Proposition H (San Fran)

Preperation....

Oh sorry, wrong thread.

Good to see that some people are thinking in the media.

It also helps to have this org with the pro weapons front...>
http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/news728.html

Why would retired cops be a concern? Not to me, they are just ordinary citizens. They have far less handgun skill than many civilians. It is just another "them vs us" and they are special. A retired cop has no more "need" for a handgun than the rest of us, and cop skill with a gun can't be cited, or else they would grant others licenses based on skill. Obviously SF pols get concealed permits. WHY?? Their lives in more danger? No. Many average citizens are living in far more dangerous circumstances.
Another grab, by those leading idiots who will follow blindly because they can't think for themselves.

If Proposition H passes, the gun owners of San Francisco will need Preperatin H. Of course, Diane Fineswine will be exempt.

Gunpacker said:

Obviously SF pols get concealed permits. WHY?? Their lives in more danger? No. Many average citizens are living in far more dangerous circumstances.

Click to expand...

Actually in SF, even the pols can't easily get permits. There are ten permits issued in the city. That's not enough to go around, even for top-level pols. Presumably those were given to judges and DAs. Maybe Mayor Newsom has them. I hope Jim March's suit against the DoJ finally gives us a list of who packs in CA so we can find out the answers to these questions.

"Handgun owners are given 90 days to "surrender" their handguns to the police or sheriff's department..."

First lawsuit: This is a "taking" of private property, under the Fifth Amendment. So, what sort of price will the City of San Francisco pay?

If every gun owner demanded a jury trial to establish a value, the City would not only have the cost of the firearms, it would have the cost of the trials.

Add it all up and they might run short of money...

, Art

oh that would be FUN.....

it almost makes me wish that the handgun ban DOES pass.... massive numbers of protestors showing up with their handguns, demanding payment, being refused, demanding receipts...

Then filing a class action lawsuit... on the grounds of

1. failure to pay for seized property.

2. seizure of property not for the 'public use'

3. treble damages for #1 on the grounds of #2

what if we started shipping LOW-GRADE DERRINGERS into san francisco during the 90 days? every resident turning HUNDREDS of guns in... filing suit to force officials to accept the guns when they try to refuse...

filing suit to prolong the 90-day period when officers can't support the current pace...

staging protests when there are no longer police available to patrol the streets because they're all collecting guns...

Where can I bulk-order derringers? I must have some relatives in San Francisco, I have relatives in most places....

Krenn said:

what if we started shipping LOW-GRADE DERRINGERS into san francisco during the 90 days? every resident turning HUNDREDS of guns in... filing suit to force officials to accept the guns when they try to refuse...

Click to expand...

Cannot. One handgun a month in CA. So you could get in at most 3. But if I were an FFL and this law passed I would refuse to transfer handguns to SF residents, and I think most FFLs would be the same way.

Still, this does open the city up to some mighty lawsuits. I would love to see SF go bankrupt over something like this.

In reality, few people will comply with it and the cops won't enforce it and the courts will throw it out.

well, per resident, sure.

but that's a purchase restriction, right? what about gifts? What about unsolicited mail that I send containing handguns? they can't keep them, and they can't afford to ship them back... so they turn them in. Or I could send 1 each to all the heads of government, then swear out a warrant when no records exist of the derringers being turned in....

remember, I don't live in california... I don't have to play by there rules. and this wouldn't just be me, it could be the whole of the NRA if they got the protest website and the "ship a gun" donation box up soon enough....

Krenn said:

well, per resident, sure.

but that's a purchase restriction, right? what about gifts? What about unsolicited mail that I send containing handguns? they can't keep them, and they can't afford to ship them back... so they turn them in. Or I could send 1 each to all the heads of government, then swear out a warrant when no records exist of the derringers being turned in....

remember, I don't live in california... I don't have to play by there rules. and this wouldn't just be me, it could be the whole of the NRA if they got the protest website and the "ship a gun" donation box up soon enough....

Click to expand...

Cannot. Too many legal problems to list, but here's a few:

1. Interstate transfers of firearms must go through an FFL on the receiving side.

2. Can't ship "unsafe handguns" to CA. The gun has to be on a CA DoJ approved list. The cheapest gun on that list is about $150 I think.

3. No private party transfers in CA (even for residents) so even if you shipped it to someone, that someone wouldn't "own" it and therefore couldn't be compensated for it.

This won't fly even if people are dumb enough to vote for it. Doesn't anyone remember? Diane Feinstein tried it before, and the previous ban didn't stand up in court.

SIGarmed said:

This won't fly even if people are dumb enough to vote for it. Doesn't anyone remember? Diane Feinstein tried it before, and the previous ban didn't stand up in court.

Click to expand...

As I recall....

the reason it failed before was because the city was usurping the state legislature's authority to regulate firearms. If this passes it would fail BUT the gun grabbers could go back to the legislature with a "vote of the people" in their hand.

It is interesting to me that this ballot proposition has not been widely reported in the SF paper. I live in Marin County across the Golden Gate Bridge, read the local SF paper virtually daily, and have not heard of this before. Perhaps I just missed it but rather doubt it.

This is the kind of ballot proposition that will appeal to the largely left of center SF and Marin County populations. It ranks right up there with declaring various towns here nuclear free zones and cholesterol free zones.

Whether it would be enforceable or constitutional is a different matter. But, Mr. Daly would have accomplished his goal.

1. Interstate transfers of firearms must go through an FFL on the receiving side.

2. Can't ship "unsafe handguns" to CA. The gun has to be on a CA DoJ approved list. The cheapest gun on that list is about $150 I think.

3. No private party transfers in CA (even for residents) so even if you shipped it to someone, that someone wouldn't "own" it and therefore couldn't be compensated for it.

Click to expand...

1. OK, no argument there.

2. No. You can ship used "unsafe handguns" to CA for a PPT. "Used" means any gun that is not owned by a dealer. Your buddy in whatever state can buy as many cheap derringers as he wants and then decide he doesn't want them, and sell them all to you in a massive PPT.

3. PPT's are OK so long as they are done through a dealer.