http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...hive/2005/01/10/cstillwell.DTL&type=printable
OPINION: Gun Control, By Any Means Necessary
Cinnamon Stillwell
Monday, January 10, 2005
Printable Version
Email This Article
San Francisco's Board of Supervisors is up to its old tricks again, trying to control violent crime by penalizing law-abiding citizens. In their infinite wisdom, the supervisors want to ban private citizens from owning handguns, while the very criminals they seek to undermine are free to purchase them on the black market.
Led by Chris Daly and supported by outgoing board president Matt Gonzalez and fellow supervisors Tom Ammiano, Bevan Dufty and Michela Alioto-Pier, the proposal is a disaster in the making. Nevertheless, they plan to put the misguided measure on the ballot in November, and, considering San Franciscans' propensity for supporting feel-good laws with little thought for the long-term consequences, it could very well pass.
But should this passage occur, the supervisors might find themselves in for a bit of a challenge. Little thought seems to have gone into the practical elements of this drastic ban, such as enforcement and possible ramifications. These are minor considerations for the Board of Supervisors, perhaps, but some of us have more than a few questions.
For instance, because there's no public gun registry for the City, let alone for California, how will San Francisco start its collection efforts? The ban claims not to "create or require any local license or registration for any firearm," but how else does the City plan on keeping track of the process? Snooping in federal files? The ban applies "exclusively to residents of the City and County of San Francisco," but what if a person claims to keep a gun at a friend's house in the East Bay?
At a time of crippling budget problems, the City could find itself in the awkward position of having to reimburse gun owners for their property. Because the handguns were purchased legally, it's hard to imagine that they could be confiscated without some form of compensation. If anything, the City might offer a buy-back program of some sort, but it's unlikely payments would equal original values. In any case, San Francisco can ill afford such additional expenses.
According to the proposed ban, gun owners will be given 90 days to relinquish their handguns at any police department or sheriff's department station. Do the supervisors really imagine that gun owners will just start pouring into local law-enforcement offices and surrendering their handguns? And if they don't comply, how will the law be enforced exactly? Will the City send patrols out to roam the streets, collecting guns from an unwilling populace? (Past National Rifle Association President Charlton Heston's famous quote, "From my cold, dead hands," comes to mind). Does the famously liberal leadership of San Francisco really want to place itself in the position of breaking down doors and forcibly disarming law-abiding citizens?
As we have witnessed throughout history, governments seeking to maintain absolute control over the populace will always try to disarm them first. The Founding Fathers added the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights for this very reason -- to give citizens a defense against the tyranny of the state. The supervisors' measure is an attempt to chip away at this crucial and constitutional right.
The stipulation that only those who require handguns for their jobs, such as law-enforcement and military personnel and security guards, be allowed to keep them adds to the ballot proposition's ominous connotations. As much as society may respect such representatives of law and order, if they are given the exclusive right to bear arms, we could find ourselves in what many on both sides of the political spectrum are constantly warning us about -- a police state.
Beyond the potential for abuse on the part of government, what about the wisdom of leaving citizens defenseless? Although the media rarely report such incidents, countless crimes are prevented every year by legal gun owners standing up to criminals. In the United Kingdom, where private gun ownership has virtually been outlawed, the prejudice against self-defense has reached the point where citizens are not supposed to yell "Help!" while being robbed or attacked. And, if they witness a crime on the street, they're forbidden to get involved and must instead stand by until the police arrive. This is where incremental restrictions on the right to self-defense can lead. Do we really want to live in such an utterly docile society?
The proposed ban would also decrease the ability of minorities to defend themselves against potential attacks. Groups such as the Pink Pistols and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, which promote the defensive use of firearms for gays and Jews respectively, don't exist in a vacuum. The Second Amendment Sisters advocate gun rights for women, who are all too often the victims of violent crime.
Also, African-American gun rights activist Kenn Blanchard doesn't mince words with his book, "Black Man with a Gun." After all, it's no coincidence that slaves were prohibited from owning guns and that, even after the abolition of slavery, blacks were hampered by gun-control restrictions during the rampages of the Ku Klux Klan. One would think that leaders prone to touting their city's "diversity" would understand the principle of armed self-defense for minorities, but it appears not.
The reality is that criminals will continue to have access to illegal weaponry no matter how many restrictions politicians place on gun ownership. In fact, not only does gun control not stem crime, it may actually increase it. Such has been the case in both Australia and England, both of which instituted handgun bans, only to encounter skyrocketing crime as a result. Here in the United States, Washington, D.C. enacted a ban on handguns in 1976 (which is being repealed), only to become the murder capital of the country. Is San Francisco next?
Already, gun rights organizations such as the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association are getting ready to take the proposed ban on. They charge that it creates a de facto licensing scheme because those exempted from the ban (law-enforcement and military personnel and security guards) must be licensed to carry arms. As such, the ban would clearly conflict with state law, which stipulates that "no permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep or carry [a handgun], either openly or concealed, shall be required of any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state."
In 1982, the SAF helped overturn a similar San Francisco ban on pistols. Proposed by then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein and enacted by supervisors in the wake of the murders of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, the ban was rejected by the California Court of Appeals.
But this time around, opponents of the ban are trying to head the problem off at the pass. According to NRA and CRPA lawyer Chuck Michel, "We're already in the process of putting together the petition for an injunction to try to keep it off the ballot." In the off chance that the NRA fails and voters approve the ban, legal challenges through the courts would likely ensue. That should do wonders for San Francisco's budget.
Whatever happens, San Francisco's position on the political fringes of the country will only be cemented by this attempted ban. If that's the legacy the Board of Supervisors want to impart, so be it. San Franciscans are awfully fond of threatening secession these days, but self-destruction would be a more apt description.
Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached cinnamons@earthlink
OPINION: Gun Control, By Any Means Necessary
Cinnamon Stillwell
Monday, January 10, 2005
Printable Version
Email This Article
San Francisco's Board of Supervisors is up to its old tricks again, trying to control violent crime by penalizing law-abiding citizens. In their infinite wisdom, the supervisors want to ban private citizens from owning handguns, while the very criminals they seek to undermine are free to purchase them on the black market.
Led by Chris Daly and supported by outgoing board president Matt Gonzalez and fellow supervisors Tom Ammiano, Bevan Dufty and Michela Alioto-Pier, the proposal is a disaster in the making. Nevertheless, they plan to put the misguided measure on the ballot in November, and, considering San Franciscans' propensity for supporting feel-good laws with little thought for the long-term consequences, it could very well pass.
But should this passage occur, the supervisors might find themselves in for a bit of a challenge. Little thought seems to have gone into the practical elements of this drastic ban, such as enforcement and possible ramifications. These are minor considerations for the Board of Supervisors, perhaps, but some of us have more than a few questions.
For instance, because there's no public gun registry for the City, let alone for California, how will San Francisco start its collection efforts? The ban claims not to "create or require any local license or registration for any firearm," but how else does the City plan on keeping track of the process? Snooping in federal files? The ban applies "exclusively to residents of the City and County of San Francisco," but what if a person claims to keep a gun at a friend's house in the East Bay?
At a time of crippling budget problems, the City could find itself in the awkward position of having to reimburse gun owners for their property. Because the handguns were purchased legally, it's hard to imagine that they could be confiscated without some form of compensation. If anything, the City might offer a buy-back program of some sort, but it's unlikely payments would equal original values. In any case, San Francisco can ill afford such additional expenses.
According to the proposed ban, gun owners will be given 90 days to relinquish their handguns at any police department or sheriff's department station. Do the supervisors really imagine that gun owners will just start pouring into local law-enforcement offices and surrendering their handguns? And if they don't comply, how will the law be enforced exactly? Will the City send patrols out to roam the streets, collecting guns from an unwilling populace? (Past National Rifle Association President Charlton Heston's famous quote, "From my cold, dead hands," comes to mind). Does the famously liberal leadership of San Francisco really want to place itself in the position of breaking down doors and forcibly disarming law-abiding citizens?
As we have witnessed throughout history, governments seeking to maintain absolute control over the populace will always try to disarm them first. The Founding Fathers added the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights for this very reason -- to give citizens a defense against the tyranny of the state. The supervisors' measure is an attempt to chip away at this crucial and constitutional right.
The stipulation that only those who require handguns for their jobs, such as law-enforcement and military personnel and security guards, be allowed to keep them adds to the ballot proposition's ominous connotations. As much as society may respect such representatives of law and order, if they are given the exclusive right to bear arms, we could find ourselves in what many on both sides of the political spectrum are constantly warning us about -- a police state.
Beyond the potential for abuse on the part of government, what about the wisdom of leaving citizens defenseless? Although the media rarely report such incidents, countless crimes are prevented every year by legal gun owners standing up to criminals. In the United Kingdom, where private gun ownership has virtually been outlawed, the prejudice against self-defense has reached the point where citizens are not supposed to yell "Help!" while being robbed or attacked. And, if they witness a crime on the street, they're forbidden to get involved and must instead stand by until the police arrive. This is where incremental restrictions on the right to self-defense can lead. Do we really want to live in such an utterly docile society?
The proposed ban would also decrease the ability of minorities to defend themselves against potential attacks. Groups such as the Pink Pistols and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, which promote the defensive use of firearms for gays and Jews respectively, don't exist in a vacuum. The Second Amendment Sisters advocate gun rights for women, who are all too often the victims of violent crime.
Also, African-American gun rights activist Kenn Blanchard doesn't mince words with his book, "Black Man with a Gun." After all, it's no coincidence that slaves were prohibited from owning guns and that, even after the abolition of slavery, blacks were hampered by gun-control restrictions during the rampages of the Ku Klux Klan. One would think that leaders prone to touting their city's "diversity" would understand the principle of armed self-defense for minorities, but it appears not.
The reality is that criminals will continue to have access to illegal weaponry no matter how many restrictions politicians place on gun ownership. In fact, not only does gun control not stem crime, it may actually increase it. Such has been the case in both Australia and England, both of which instituted handgun bans, only to encounter skyrocketing crime as a result. Here in the United States, Washington, D.C. enacted a ban on handguns in 1976 (which is being repealed), only to become the murder capital of the country. Is San Francisco next?
Already, gun rights organizations such as the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association are getting ready to take the proposed ban on. They charge that it creates a de facto licensing scheme because those exempted from the ban (law-enforcement and military personnel and security guards) must be licensed to carry arms. As such, the ban would clearly conflict with state law, which stipulates that "no permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep or carry [a handgun], either openly or concealed, shall be required of any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state."
In 1982, the SAF helped overturn a similar San Francisco ban on pistols. Proposed by then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein and enacted by supervisors in the wake of the murders of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, the ban was rejected by the California Court of Appeals.
But this time around, opponents of the ban are trying to head the problem off at the pass. According to NRA and CRPA lawyer Chuck Michel, "We're already in the process of putting together the petition for an injunction to try to keep it off the ballot." In the off chance that the NRA fails and voters approve the ban, legal challenges through the courts would likely ensue. That should do wonders for San Francisco's budget.
Whatever happens, San Francisco's position on the political fringes of the country will only be cemented by this attempted ban. If that's the legacy the Board of Supervisors want to impart, so be it. San Franciscans are awfully fond of threatening secession these days, but self-destruction would be a more apt description.
Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached cinnamons@earthlink
