Open letter to San Francisco

[pittspilot]

An interesting thought, possibly if done on masse

Please keep this to a civil disobedience idea, and not the gay marriage thing. That discussion always goes sideways.

[MicroBalrog]

Cool. If enough people did it (like in Canada) it would smother the enforcement of that insanity - or of federal law, if you wish.

But it won't.

[TheBluesMan]

Will be keeping an eye on this one.

[Moparmike]

I like it. I hope you help anyone to see just how hypocritical their stances can be on certain issues, and how diametrically opposed one issue of freedom can be to another's issue of "public safety."

[4v50 Gary]

Dunno why the letter was addressed to Chief Fong. SFPD rates as the bottom of 20 major cities (dunno if that's for US or for CA) for solving major crime including homicide and the writer wants SFPD to go around arresting gay couples who are "marrying?"

BTW, was told SF has a deficit of $300 million. I suspect it's a way of the City to raise revenue (marriage license fees). Clever politician that mayor. He makes one constituency happy and helps balance the budget. Besides, I question whether those marriages in SF will be recognized by the state.

[gunsmith]

I don't have any ar15's to carry to the demo,but will show up with my pistol
if other folks would

I just got back to town,I wish I had seen this 2 days ago...it's a great idea.

[Lonnie Wilson]

writer wants SFPD to go around arresting gay couples who are "marrying?"

I don't think Codrea was supporting that. What he probably is referring to is the fact that GUN OWNERS are treated that terribly by the police.

[BradN]

I work in San Francisco. The law is routinely ignored. Police overlook most "minor" crime. City bus drivers commonly run red lights. Once a month the bucyclists run rampant though the downtown steets stopping most car traffic. So called "anti-war" protesters are allowed to roam with impunity. It is anarchy.

I like the idea of a 2nd Amendment protest. Let's meet at City Hall. Who's with me?

Brad

[TimRB]

I'm sure no one who reads this forum would dislike the idea of a pro-SA demonstration at San Francisco city hall, but would people seriously show up visibly armed? And maybe even armed with evil banned weapons? If so, I would count on several things happening:

1) You would be arrested.
2) You would have your guns taken away, maybe forever.
3) You would be charged with serious crimes, and possibly convicted.
4) You would be portrayed as raving lunatics in the press.

Like I said, I don't know if people are serious about this, but for the record I think an *armed* pro-SA demonstration *in San Francisco* could not possibly turn out good.

Tim

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

This is an interesting "discussion" idea only. We are a nation of laws. We may not pick and choose the ones we like. As much as I disagree with these laws, each plaintiff must evaluate the consequences of open protest.

The letter writing will bring out the poignant hypocrisy. Action will (may) create anarchy.

TheBluesMan, staying on target

[QuarterBoreGunner]

It is an interesting idea. But I can guarantee you that showing up on the steps of city hall with weapons visible would generate a, shall we say, enthusiastic response from our local gendarmes.
I have to give our new mayor his props for going at the issue this way, but most likely the state courts will overturn all of the marriage licenses that have been issued. I hope not, but it’s very probable.

So what could be accomplished by gun owners showing up with concealed weapons and using the argument cited in the letter? Well if enough people showed up, we might be able to get our interpretation of the issue on the news. Would the mass media get the story straight? Again a very uncertain situation. What would sell better to the major news organs: ‘2nd Amendment Activists use San Francisco Mayor’s Civil Insurrection to Point Out Fallacies in Current Gun Laws’ OR ‘Illegally Armed Mob Storms City Hall”?

But I will be keeping my eye on this as well.

[Jim Diver]

We are a nation of laws. We may not pick and choose the ones we like.

What about jury nullification? We pick and choose laws then.

Many people advocate the breaking of gun control laws... laws they do not agree with.

Civil disobedience does have it's place, but when it is perpetrated by government, it is no longer civil disobedience, but anarchy.

Newsom and others should be arrested for sedition, issuing false documents, and disturbing the peace.

Showing up outside city hall armed rings of the Black Panthers storming the capitol and will likely get someone hurt or killed. SF City Hall has been the scene of assassinations before...

Is this truely a wise move and something you really want to do?

