Okay...so handgun owners in San Fran are required to surrender thier guns...to whom?

[Justin]

Rather than concern ourselves with the silly law that SF passed, we should be asking ourself why the city of San Francisco thought it was worth spending a few million dollars of tax payer money to pass an ordinance they knew was doomed?

Hey, who cares what it costs when the money's free.

 

[GHilton]

+1. I've read the NRA pleadings on this and I'd bet one of my ARs that this entire law will be struck down by the court.

Rather than concern ourselves with the silly law that SF passed, we should be asking ourself why the city of San Francisco thought it was worth spending a few million dollars of tax payer money to pass an ordinance they knew was doomed?

I haven't read the NRA's pleadings on this, so I don't know how strong of a case/argument they have. BUT, from what other members posted, it didn't work in D.C. or in Chicago, how is it different here?

As Kruzrsaid a while back, voter turn out was VERY poor for the pro-gun crowd. Looks like as a whole, San Fran gunners don't care about their rights enough to vote. Or maybe they figured out a way to get out of it till this blows over?

I sure hope Mr. Roberts is correct on this issue.

Could this be a form of rebelion towards Floridas new law??

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I haven't read the NRA's pleadings on this, so I don't know how strong of a case/argument they have. BUT, from what other members posted, it didn't work in D.C. or in Chicago, how is it different here?

The major difference is California has a state preemption law that prevents municipalities from passing their own gun legislation. Despite this law, San Francisco has enacted a ban on handguns twice in the past and been overturned by the court both times. The language of this latest bill is almost identical to language that has already been overturned by California courts.

IIRC, Illinois has no preemption law, so municipalities (Chicago, Morton Grove) are free to enact regulation of firearms that is more restrictive than state law.

D.C. of course, is its own special entity and so isn't subject to any state preemption laws but relies on the city government or the will of Congress.

 

[mfree]

I wonder how much of a show it'd be if all 200,000 gun owners in SF got up at midnight the morning of the "official" start of the law and unloaded a magazine full of blank rounds into the air...

It's completely untenable, but my, what a show that'd be

 

[mwelch8404]

I agree...

SF ordinance overlooks 'legal property' aspect of handgun ownership; if SF ordinance startsanew and bans sale of firearms from this point forward perhaps it would be enforceable, but it would need a grandfather clause to allow all firearms legally purchased previously... laws cannot simply ban property legally purchased... other states tried this with fireworks and what happened was all legally purchased fireworks could be kept but it banned all new fireworks from being sold. I don't believe SF has authority to ban firearms that were legally purchased. In any event, it's headed for the courts... keep your guns for now...DO NOT GIVE THEM TO POLICE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES... they keep them!

Unconstitutional based on ex post facto protections. Oh wait. Someone will come up with emminent domain reasons for the "taking."

My FIRST thought was that same shotgun someone posted a pix of (870?)

Just put a sling on and open carry any where you'd cc a handgun. Oh well, it was a nice thought while it lasted.

 

[K-Romulus]

Chicago and DC (and NYC to an extent)

Oh, you mean they will do this like they did in Chicago and New York City?

Sorry man, but your bridge selling paranoia seems to be missing a pylon or two.

These were different states/municipalities with different laws being passed than the San Fran law:

1) Chicago - grandfathered existing handgun owners, thus no need to confiscate

2) DC - same

3) NYC - banned "assault weapons," with no grandfathering, and actually followed-up on the registration lists to be sure they were either out of the city or surrendered to the police . . .

The San Fran handgun law is identical to the NYC "Assault Weapons" law - surrender them or get them out of town.

Edited to add:

The handgun ban is not a "taking" because the government isn't appropriating your property for its own use. The law is criminalizing behavior, (i.e., possession of an object) . . .

 

[Otherguy Overby]

You would think that if there were 200,000 to 300,000 guns in SF, and unless one person owned a whole bunch of guns, that this law would have been voted down.

What happened to all the gun owners? Aside from us High Road types, I would venture to guess that the average gun owner household would have 2-3 guns. That would be 100,000 gun owners. It would then appear that upwards of 50,000 gun owners didn't vote.

I realize that this poses some assumptions on my part but either the estimate of guns in SF is inflated or there was some apathy on the voter part.

I wonder if electronic voting machines were used... Where's Jim March on this? There's gotta be a bunch of handgun owners there who knew about the issue and would have voted against it. I wouldn't be stretching my imagination to think that the results might have be tampered with.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

My FIRST thought was that same shotgun someone posted a pix of (870?)

Just put a sling on and open carry any where you'd cc a handgun. Oh well, it was a nice thought while it lasted.

