[orangeninja]

What are all the handgun owners supposed to do with these? What about gunshops? Are there any in San Fran? Is owning a handgun going to be a misdemeanor or felony?

[KriegHund]

The police will recieve registration records, and will use these to go door to door once the deadline aproaches.

The police will then melt them down, sell them, or keep them.

My bet would be felony.

[whm1974]

The police will recieve registration records, and will use these to go door to door once the deadline aproaches.

How many people who live in SF who own guns? Not everyone has registrater thier guns, or all of thier guns.

-Bill

[30Cal]

The city has no access to state or federal firearms records.

[Standing Wolf]

The city has no access to state or federal firearms records.

Yeah, and I've got a bridge in the San Francisco Bay area to sell you.

[wingnutx]

Yay, free drop-guns for every officer!

[ElTacoGrande]

There was a quote in one of the articles that there were 220,000 handguns sold in SF in the last ten years. Assume that that's accurate (and disregarding guns that left or guns that are more than ten years old) and that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter of a million handguns in the city.

If they really did want to enforce this law, even if everyone complied with it, they would have to hire dozens of new police officers just to process all these guns. There are about 2,000 working hours in a year. Let's say that (given processing overhead, etc) a cop working on this full-time can process two guns per hour, or 4,000 guns per year. That means it will take 62 man-years to process all these guns! That's with every gun owner happily consenting to it and bringing his guns in. So if they hope to complete this monumental task within one year they need to hire 62 more cops, at a cost to taxpayers of somewhere around SIX MILLION DOLLARS!

Now, if, say, a thousand gun owners do not comply, and must be arrested and must get jury trials (which cost about $1mil @) the city will need to spend ONE BILLION DOLLARS on this ban. To achieve that, the city would need to sell it's gold-domed city hall and basically all of its other assets in the city (including streets).

Oh and the NRA is suing also (thank you NRA). So, in the absolute best case, the city will spend about $3mil defending the lawsuit and then another $6mil to just collect all the damn things, so in the very very best case of total compliance they are out almost $10mil.

Meanwhile non-residents can buy guns as always, and can in fact possess them in the city without problems. And cops can't take their duty guns home with them.

THERE YOU HAVE IT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! THAT IS SENSIBLE GUN CONTROL, TO QUOTE SUPERVISOR CHRIS DALY!

[PressCheck]

Do you think that a person with an "Unrestricted" Kalifornia CCW can legally carry in San Francisco?

[Old Fuff]

It will be interesting to see what happens.

If S.F. residents turn their guns into the police, the numbers should be reported by the media.

If they choose to sell their guns there thould be a big upswing in the used gun market within the area, as well as auction sites.

And if neither happens it means they are telling the local government to go shove it ... :eek: :evil:

[ArmedBear]

Have you read the text of the law?

Residents of San Francisco can't have handguns in SF. But they can have them in South SF, or Alameda, or wherever. People with half a brain will just leave them at a friend's house or a storage unit (I'll bet ranges in neighboring towns will make a few bucks off this) until this blows over.

Non-residents of San Francisco CAN have handguns in SF. Seriously.

There's no reason for anyone to surrender anything, and I doubt anyone will, except perhaps some idiot hippie who turns in her (or his, I guess) spouse's gun, in anger.

It's utterly bizarre, and frankly, I think it has always been leftie posturing for the MoveOn peaceniks, not a law even intended to work.

[ElTacoGrande]

Non-residents of San Francisco CAN have handguns in SF. Seriously.

Non-residents with CCWs can pack in SF. Off-duty SF cops can't though. I wonder what this will do to CCW issuance in the city? I haven't thought through the implications. That may be another reason why the police opposed this. It could have some implications for forcing SF to start issuing a lot of permits would could backfire on them in a big way down the road (discriminatory issuance).
It's utterly bizarre, and frankly, I think it has always been leftie posturing for the MoveOn peaceniks, not a law even intended to work.
Clearly. That's the correct analysis of this nonsense.

[wingnutx]

Collect or not, this will be another felony to tack on if you are ever found with a gun in any situation.

[wingnutx]

leftie posturing for the MoveOn peaceniks, not a law even intended to work.

