NEWS: Bill would allow locals to ban handguns.

Status
Not open for further replies.

CountGlockula

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,527
Location
In a Los Angeles coffin.
The premise is if it succeeds locally, then it'll succeed up the ladder. Folks, please pray for us in CA and give us the strength to take action.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/localnews/ci_8844029

Bill would allow locals to ban handguns
By Josh Richman
STAFF WRITER

Article Created: 04/07/2008 05:38:08 PM PDT


An East Bay lawmaker's bill to clear the way for local handgun bans has a committee hearing Tuesday (April 8), delving into issues now pending before the state's and nation's highest courts.
Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, authored AB 2566 in reaction to a state Court of Appeal ruling in January which upheld the voiding of San Francisco's Measure H of 2005, approved by voters to bar city residents from owning handguns or from making or selling firearms or ammunition in the city.

The California Supreme Court is mulling whether to review this ruling, which found state law leaves no room for cities and counties to ban handgun ownership; Hancock's bill, to be heard Tuesday by the Assembly Public Safety Committee, seeks to create that room by removing the state pre-emption entirely.

Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban is now the subject of the biggest gun-rights case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in almost 70 years. The high court will rule by late June on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to gun ownership, rather than just a collective right to guns for the common defense as part of a state militia.

But Richmond community activist Andres Soto said the Legal Community Against Violence - a San Francisco nonprofit which helped draft the bill - believes that case won't directly affect this bill because of Washington's status as a federal district, distinct from the states. Soto said he sees this as "a domestic disarmament" crucial to the East Bay's gun-plagued communities.

Hancock said the bill is inspired by victims such as an Oakland boy hit by a stray bullet and paralyzed while at his piano lesson and a Richmond woman shot and killed in her doorway by a gang member. Handguns are "weapons of mass destruction in some of our inner cities," she said, and local governments need this tool at their disposal to quell the violence.

"Many times when enough individual local governments take an action, state action follows and federal action follows," Hancock said. "It's the people on the ground experiencing the problem every day that tend to be innovative and want to push the envelope, and I've seen the communities I represent staggering under the burden of gun violence for too long."

Gun-rights activists disagree.

"Aside from the fact that obviously disarming civilians and depriving them of the most effective tool there is for self-defense or defending their families, it's not a good policy decision," said California Rifle and Pistol Association attorney Chuck Michel of Long Beach.

"The law is confusing enough as it is right now," he said, with the California Law Revision Commission already studying the need to simplify and reorganize Penal Code sections dealing with deadly weapons; that panel's report is due by July 2009.

"The reason they passed pre-emption in the first place was so people wouldn't have to worry about violating a different set of laws every time they drove across a city line," Michel said. "Uniformity is very important."

Soto said that's "a red herring," as this bill wouldn't affect existing state laws on handgun transportation but rather would let cities bar residents from owning handguns.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office said Monday he has not yet taken a position on this bill.

Reach Josh Richman at [email protected] or 510-208-6428. Read the Political Blotter at http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics
 
Handgun bans have already been shot down, even in CA. D.C. is the only place currently with a ban. I believe even in CA there is state preemption on banning handguns.
 
So the gangs will all use AKs and SKS's now. Its not like they get the guns legally anyways.
 
Thank You CountGlockula,

I was listening this morning as another bill was being heard that would require an ammunition license to purchase trade lend sell or otherwise transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month.

CA Assembly members are the biggest bunch of morons this side of the mississippi.

every constituant or these over-legislators should vote them out of office as soon as possible.
 
Handguns are "weapons of mass destruction in some of our inner cities,"
Wow that's a pretty loose interperetation of that word. If handguns are weapons of mass destruction all those real AKs in Iraq must be universe disintegrators!
They need to be honest and call this bill what it is: the "I'll force you to be just as defenseless against criminals as I am" bill.
 
Why can't these moronic legislators just pass a law to ban shooting people without cause?
What?
Because the criminals won't obey it?
Oh.
 
The only down side of California disappearing into the sea during a violent earthquake, would be the former residents moving into America and bringing their stupid ideas with them.

Maybe we SHOULD give that one back to Mexico.
 
So just maybe California will follow Heller v. DC in the U.S.Supreme Court.
A firearm is a firearm, period.

If a legislature wants to fight crime then they should focus on crime, not on the tools of crime.

I will be very surprised if they get the state preemption thrown out.
 
That or maybe they should educate people more on handguns and offer them to the law abiding citezens. then let the bad guys know all the goodguys are going to be armed and on an equal playing field now.
 
The only down side of California disappearing into the sea during a violent earthquake, would be the former residents moving into America and bringing their stupid ideas with them.

That's one of the most idiotic and disrespectful things I've heard in recent memory. Why is it that some of you who live elsewhere always feel the need to say things like this about those of us who live in more gun-unfriendly states?

Oh, let me guess - we should all just "move already". Yeah right - like it's that easy. Guess what people - if all of us that live in the states where the gun-grabbers were the most vocal suddenly up and moved away, who in the world do you think would be left? That's right, the gun-grabbers. No. Instead, those of us who live in those states should be begged and cheered to STAY, and keep up the fight. We in MD have been fighting tooth and friggin' nail for the past decade, to make sure that if the gun-grabbers have their way, they'll have had to fight every step of the way.