[gunsmith]

we wen't to city hall and stood around with unloaded rifles and pistols
WE would not be violating any laws!
Open carry of unloaded weapons is legal in CA!
It goes without saying we would be arrested for some charge or other hell so was Rosa Parks!
If the RKBA crowd was big enough and we had some good spokesman
we would do great

[stv]

Interesting letter.

I would be willing to participate in a pro-2nd rally, but carrying without a permit is just asking to get your skull caved in by some overzealous police officer, and frightening the sheeple by carrying Evil Black Rifles wouldn't be the smartest thing either, legal or not.

That being said, I'll be keeping an eye on this post. It sounds interesting.

[Dex Sinister]

What I don’t like about Codrea’s letter is that it does not distinguish the reason that the two incidents would be similar, and as such actually portrays gun owners in a negative light,.

While the it works as an anti-gay-marriage letter, IMO, the parallel drawn by most non-gun owners would be to that of comparing two “legitimately recognized” crimes, one of which is more serious than the other, and suggesting that a encouragement or lack of enforcement of one is as serious as a lack of enforcement of the other.

This would be on the same lines as saying, to a [hypothetical] mayor (and lesser officials) who [hypothetically] encouraged unlicensed concealed carry contrary to a state law, “Well, if you don’t enforce the law against concealed carry, how about if I come to the courthouse and start firing my gun in the air – that’s illegal too – are you going to support me on that???

What seems missing, if one actually sought to logically compel a favorable response, is the idea that both of these actions – people marrying whomever they wish, and people carrying arms for self-protection – are harmless actions of peaceable people that really ought not be regulated by government. This is because both actions harm no one, even though they may offend the delicate sensibilities of others.

IMO, a much better open letter would read, [in part]
==========
…congratulations for recognizing that individuals have certain inherent rights that ought to be respected regardless of the contrary opinions of an elective majority: I salute your bravery in supporting such rights, and commend you for it.

…however, I note that your administration currently tramples the inherent self-defense rights of gay, lesbian, and straight people alike, and in fact is even sometimes reluctant to recognize the rights of holders of state-issued CA concealed carry permits. Therefore, because arms in the hands of law-abiding citizens who carry them only for their own protection is an expression of one of the most fundamental inherent rights – the right to self-defense – I call on you to pursue the same policy in regards to the right of self-defense as you have shown in regard to the right of association and marriage.
===========

If you’re going to call someone a hypocrite, it seems to me one is better off calling him a hypocrite for thinking the way he does and making an irrational distinction between two sets of harmless people. ‘Cause that’s what Newsom obviously thinks he is fixing.

Dex }:.=-

[Malone LaVeigh]

Agree with Dex. This would be a better letter if the author had refrained from letting his anti-gay biases intrude.

FTR, I don't think he is actually advocating anyone do this. It strikes me as in the vein of a "Modest Proposal" and a thought-provoking one at that.

[Waitone]

We live in a society where government at all levels seems to believe it can violate the law with impunity.

two examples
--San Francisco mayor issuing permits in violation of state law with apparent impunity.
--Federal, state, local government and corporations blatantly breaking the laws pertaining to illegal immigration.

Several thoughts
--The longer it goes on the more prevalent it will become.
--The longer it goes on the more difficult it will be to reign it in.

Now someone explain to me why civil disobedience should not be considered WRT to gun laws, or any other laws for that matter.

What is to stop civil protest by say, ooh not paying taxes? When government is the first to walk down a path, it should not be surprised when its subjects enthusiastically follow.

Sorta gives me a nice warm feeling to know I live in a society where government feels free to break its own laws. The implications are profound.

[greyhound]

Police overlook most "minor" crime.

The parallel between civil disobedience in the SF gay marraige vs. CCW is all over the weblogs.

Interesting idea, though I doubt it would be looked upon as a "minor" crime.

That said, if there was ever going to be a justification to do it, now might be the best time. The "Hey, look, I was just emulating the gay marraige civil disobedience".

The key is to get an elected official to support it (aint gonna happen in SF).