That describes liberalism in a nutshell.

[Old Fuff]

I agree that it's not likely many residents will turn in their guns, or sell them. What they will do is hide them. Then it will be interesting to see is how anti-gun liberals react when that happens, and their feel-good law isn't working.

Left-wing moonbeam types are big on symbols and symbolism. To them guns are a symbolic representation of violence, so within their pea-sized brains to attack guns is to fight the concept of violence. Right now they are feeling all warm and fuzzy. But we shall see ... :evil:

[CAnnoneer]

Now, if, say, a thousand gun owners do not comply, and must be arrested and must get jury trials (which cost about $1mil @) the city will need to spend ONE BILLION DOLLARS on this ban. To achieve that, the city would need to sell it's gold-domed city hall and basically all of its other assets in the city (including streets).

Oh and the NRA is suing also (thank you NRA). So, in the absolute best case, the city will spend about $3mil defending the lawsuit and then another $6mil to just collect all the damn things, so in the very very best case of total compliance they are out almost $10mil.


Excellent! Let the leftist fools pay with their checkbooks. It is called "stupidity tax". Sadly, the opponents of the ban will have to pay too...

[DRZinn]

Guns? What guns? Those were stolen a year ago!

[Hockeydude]

Can people in SF still have rifles? Or all arms were banned?

[45Badger]

Land of fruits and nuts. My mother's cousins up in Novato (with children and grandchildren in SF) are probably toking up to celebrate their new-found safety.:barf:

[Travis Lee]

Sure, tell the SF government to stick it....

If you live in SF are you going to keep your gun available to shoot a burglar?

Knowing the police will arrest you and the DA will prosecute you for posession of a gun even as he drops the gun charge on the burglar to get his testimony AGAINST you?

Even if this is struck down in California Supreme Court, would YOU want to live in San Francisco?

Any gun owner who still lives in San Francisco is a fool.

--Travis--

[mnrivrat]

Can people in SF still have rifles? Or all arms were banned?

If I read it correctly they can still have long guns , but they can't sell guns of any nature within the city, can't sell ammo , or manufacture guns.

So that would put all retail business of guns and ammo out of the business of selling those products, and make residents have to go somewhere else to purchase ammo or firearms of any nature. Only handguns will be outright banned.

[SteelEye]

As far as I remember there was only a single gun shop in the city, somewhere out in the Mission. It was a once famous gun shop owned by a renowned bullseye shooter (sorry, his name escapes me) and taken over by a bunch of Asians. Don't know if they still have the shop or if it closed. Wasn't in the best of neighborhoods.

You cannot buy any firearm component with the city limits...as far as I know.

[QuickDraw]

I seem to recall that the grabbers tried to shut down
the Cow Palace gunshow.They failed.Well,maybe not
now.Is the Cow palace in S.F. or South S.F.?

QuickDraw

[No_Brakes23]

If you live in SF are you going to keep your gun available to shoot a burglar?

Uh, simple solution...
http://www.remingtonle.com/images/shotguns/870pmax.jpg

Duh!

I don't support this stupid ban by any means, and as a handgun owner, I would have to move if I lived up there. I would find a safe legal place for my pistols until I could move.

But thinking you can't defend yourself without a handgun is just silly.

Those of you talking about "liberals" banning things are killing me.:D

[Borachon]

Easiest way to get people to turn in their guns is to remind them what will happen if they are caught with them at a traffic stop. A simple speeding ticket will become a 20,000 dollar fine....or time in jail. 95% of people will then take their pistols and sell them in the best manner to get them out of town. Local towns, out in the country...whereever. But there will be some REAL bargins being posted on Gunbroker from San Francisco in the next few weeks. Check me if I'm wrong on this. Sucks to say this...but some of us who come to this board may benefit greatly when they start selling those guns at bargain basement prices. You can't have 300,000 plus guns hit the streets and expect every pawnshop in a 100 mile radius to absorb them all.

Some people won't know any better and they will end up turning in their guns to the police....thinking that they didn't have a choice to sell them out of state. But there won't be as many as people would think. Handling the volume of guns turned in won't be a problem.

