekWithA.45
October 12, 2005, 05:15 PM
Almost sounds like it was written by one of us.

I wanted to point this out:

Job #1 of the second amendment is to keep would be tyrants in awe.

The role members of the police department, represented by the POA, will play in any door-to-door gun confiscation scheme is cause for concern.

Mission accomplished.

If you enjoyed reading about "POLIce oppose SAnf Fran handgun Ban !!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!