[Waitone]

Great minds travel the same roads.http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...7/114117.shtml



Laws Be Damned

Al Rantel
Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2004

There is a new political development in America that should frighten every law-abiding citizen in this country. That is the growing disregard for people who follow the law and play by the rules, and the rewarding of those who do not.
Where I live, in California, we have two concurrent stories going on that demonstrate clearly what is at issue. The first one involves the mayor of San Francisco, who, though sworn to uphold the laws and the constitution of California in his just-taken oath of office, now allows and instructs city government to break those laws.

Under California’s penal code, he might very well be committing a felony. Mayor Newsome has decided that he doesn’t like California’s law that says marriage is only between one man and one woman and so he orders marriage licenses to be issued to hundreds of gay couples waiting in line at City Hall.

The public and the law be damned, the mayor will do what he wants. Meantime, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a “no comment” for the media when asked about it, and the state’s attorney general musters a statement that no one has asked him to issue a legal opinion. Are they serious?

Imagine for a moment if some local public official started giving out gun licenses en masse because he did not like California’s oppressive anti-gun laws. The entire weight of the media elite and the state would be down upon his head. The irony is there is in fact a right to bear arms, as stated in the now ignored Second Amendment to the Unites States Constitution. There is no right to get married.

The second example is the newest move in California, only weeks after a similar law was repealed due to huge public opposition, to allow those people in this country illegally to obtain California driver's licenses. The governor now says he is close to a deal with the state’s liberal Democrats who run the Legislature to bring back the idea with a few new safeguards like background checks.

Yes, background checks for people who are already living outside the law and who as illegals are notorious for having more false documents than Saddam Hussein’s weapons manufacturers. Those who have chosen to ignore and outright violate the nation’s laws on how one enters into this country would be rewarded with the most important piece of state documentation, the driver's license. As we all know, this photo identification in a country that does not have a national ID card is used even to enter the country when you come from places like Mexico or Canada, and is also used as ID to board commercial aircraft.

So here we are living in a country that stands for the rule of law and not the rule of a single individual or group of individuals, and those who choose to break the law are not only allowed to keep on doing so but in the case of the driver's license controversy, they are given a reward for thumbing their noses at the rest of us.

What will happen to our society when people begin to ask what law they can break that they don’t like? What will happen to our society when it finally becomes clear to law-abiding citizens that those who do not obey the laws are not only not worse off than they, but in some ways are better off?

Just think, in the nation’s most populous state today, you can get an illegal marriage license and soon be illegally in the country and get a driver's license. Not only will public officials not stop you, but they will even help you to break the rules. Even the tough-guy governor will not be able to muster a comment when he used to talk for a living.

America has never been on such a morally ambiguous path, but no intelligent person can really believe all of this can make our country better, safer or stronger as a nation. And we embark on this road at our own peril.

Al Rantel is a radio talk show host on Los Angeles' KABC.

[pittspilot]

My major point in posting this was to note that a group that has more popular opinion against it, is doing a better job of undermining the opposition, then we gun owners.

[geekWithA.45]

Civil disobedience does have it's place, but when it is perpetrated by government, it is no longer civil disobedience, but anarchy.

No, it's not anarchy.

When the government selectively does whatever the hell it wants,

It's usurpation.

[TimRB]

"My major point in posting this was to note that a group that has more popular opinion against it, is doing a better job of undermining the opposition, then we gun owners."

One difference is that in California, at least, gays have overwhelming media support despite any adverse public opinion that may exist. The opposite situation exists for gun owners.

Tim

[gunsmith]

When we need them?
SF really stinks sometimes
we could have taken advantage of all the media.
my girlfriends teen young one was in a car wreck up in Tahoe
or I would have been down there with at least a copy of the letter for the media,if not an unloaded glock on my hip.

[rock jock]

Homosexuality, right or wrong, is a sacred cow among the leftists who run Kali. Gun rights, OTOH, are vilified by the elite media and those in authority.

[joonya187]

posted by TimRB
One difference is that in California, at least, gays have overwhelming media support despite any adverse public opinion that may exist. The opposite situation exists for gun owners.

True that. I'm sure that the gun-owning population outnumbers the gay population, but would a pro-RKBA mayor stoop to the level of ignoring the vote of the people? Point is, without 'breaking the law', they'd never get what they want. I hope all those gays remember that when it comes around.