After that, the 5% that will keep their guns will have to worry about being arrested on some other minor charge. Most will eventually dispose of their guns out of state or outside of town. Maybe 1% will keep theirs.

[Borachon]

Then it will be interesting to see is how anti-gun liberals react when that happens, and their feel-good law isn't working.


I think the exact opposite will happen. We gun owners are about to get a real education on what happens when the government steps up and says, "Play times over."

I think MOST people will turn in their guns. The outlaws, criminals, and assorted "gun nuts" (ie...people like us):D will be the only ones who keep their guns. I think it's much more likely people are going to SCRAMBLE to sell their guns before the time comes to turn them over to Big Papa G.

Americans are mostly law abiding. I love this country for that reason. At the same time, I fear for this country for that reason.

Some laws just aren't Just.

[bjbarron]

It has been said that America is a land where any law you can pass is enforced by your worst enemy.

So who enforces the just plain stupid laws. SF is so far out on the edge of the moonbeam that nothing they do surprises me. Who really cares except those poor few who are gun owners there and can't move out.

It's not just SF tho. We just got Corzine, avid supporter of the 'smart gun' laws, and a guy who vowed during his campaign to crack down on guns. This should be interesting. The kids are grown and we're headin' west.

I figure Corzine is less dangerous as the moonbat governor of a lost state (and criminal enterprise) like New Joisey - than as a senator.

[sfhogman]

65,000 San Francisco citizens voted against a law that even the Mayor admits is largely symbolic and can't be enforced, even if it survives the court process. San Francisco has attempted this in the past and been slapped down by courts who have explained that City laws do not pre-empt state and Federal law. The Police Officers Association and even our left-leaning (falling?) newspapers were against this proposition.

San Francisco lives off tourism; it has little else to offer. Should you wish to support those who voted against Prop. H, let our Visitor's Convention Bureau know why you won't be coming to our burg for the forseeable future. Here's their website- I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

http://onlysf.sfvisitor.org/

You might also want to let our Mayor know why you're going somewhere else this year:

Mayor Gavin Newsom
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone: 415-554-6141
Fax: 415-554-6160
Email: gavin.newsom@sfgov.org

Should you contact these nice people, please keep to The High Road.
Those of us who are stuck here for the time being (retirement beckons!)
would appreciate your efforts.

Jeff

[X Who]

Guns? What guns? Those were stolen a year ago!

Where's the police report? Oh, you didn't report them stolen (and maybe even if you did), here's a search warrant. If the police find handguns in your possession, lying to a police officer will be tacked on to the other charges.

Maybe I'm wrong but this seems to be the wrong way to buck the system.

[madmike]

I'm of mixed feelings. On the one hand, NOT fighting it and letting the "love ins" from Haight be replaced by "Rape ins" would be great PR AGAINST gun control.

On the other hand, we're dealing with people so #@$%#@ stupid that they actually have a list of cities with "effective" gun control that include DC, Chicago, Detroit and London.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

But I think we're rapidly approaching the day where we'll see a split--badly managed, bankrupt, crime-rampant, polluted cities run by "liberals" who aren't liberal.

And America.

But really, is there any reason to waste any money in San Fran? It's got a few little quirks that are cute, but I can't think of anything substantial that would make me want to visit again. Four days in 1993 was all I needed to see of it.

[AZLibertarian]

My first guess is that the Courts will make all this a moot point before SF even tries to enforce this law.

However, assuming that that doesn't happen, while some will turn theirs in, I think a significant number won't. They'll end up with equivalent to the Canadian gun ban ignored by their western provinces. For a government, the only thing worse than a bad law is a law so bad that the populace won't obey it.

[madmike]

Where's the police report? Oh, you didn't report them stolen (and maybe even if you did), here's a search warrant. If the police find handguns in your possession, lying to a police officer will be tacked on to the other charges.

Maybe I'm wrong but this seems to be the wrong way to buck the system.


Yeah. Anyone they bust will "prove" the law is working. Anyone who gets rid of a gun will "prove" the law is working. And when people keep them hidden and the word gets around to the criminals (As it did in Moron Grove, IL) and the crime rate doesn't skyrocket, it will "prove" the law is working.