*sigh*

Look - because a state has a bad rep for being "anti" doesn't make the people who live there any less American, and any "stupider" than the rest of us. They (and by "they" I mean "we") need encouragement not derision.

Support. Try it sometime, will ya?
 
D.C. is the only place currently with a ban.

Anyone familiar with Chicago statutes? I thought Handguns were banned there, but I'm from Missouri, so I'm just looking for clarification.
 
Anyone familar with Chicago statutes?

Here's some Chicago history from John Lott:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200409290839.asp

But even cities with far better police agencies have seen crime soar in the wake of handgun bans. Chicago, whose ban on new handguns started in 1982, has police computer systems that are the envy of the nation, a bevy of shiny new police facilities and a productive working relationship with community groups. Indeed, the city has achieved impressive reductions in property crime in recent years. But the gun ban didn't work at all when it came to reducing violence.

Chicago's murder rate fell from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years before the law and then rose slightly to 23. The change is even more dramatic when compared to five neighboring Illinois counties: Chicago's murder rate fell from being 8.1 times greater than its neighbors in 1977 to 5.5 times in 1982, and then went way up to 12 times greater in 1987. While robbery data isn't available for the years immediately after the ban, since 1985 (the first year for which the FBI has data) robbery rates soared.
 
Soto said that's "a red herring," as this bill wouldn't affect existing state laws on handgun transportation but rather would let cities bar residents from owning handguns.

How about the concept of equal treatment under the law?
 
Isn't there already laws against gangbangers shooting each other up?

1) Unlawful discharge of a firearm

2) Aggravated assault/attempted murder/ murder (whichever happens as a result of pulling a trigger)

3) Carrying a firearm without a permit

4) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (probably the case most of the time)

Annd countless other crimes I am sure.

Those 4 are off the top of my head.

No, not good enough? Okay, let's drag law abiding citizens into the nightmare with us...
 
Oh boy. Here we go. This would be terrible for California; besides San Francisco, I'm sure there are plenty of cities that would love to put restrictions on handgun ownership.

Why can't San Francisco secede and create its own little utopia and leave the rest of California alone? :banghead:
 
Quote:
The only down side of California disappearing into the sea during a violent earthquake, would be the former residents moving into America and bringing their stupid ideas with them.

That's one of the most idiotic and disrespectful things I've heard in recent memory. Why is it that some of you who live elsewhere always feel the need to say things like this about those of us who live in more gun-unfriendly states?

Oh, let me guess - we should all just "move already". Yeah right - like it's that easy. Guess what people - if all of us that live in the states where the gun-grabbers were the most vocal suddenly up and moved away, who in the world do you think would be left? That's right, the gun-grabbers. No. Instead, those of us who live in those states should be begged and cheered to STAY, and keep up the fight. We in MD have been fighting tooth and friggin' nail for the past decade, to make sure that if the gun-grabbers have their way, they'll have had to fight every step of the way.

*sigh*

Look - because a state has a bad rep for being "anti" doesn't make the people who live there any less American, and any "stupider" than the rest of us. They (and by "they" I mean "we") need encouragement not derision.

Support. Try it sometime, will ya?

I say that not only because of the anti gun sentiment in certain areas of California, but the general political situation in places like San Francisco. Some of those "elected officials" are... well, you know... walking rectums?

I've spent considerable time around LA, and lived for 17 years in anti Illinois. I feel your pain. One of the most joyous moments in my life, was seeing Illinois in my rear view mirror.

I wasn't born there, and never considered it home. I don't see it changing anytime soon, unless Chicago burns again.
 
Based on my experiance for the year I lived in Cali, what I read and hear from my wife (born and raised 27 years in Cali) and from credible news (as much is thats possible anymore) and other people, why does this
D-Berkeley, authored AB 2566
not surprise my one bit, and tell me all I need to know about the bill?

Continue to fight the good fight, Cali people, and good luck to you.
 
Folks, please pray for us in CA and give us the strength to take action.

I can pray for you, but you people need to take some action on your own part. This is not a new thing going on in your state, your government has been on this down hill slope for a long time. I just need to build a wall to keep the rest of the kalifornicators from moving in and destroying my state.;)
 
Until enough citizens of California decide that their government representatives need large-scale expulsion, the state will continue to slide, and not only in the area of RKBA. The state's answer to budget deficits, people moving to other states, and relatively low economic competitiveness is always to raise taxes and increase government intervention in the affairs of the people (particularly economic ones). Unfortunately, the only way I see things changing there is for things to get so bad that the people get fed up.
 
There would be a silver lining - if Heller comes out the way we are expecting, if the Cali state bill were to actually pass, and then SF and other Cali towns passed local bans without preemption problems, then it's just another case for a post-Heller-win incorporation lawsuit, and the Ninth Circuit will no doubt be happy to contort any way they need to uphold any bans they get, and then with Chicago and NYC cases going up as well SCOTUS will have the opportunity to finally put the Second up there with the First.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top