SF v NRA reach deal on SF sidearm ban ?


PDA






bg
December 28, 2005, 09:44 PM
Well I don't know what to think about this..I guess it's a agreed longer
time for sales, but if SF'ers have to give em up, what kind of victory
is this ??
http://www.yahoo.com/s/266495

If you enjoyed reading about "SF v NRA reach deal on SF sidearm ban ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
yucaipa
December 28, 2005, 10:08 PM
I don't see the NRA giving up anything.:confused:

Pilgrim
December 28, 2005, 10:16 PM
It appears that instead of wasting their efforts on a temporary restraining order, all concerned have agreed to wait until the matter can be litigated in court.

I personally think San Francisco should have their ban so they can compete with Washington D.C. for the title of "Murder Capital of the U.S.A.".

Pilgrim

mountainclmbr
December 28, 2005, 10:29 PM
I also agree that SF should get their ban. It will suck crimminals away from Colorado and will prevent Mr. Darwin from spinning in his grave. They should get what they want, including the unintended consequences of competing for murder capitol of USA. Protecting socialists against the results of bad decisions prevents natural selection which they claim to worship,

bg
December 28, 2005, 10:44 PM
Looks like I misunderstood this. I guess the NRA has decided to
save money for the fight down the road. In the meantime buyers
have been "granted" a time ext on sales. OK, I get it.

Steve499
December 28, 2005, 10:50 PM
Mountainclmbr

+1

Steve

kage genin
December 29, 2005, 02:03 AM
How many are betting that handgun sales in SF are SOARING right now? :D

It'll be interesting to see what kind of backlash there is when/if SFPD starts knocking down doors seizing handguns, esp. since there is no tracking of who bought them and where they are kept. It'd make the news for sure, and hopefully we'd get some TV coverage of infamous lines like NO police chief Compass. I think it'd help RKBA in the long run, stirring up more national outrage

sfhogman
December 29, 2005, 03:44 AM
Random thoughts on Prop H:

Many of the guns sold to SF residents can be easily tracked thru the DROS forms filled out at time of purchase. Illegal purchases, of course, cannot.

The State Attorney General's office will cooperate in any way it can.

I doubt that a ban such as this would suck criminals away from anyplace further than Oakland.

If this scenario plays out the way its backers hope, then this sort of thing could be coming to a town near you. All it takes is a misinformed public-courtesy the mainstream media- a voting populace that doesn't vote, a special election that the average voter feels is a waste of time, and a few activists appealing to soccer moms. One is then burdened with a law that can be enforced, selectively, any time.

Over 61,000 voters voted against Prop. H.

Suddenly SF gun owners need the NRA badly. Fortunately for us they've stepped up to the plate.They're the only entity with pockets deep enough to fight this idiocy. I wonder how many SF gun owners are members?

The price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance. And I, for one, will not be giving up my arms, nor will I leave San Francisco, especially on someone else's terms.

Just my thoughts, YMMV,
Jeff

Old Fud
December 29, 2005, 05:43 AM
Jeff, I can't disagree with anything you said, but I'm still angry and disturbed.

I'm told there are 550,000 registered voters in SF County.
61,000 voted for 2nd amendment rights, and 80,000 voted for the ban.

Less than 30% of the county bothered to vote.
And this is a state that encourages you to vote by mail -- from your home, at your leisure. You don't even have to walk to the polling place at a given time.

We have to thank the 61,000 for standing up for the right thing, but I am really REALLY put out at the other 400,000 ignorant apathetic slugs that let this happen.
Now we have a precedent that threatens every major population center in the nation.
Now People in Georgia and Florida who contributed their money to NRA are seeing it spent to save the butts of the 400,000 who couldn't be bothered to mail in a vote.

I live in Alameda county, which is probably even MORE left-wing crazy than SF. And still I'm ashamed of my bretheren across the bay over this.

Fud

gunsmith
December 29, 2005, 05:46 AM
an old friend of mine, a died in the wool uber liberal, allways votes for Nader and the green party ....is now contributing to the NRA!!!
all of a sudden his ipsc fun is threatened....

Jim March
December 29, 2005, 06:56 AM
Just to be clear: had the city not extended the deadline three months, the NRA would have had to force three hearings in rapid order, two connected with a temporary restraining order and one on the merits of the challenge.

Under this deal, there will be only one hearing on the merits of the law (and challenge) versus screwing around with a restraining order side issue. Everybody saves money. The hearing on the merits will happen in February in time to sort it out before the law kicks in the following month.

This isn't any sort of cave-in on the NRA's part.

Igloodude
December 29, 2005, 08:36 AM
Suddenly SF gun owners need the NRA badly. Fortunately for us they've stepped up to the plate.They're the only entity with pockets deep enough to fight this idiocy. I wonder how many SF gun owners are members?

Indeed. If nothing else, I suspect that the Pink Pistol folks (or more broadly pro-RKBA liberals) will start realizing that while the general NRA membership is not particularly supportive of the rest of their politics and never will be, it doesn't matter. Annual fees to NRA/GOA won't be used to attack gay marriage, or anti-torture bills, or Social Security lockboxes, or Roe v. Wade, and no liberal group is ever likely to oppose any form of gun control even when it disarms the people that need arms the most.

If you enjoyed reading about "SF v NRA reach deal on SF sidearm ban ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!