Idiots. Can't live with them. Can't club them to death like seals.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

The city has no access to state or federal firearms records.

Since 2000, I believe, all pistols sold through an FFL (and all sales must go through an FFL) have been registered at the time of sale through the DROS check. The Cal DoJ maintains the database and any law enforcement agency can access it 24 hours a day. I read this in the CRPA's guide to California gun laws.

Long guns excluding "assault weapons" and 50 BMG's, however, by law cannot be registered. So I don't know how the city could tell if you'd bought your gun before or after the law took effect. Maybe FFL's wouldn't sell them to you. The ammo ban would be easy to get around. But the fact that there's an ammo ban means de facto complete gun prohibition, because once you shot off all your ammo you could never get anymore for your long guns (if you obeyed this unconstitutional law), and pistols are all banned anyway.

I believe non-compliance would be massive. From my personal experience, the kind of people who presently own guns in SF, even the law-abiding ones, tend not to be the kind of people to obey this sort of thing, or would obey it as minimally as possible. Though my personal experience with SF gun owners is limited, so maybe I'm wrong.

What I don't understand is how allowing tourists to carry guns through SF, unlike the 80's ban, would make the present law concur with the state pre-eminence law. I tried reading the legal text but it was just too much.

[DRZinn]

Oh, you didn't report them stolen (and maybe even if you did), here's a search warrant.This occurred to me, but - are you required to file a police report just because something is stolen? What if it accidentally falls over the side of a boat?

[Manedwolf]

The police will then melt them down, sell them, or keep them.


I think "sell" is right. I wonder how many little old ladies will turn in their grandfather's Colt, their passed-away WWII-vet husband's war-trophy Nambu, etc...and then crooked cops will just go and sell the things and pocket the cash.

Sick. Really sick. :mad:

[Manedwolf]

That describes liberalism in a nutshell.

Really, I don't think this is "liberal" at all, but my definition of "liberal" is more what the founding fathers had in mind, legislating that all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's "liberal", alright. It also includes the necessity of tools to prevent others from taking your right to life and liberty away..they knew that, too.

Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens so only criminals can have them, that's not "liberal", that's just some delusional idiocy driven by irrational fear of guns as something "evil" along with political pandering and help by Hollywood hypocrites who say that citizens shouldn't have guns (but their personal bodyguards can, because that's different.)

This is just insane legislation pushed through by people without any sort of grip on reality, who should be made to, come next April, go wander around the Tenderloin district of SF at 3am with a sign saying "I have no gun", to see what happens to them.

Everyone I know on both sides of the political aisle is ***'ing on this one. Political parties, any side, are still American.

This isn't.

[Manedwolf]

Sure, tell the SF government to stick it....

If you live in SF are you going to keep your gun available to shoot a burglar?

Knowing the police will arrest you and the DA will prosecute you for posession of a gun even as he drops the gun charge on the burglar to get his testimony AGAINST you?

Even if this is struck down in California Supreme Court, would YOU want to live in San Francisco?

Any gun owner who still lives in San Francisco is a fool.

--Travis--

Last year, an intruder broke into a SF resident's home, with a pistol. The owner managed to get the gun away from them in a scuffle, and shot the intruder with THEIR OWN GUN, then again as they ran.

The homeowner...yes...the homeowner..was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

The laws there are wacked, yes.

[No_Brakes23]

Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens so only criminals can have them, that's not "liberal" You know that, and I know that, but the Kool-Aid drinkers that read Savage's tripe are dead-set on letting leftists malign what should be a term of honor. I wonder if Michael Savage considers the Iraqi insurgents "Freedom Fighters", that's not really any different than calling people who ban things "liberal."

[71Commander]

You would think that if there were 200,000 to 300,000 guns in SF, and unless one person owned a whole bunch of guns, that this law would have been voted down.

What happened to all the gun owners? Aside from us High Road types, I would venture to guess that the average gun owner household would have 2-3 guns. That would be 100,000 gun owners. It would then appear that upwards of 50,000 gun owners didn't vote.

I realize that this poses some assumptions on my part but either the estimate of guns in SF is inflated or there was some apathy on the voter part.