You know, that's not a bad idea. AFAIK, open carry of unloaded long arms is generally legal in CA. Is that correct? I know there are a lot of gun owners in SF. Maybe it's time for a long-gun open carry march to City Hall? I understand that such tactics helped CCW reform in a few other states. "If we can't carry concealed, then this is what you're going to get" kind of idea.

 

[Molon Labe]

People with half a brain will just leave them at a friend's house or a storage unit until this blows over.

And people with even more brains (and more courage) will simply ignore this law.

 

[Turkey Creek]

Sorry but I can't really get worked up about this- it's California and on top of that it's moonbat central, ie SF- they are always going to be PIA'S- if it's not this it's going to be something else ad infinitum- I feel sorry for our brothers who live there but that's about it-

 

[ArmedBear]

And people with even more brains (and more courage) will simply ignore this law.

Why lose a nice collection? I'm not talking about defensive guns. Where's the "brains" in letting the cops take some nice old handguns and get them all rusty while this goes to court? I don't see the "brains" in that.

 

[billwiese]

Ghilton wrote:
As Kruzrsaid a while back, voter turn out was VERY poor for the pro-gun crowd. Looks like as a whole, San Fran gunners don't care about their rights enough to vote.

mfree wrote:I wonder how much of a show it'd be if all 200,000 gun owners in SF got up at midnight the morning of the "official" start of the law and unloaded a magazine full of blank rounds into the air...

Ummm, what? I have NO idea what you 2 are talking about. You must be from outside the area and don't know demographics.

Poor turnout for progun crowd subset? I doubt it. Prob every reasonable gunowner was out there.

But remember there's not that many 'active' gunowners in SF.

Where mfree got that 200K number I dunno. That's way wild on the high side. Yes, lotsa people prob have guns in their homes - uncle's old shotgun, deer rifle, etc. A subset of those would be handguns. Many of these are passive owners who will turn them in if directed - they just ended up having the gun(s) and don't care about using, keeping, maintaing them.

There's prob not over 25K serious handgun owners in SF - that actively have a handgun for protection/sport, use it, etc. There's prob another 20K that have a gun, believe in its ownership, but haven't cleaned it or touched it, it's just there. The rest are very passive, a 'just in case' thing, etc.

And then there's our internal enemies I call the "duckhunters" - with the "oh, you don't need a handgun, I rely on my shotgun just fine" attitude.

It's a demographic thing too. SF demographically is a mix of the huddled masses who can barely afford a gun, and citified liberals. Many many folks there don't even have cars due to cost/parking.

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

 

[ArmedBear]

You mean the huddled masses who make $100K/year but can't afford rent, to say nothing of a gun, right?

 

[thebigc]

i hope most of them dont surrender them it is a sad state of affairs when americans are broguht to obey unconstitutuional laws

 

[billwiese]

You mean the huddled masses who make $100K/year but can't afford rent, to say nothing of a gun, right?

$100K/year isn't much when basic homes cost $700K. Remember we have state income tax too.

Rents in SF are very bad; decent 1br apts go for $1900 or more simply because rent control drives down the stock and drives up prices of available units since owner wants to capture max payment while he can. Homes in crime-ridden Bayview area can go for $500K. My ex-GF paid $750K for 2br condo in Sausalito - of course, it has water views of the piers.

I live in San Jose and my 2Br/2.5ba/2car townhouse, 1100 sqft, goes for $580K now.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

 

[Molon Labe]

Why lose a nice collection? I'm not talking about defensive guns. Where's the "brains" in letting the cops take some nice old handguns and get them all rusty while this goes to court? I don't see the "brains" in that.

I'm sure glad the minutemen of 1775 didn't share your sense of "values."

For the record, if I lived in SF I'd simply igore this !@#$% law.

 

[madmike]

I'm sure glad the minutemen of 1775 didn't share your sense of "values."

For the record, if I lived in SF I'd simply igore this !@#$% law.

I wouldn't live in San Fran if you paid me.

But that doesn't help those who do.

When this law goes down, there needs to be some fanfare. Obviously, the press will be fairly quiet. So we'll have to spread the word. All the ignorant masses will see is "Handgun bans are illegal." That's a good way for them to be thinking.

 

[mfree]

Whoops, dropped an extra zero in that figure, sorry.

 

[50 Freak]

I love these threads, seems like everyone that does not live in or even been in California (or the Bay area in this case) is all of a sudden a CA gun law expert.

This law will get struck down. SF can enact as much feel good anti gun legislation as they want. Whether or not city ordnances can trump state and federal laws is still to be seen.

 

[mussi]

This law will get struck down. SF can enact as much feel good anti gun legislation as they want. Whether or not city ordnances can trump state and federal laws is still to be seen.

I hope it does. But then, maybe

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/fresh/showpics.cgi?another_leftist_pita is an omen.