Why have the NRA and most other gun rights been so avidly fighting against the San Francisco Prop. H, but seemingly take little or no public stand to Chicago or any of the other cities or villages in Illinois and across the country who are doing the same thing. Chicago has been the way it is for years before any of this SF Funny Business began, but nothing that I can recall. Why?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why San Francisco?
- Thread starter mp510
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Jim March
Member
Several reasons:
1) California is 1/9th of the US population. We don't want to lose it without a fight.
2) California has a "preemption law" that forbids local gun control of this sort. Various localities hate it and fight it at every turn, both by ignoring it (and getting reigned in in court) and by having legislators "owned" by the worst local governments put up bills to end it.
So far they've only had limited success. They've gotten the courts to agree that some types of gun control can be done locally but not others (that the state has directly intervened in already). Basic gun ownership falls into the latter category.
In other words, the key difference is that in Cali the NRA can fight without using the 2nd Amendment, using basic state law.
No such local preemption law exists in Illinois, so to fight the Chicago (or WashDC) handgun bans they'd have to go head to head on the 2A itself, and they don't think the courts are ready for that yet.
The San Francisco fight is a different type of fight even though the law being battled against (handgun ban) is the same as Chicago/DC.
1) California is 1/9th of the US population. We don't want to lose it without a fight.
2) California has a "preemption law" that forbids local gun control of this sort. Various localities hate it and fight it at every turn, both by ignoring it (and getting reigned in in court) and by having legislators "owned" by the worst local governments put up bills to end it.
So far they've only had limited success. They've gotten the courts to agree that some types of gun control can be done locally but not others (that the state has directly intervened in already). Basic gun ownership falls into the latter category.
In other words, the key difference is that in Cali the NRA can fight without using the 2nd Amendment, using basic state law.
No such local preemption law exists in Illinois, so to fight the Chicago (or WashDC) handgun bans they'd have to go head to head on the 2A itself, and they don't think the courts are ready for that yet.
The San Francisco fight is a different type of fight even though the law being battled against (handgun ban) is the same as Chicago/DC.
thesneakyrussian
member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2006
- Messages
- 37
Jim, this is exactly why they should let it go and pass prop h and therefore set the precedence and let other cities and towns in CA to allow residents to own anything prohibited by CA laws.
Sven
Senior Member
Sounds like a shaky legal footing to take, and plus - good luck getting your local law makers to stick their necks out and give you access to more firepower.
Remember: they don't just want your guns. They want control over you.
Remember: they don't just want your guns. They want control over you.
Manedwolf
member
I also believe that they realize that nothing can happen in Chicago until the Daley Dynasty is broken.
Jim March
Member
MP510: can you quote it or provide a linkie?
scout26
Member
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conent.htm
It's actually Art I, section 22.
It's those first six words that caused us to lose in Morton Grove.
Morton grove is exactly the reason that the NRA will not go after Chicago. The state courts in IL would probably rule the same way, using the Morton Grove case as a precedent. Even if that ruling didn't cost the NRA anything in credibility or political power, it would cost resources. Resources that can be used where there is a hope to win.
In San Fransisco, there is a hope of winning. If the NRA wins there, it sends a message to other cities in CA that they can't just ban guns. It also sends a message to cities in other states. If they don't fight it, you'll see similare proposals / legislation pushed in Chicago, New York, New Orleans, and a host of other anti gun cities (even in states that have preemption).
In San Fransisco, there is a hope of winning. If the NRA wins there, it sends a message to other cities in CA that they can't just ban guns. It also sends a message to cities in other states. If they don't fight it, you'll see similare proposals / legislation pushed in Chicago, New York, New Orleans, and a host of other anti gun cities (even in states that have preemption).
From the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:
The proponants of it claim that the cost per firearm would be between $0.50 and $8.00. The cost to enter the data into a state database, aroung $30 per firearm. I didn't find any info on how much it would cost to ensure that all those state databases were compatible and accessable on a national level, but I'm betting it would be at LEAST as much as the $30 a firearm to enter the info.
So the PROPONANTS claim it will only amount to between a $30 and $70 increase to the price of every handgun sold.
The arguements against it are legion. Here are some:
- proposals currently being pushed would ban sale of handguns (at least semi autos) without this technology.
- There is no data to prove that it would be able to be used to help solve crimes.
- There is data to show that registrations of guns is not effective in catching criminals, so why would having the serial number of the gun used in a crime help?
- The part that produced the microstamp on the casing would either have to be the firing pin, or a portion of the chamber that the case expanded against, yet didn't rub against hard enough during extraction to smear the marks. Firing pins are easy for crimnals to make (making the gun untracable). Chamber markings are much harger to make unremovable.
What is microstamping?
Microstamping is a new technology that would allow police to positively link used cartridge cases recovered at crime scenes to the firearms and criminals that fired them.
How does it work?
The basic technology of microstamping involves the use of powerful lasers to make extremely precise, microscopic engravings on the firing pin or inside the firing chamber of a gun. Police at a crime scene can immediately read the microscopic serial numbers on the shell casings and link the evidence to the specific gun that fired the round. Manufacturers would decide what the identifying marks look like and where they're placed, making it harder for criminals to tamper with the firearm
The proponants of it claim that the cost per firearm would be between $0.50 and $8.00. The cost to enter the data into a state database, aroung $30 per firearm. I didn't find any info on how much it would cost to ensure that all those state databases were compatible and accessable on a national level, but I'm betting it would be at LEAST as much as the $30 a firearm to enter the info.
So the PROPONANTS claim it will only amount to between a $30 and $70 increase to the price of every handgun sold.
The arguements against it are legion. Here are some:
- proposals currently being pushed would ban sale of handguns (at least semi autos) without this technology.
- There is no data to prove that it would be able to be used to help solve crimes.
- There is data to show that registrations of guns is not effective in catching criminals, so why would having the serial number of the gun used in a crime help?
- The part that produced the microstamp on the casing would either have to be the firing pin, or a portion of the chamber that the case expanded against, yet didn't rub against hard enough during extraction to smear the marks. Firing pins are easy for crimnals to make (making the gun untracable). Chamber markings are much harger to make unremovable.
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 368
- Replies
- 46
- Views
- 2K