[denfoote]

When Fl passed their gun law, the libs branded the state as being un safe. Remember that??
Well, the NRA should do the same thing!!
Hit the libs where it will do the most damage: in the wallet!!
Boycott SF. Use their influence to pursuade the gun makers not to sell SF any more guns or parts. Brand SF as a crimminal haven!!!

Oh, and do the court thing as well!!

[Nematocyst]

The police will recieve registration records, and will use these to go door to door once the deadline aproaches. Such is the advanttage of nomadism
{as opposed to owning a $400K 'home'}.

Just pack up the yurt and get out (with weapons).

Nem

[Glock40cal30shots]

[QUOTE=madmike]On the other hand, we're dealing with people so #@$%#@ stupid that they actually have a list of cities with "effective" gun control that include DC, Chicago, Detroit and London.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


Well........ Here in the detroit area ... at least I can shoot back ..... and living around here Gives you a reason alone to carry ( let alone hearing 2 guys kill eachother in front of a night club from a mile away). My father was a Sheriff Deputy/Paramedic So I am well informed on these issues .. it has become a passion of mine ... especially since Michigan has become a Shall Issue state ... I feel sorry for SF .. This issue is a national issue .. and I hope everyone does what they can to help out the cause.

When the ???? goes down... you better be ready ....

It is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6

I would rather have one and not need it .. than need one and not have it.

-Glock 23... 30 shots .. Shoulder Stock .. foreward grip ... :evil: :evil:

[Camp David]

My first guess is that the Courts will make all this a moot point before SF even tries to enforce this law...
I agree...

SF ordinance overlooks 'legal property' aspect of handgun ownership; if SF ordinance starts anew and bans sale of firearms from this point forward perhaps it would be enforceable, but it would need a grandfather clause to allow all firearms legally purchased previously... laws cannot simply ban property legally purchased... other states tried this with fireworks and what happened was all legally purchased fireworks could be kept but it banned all new fireworks from being sold. I don't believe SF has authority to ban firearms that were legally purchased. In any event, it's headed for the courts... keep your guns for now...DO NOT GIVE THEM TO POLICE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES... they keep them!

[GHilton]

Last year, an intruder broke into a SF resident's home, with a pistol. The owner managed to get the gun away from them in a scuffle, and shot the intruder with THEIR OWN GUN, then again as they ran.

The homeowner...yes...the homeowner..was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

The laws there are wacked, yes.


This is not a slam on you Manedwolf. But, what was the out come, really, on this case?

I can see that the homeowner was being punished for the shooting at the intruder as he RAN part. With the argument that the illegal home entry was terminated as the intruder was fleeing from the site. You will need a strong lawyer to argue this part, but it should be done. As, in, some criminals will take it as a form of insult to be disarmed of their weapon and actually come back for it in a rage. You had to shoot at him again because you were affraid of death and, bla, bla, bla. You will need a lawyer that knows something about weapon tactics involving shootings to make a case. It can be done and is done often enough with excellent results. Problem is $$$$$, that you will have to spend on a good, qualified lawyer.

However, you will have a really hard time explaining the follow up shot/s if the intruder is running down the neighborhood streets, away from you, in the dark, and is more than 20 meters away and counting.

You said that the homeowner was charged - but what happened in the end??
Interesting, thanks for sharing.

Back to the topic - I hope the NRA, GOA, etc. will pull through.

Is there a way to bring your guns out of the ban areas and store them there?
"Sell" them to a trusted family member/friend out of the ban area through an FFL so you have the paperwork to document this? It will cost you some money, but the purpose of this is so you won't lose your gun/s or your investment/s in them. And, you will be able to get them back when the ban is defeated and lifted.

Just dreaming. Hope this helps.

Cheers all!

[Double Naught Spy]

The police will recieve registration records, and will use these to go door to door once the deadline aproaches.

The police will then melt them down, sell them, or keep them.

My bet would be felony.

Oh, you mean they will do this like they did in Chicago and New York City?

Sorry man, but your bridge selling paranoia seems to be missing a pylon or two.

[Live Free Or Die]

...The ammo ban would be easy to get around. But the fact that there's an ammo ban means de facto complete gun prohibition, because once you shot off all your ammo you could never get anymore for your long guns (if you obeyed this unconstitutional law), and pistols are all banned anyway.

Even under the ban, you can still buy ammo for your long guns outside the city. At least that's the way I understand it.

What I don't understand is how allowing tourists to carry guns through SF, unlike the 80's ban, would make the present law concur with the state pre-eminence law. I tried reading the legal text but it was just too much.

IANAL, but I thought the main reason the older ban was struck down was that it prevented ALL Californians -- not just San Francisco residents -- from having a handgun in that city. i.e., San Francisco might have been able to take guns away from its own residents, but CA took exception to San Francisco passing laws that pre-empted existing state laws protecting RKBA for CA citizens visiting San Fran. It was basically an issue of local vs state control, and state control won in court.

The new ban specifically targets San Francisco residents, but not visitors to the city. Supposedly this might result in the CA courts saying "Ok San Fran, do what you want with your own citizens, so long as you're not infringing on the right of other Californians." To me this is nonsense. If the state's constitution protects RKBA (does it?), it should apply to all citizens, including those in San Francisco. Of course, that's what the 2nd amendment of the US constitution is for, but we've been losing that battle for many decades.

[El Rojo]

This whole thread is filled with generalizations, myths, and plain hysteria. If it wasn't so sad how ignorant we sound, it would be funny. Pull it together gun owners. Lets quit crying wolf and stick to the facts. If you don't know for sure, don't post.

This occurred to me, but - are you required to file a police report just because something is stolen? What if it accidentally falls over the side of a boat?I just searched around and it hasn't happened yet that I can tell of, but the state wants to make it a crime not to report stolen firearms. So be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This whole thread is filled with generalizations, myths, and plain hysteria. If it wasn't so sad how ignorant we sound, it would be funny. Pull it together gun owners. Lets quit crying wolf and stick to the facts. If you don't know for sure, don't post.

+1. I've read the NRA pleadings on this and I'd bet one of my ARs that this entire law will be struck down by the court.

Rather than concern ourselves with the silly law that SF passed, we should be asking ourself why the city of San Francisco thought it was worth spending a few million dollars of tax payer money to pass an ordinance they knew was doomed?

[stevelyn]

I figure Corzine is less dangerous as the moonbat governor of a lost state (and criminal enterprise) like New Joisey - than as a senator.

He's less dangerous to the rest of us, but what about his replacement for his senate seat?:scrutiny:

IIRC, at one time we were rid of Lautenburg until the NJ Democratic mafia blew the dust off his retirement and sent him back to Congress.:banghead:

[Camp David]

. Lets quit crying wolf...

Quit crying wolf? A major city in California just neutralized the 2nd Amendment? Hardly a cry of wolf there El Rojo! SF joins Chicago and DC; no cry of wolf there El Rojo...

What would others be saying if it was the 1st Amendment freedoms that were neutralized in SF rather than the 2nd?

What are your plans? You are there... what do you plan to do?

[SgtGunner]

Originally Posted by KriegHund
The police will recieve registration records, and will use these to go door to door once the deadline aproaches.


How many volunteers you think the cop shop in SF is gonna have for that job?? Not me no way uh uh..not today

[Justin]

Rather than concern ourselves with the silly law that SF passed, we should be asking ourself why the city of San Francisco thought it was worth spending a few million dollars of tax payer money to pass an ordinance they knew was doomed?

Hey, who cares what it costs when the money's free.

[GHilton]

+1. I've read the NRA pleadings on this and I'd bet one of my ARs that this entire law will be struck down by the court.

Rather than concern ourselves with the silly law that SF passed, we should be asking ourself why the city of San Francisco thought it was worth spending a few million dollars of tax payer money to pass an ordinance they knew was doomed?

I haven't read the NRA's pleadings on this, so I don't know how strong of a case/argument they have. BUT, from what other members posted, it didn't work in D.C. or in Chicago, how is it different here?

As Kruzrsaid a while back, voter turn out was VERY poor for the pro-gun crowd. Looks like as a whole, San Fran gunners don't care about their rights enough to vote.:confused: Or maybe they figured out a way to get out of it till this blows over?

I sure hope Mr. Roberts is correct on this issue.

Could this be a form of rebelion towards Floridas new law??

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I haven't read the NRA's pleadings on this, so I don't know how strong of a case/argument they have. BUT, from what other members posted, it didn't work in D.C. or in Chicago, how is it different here?

The major difference is California has a state preemption law that prevents municipalities from passing their own gun legislation. Despite this law, San Francisco has enacted a ban on handguns twice in the past and been overturned by the court both times. The language of this latest bill is almost identical to language that has already been overturned by California courts.

IIRC, Illinois has no preemption law, so municipalities (Chicago, Morton Grove) are free to enact regulation of firearms that is more restrictive than state law.

D.C. of course, is its own special entity and so isn't subject to any state preemption laws but relies on the city government or the will of Congress.

[mfree]

I wonder how much of a show it'd be if all 200,000 gun owners in SF got up at midnight the morning of the "official" start of the law and unloaded a magazine full of blank rounds into the air...

It's completely untenable, but my, what a show that'd be :)

[mwelch8404]

I agree...

SF ordinance overlooks 'legal property' aspect of handgun ownership; if SF ordinance startsanew and bans sale of firearms from this point forward perhaps it would be enforceable, but it would need a grandfather clause to allow all firearms legally purchased previously... laws cannot simply ban property legally purchased... other states tried this with fireworks and what happened was all legally purchased fireworks could be kept but it banned all new fireworks from being sold. I don't believe SF has authority to ban firearms that were legally purchased. In any event, it's headed for the courts... keep your guns for now...DO NOT GIVE THEM TO POLICE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES... they keep them!


Unconstitutional based on ex post facto protections. Oh wait. Someone will come up with emminent domain reasons for the "taking."

My FIRST thought was that same shotgun someone posted a pix of (870?)

Just put a sling on and open carry any where you'd cc a handgun. Oh well, it was a nice thought while it lasted.

[K-Romulus]

Oh, you mean they will do this like they did in Chicago and New York City?

Sorry man, but your bridge selling paranoia seems to be missing a pylon or two.
These were different states/municipalities with different laws being passed than the San Fran law:

1) Chicago - grandfathered existing handgun owners, thus no need to confiscate

2) DC - same

3) NYC - banned "assault weapons," with no grandfathering, and actually followed-up on the registration lists to be sure they were either out of the city or surrendered to the police . . .

The San Fran handgun law is identical to the NYC "Assault Weapons" law - surrender them or get them out of town.:what:

Edited to add:

The handgun ban is not a "taking" because the government isn't appropriating your property for its own use. The law is criminalizing behavior, (i.e., possession of an object) . . .

[Otherguy Overby]

You would think that if there were 200,000 to 300,000 guns in SF, and unless one person owned a whole bunch of guns, that this law would have been voted down.

What happened to all the gun owners? Aside from us High Road types, I would venture to guess that the average gun owner household would have 2-3 guns. That would be 100,000 gun owners. It would then appear that upwards of 50,000 gun owners didn't vote.

I realize that this poses some assumptions on my part but either the estimate of guns in SF is inflated or there was some apathy on the voter part.


I wonder if electronic voting machines were used... Where's Jim March on this? There's gotta be a bunch of handgun owners there who knew about the issue and would have voted against it. I wouldn't be stretching my imagination to think that the results might have be tampered with.

[ElTacoGrande]

My FIRST thought was that same shotgun someone posted a pix of (870?)

Just put a sling on and open carry any where you'd cc a handgun. Oh well, it was a nice thought while it lasted.
You know, that's not a bad idea. AFAIK, open carry of unloaded long arms is generally legal in CA. Is that correct? I know there are a lot of gun owners in SF. Maybe it's time for a long-gun open carry march to City Hall? I understand that such tactics helped CCW reform in a few other states. "If we can't carry concealed, then this is what you're going to get" kind of idea.

[Molon Labe]

People with half a brain will just leave them at a friend's house or a storage unit until this blows over.And people with even more brains (and more courage) will simply ignore this law.

[Turkey Creek]

Sorry but I can't really get worked up about this- it's California and on top of that it's moonbat central, ie SF- they are always going to be PIA'S- if it's not this it's going to be something else ad infinitum- I feel sorry for our brothers who live there but that's about it-

[ArmedBear]

And people with even more brains (and more courage) will simply ignore this law.

Why lose a nice collection? I'm not talking about defensive guns. Where's the "brains" in letting the cops take some nice old handguns and get them all rusty while this goes to court? I don't see the "brains" in that.

[billwiese]

Ghilton wrote:
As Kruzrsaid a while back, voter turn out was VERY poor for the pro-gun crowd. Looks like as a whole, San Fran gunners don't care about their rights enough to vote.

mfree wrote:I wonder how much of a show it'd be if all 200,000 gun owners in SF got up at midnight the morning of the "official" start of the law and unloaded a magazine full of blank rounds into the air...

Ummm, what? I have NO idea what you 2 are talking about. You must be from outside the area and don't know demographics.

Poor turnout for progun crowd subset? I doubt it. Prob every reasonable gunowner was out there.

But remember there's not that many 'active' gunowners in SF.

Where mfree got that 200K number I dunno. That's way wild on the high side. Yes, lotsa people prob have guns in their homes - uncle's old shotgun, deer rifle, etc. A subset of those would be handguns. Many of these are passive owners who will turn them in if directed - they just ended up having the gun(s) and don't care about using, keeping, maintaing them.

There's prob not over 25K serious handgun owners in SF - that actively have a handgun for protection/sport, use it, etc. There's prob another 20K that have a gun, believe in its ownership, but haven't cleaned it or touched it, it's just there. The rest are very passive, a 'just in case' thing, etc.

And then there's our internal enemies I call the "duckhunters" - with the "oh, you don't need a handgun, I rely on my shotgun just fine" attitude.

It's a demographic thing too. SF demographically is a mix of the huddled masses who can barely afford a gun, and citified liberals. Many many folks there don't even have cars due to cost/parking.

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

[ArmedBear]

You mean the huddled masses who make $100K/year but can't afford rent, to say nothing of a gun, right? :rolleyes:

[thebigc]

i hope most of them dont surrender them it is a sad state of affairs when americans are broguht to obey unconstitutuional laws

[billwiese]

You mean the huddled masses who make $100K/year but can't afford rent, to say nothing of a gun, right? :rolleyes:

$100K/year isn't much when basic homes cost $700K. Remember we have state income tax too.

Rents in SF are very bad; decent 1br apts go for $1900 or more simply because rent control drives down the stock and drives up prices of available units since owner wants to capture max payment while he can. Homes in crime-ridden Bayview area can go for $500K. My ex-GF paid $750K for 2br condo in Sausalito - of course, it has water views of the piers.

I live in San Jose and my 2Br/2.5ba/2car townhouse, 1100 sqft, goes for $580K now.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

[Molon Labe]

Why lose a nice collection? I'm not talking about defensive guns. Where's the "brains" in letting the cops take some nice old handguns and get them all rusty while this goes to court? I don't see the "brains" in that.I'm sure glad the minutemen of 1775 didn't share your sense of "values." :rolleyes:

For the record, if I lived in SF I'd simply igore this !@#$% law.

[madmike]

I'm sure glad the minutemen of 1775 didn't share your sense of "values." :rolleyes:

For the record, if I lived in SF I'd simply igore this !@#$% law.

I wouldn't live in San Fran if you paid me.

But that doesn't help those who do.

When this law goes down, there needs to be some fanfare. Obviously, the press will be fairly quiet. So we'll have to spread the word. All the ignorant masses will see is "Handgun bans are illegal." That's a good way for them to be thinking.

[mfree]

Whoops, dropped an extra zero in that figure, sorry.

[50 Freak]

I love these threads, seems like everyone that does not live in or even been in California (or the Bay area in this case) is all of a sudden a CA gun law expert.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

This law will get struck down. SF can enact as much feel good anti gun legislation as they want. Whether or not city ordnances can trump state and federal laws is still to be seen.

[mussi]

This law will get struck down. SF can enact as much feel good anti gun legislation as they want. Whether or not city ordnances can trump state and federal laws is still to be seen.

I hope it does. But then, maybe

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/fresh/showpics.cgi?another_leftist_pita is an omen.