PDA

View Full Version : Proposition H Penalties


jdberger
03-11-2006, 7:13 PM
Or, why you should get off your keister and get some signatures on those RKBA petitions (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=25043).


S.F. approves penalties for anti-gun ordinance (http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/ci_3592114)
By Jason Shuffler, CORRESPONDENT



SAN FRANCISCO — Despite an ongoing lawsuit with the National Rifle Association, San Franciscos Board of Supervisors set penalties last week on what is regarded as one of the toughest anti-gun laws in the country.
Last November, 58 percent of San Francisco voters passed Proposition H, a city ordinance that makes it illegal for residents to possess handguns and prohibits the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms in the city.

As required by the proposition, the supervisors Wednesday approved a set of penalties for violating the law that include imposition of a $1,000 penalty and a jail term of between 90 days and six months.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom made the recommendations in a letter to the board, saying he had consulted first with the chief of police, district attorney, sheriff and city attorney.Immediately after the Nov. 8 election, the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates filed a lawsuit in the First District State Court of Appeal in San Francisco, arguing that Proposition H conflicts with state law allowing police agencies to issue handgun permits.

The San Francisco city attorneys office responded that local government, under home rule powers, is entitled to protect residents from handgun violence.

Superior Court Judge James Warren, who is overseeing the case, expects to rule on the case before the mid-June deadline. If Warren deems the proposition unlawful, the city will likely appeal the decision.

xLusi0n
03-11-2006, 8:19 PM
Abosulte CRAP. That's only hurting law abiding citizens...how does that ban effect gang bangers / criminals? I know I'm preaching to the choir...but it's so frustrating. I may not have grown up in the ghettos, but being a Republican in Kalifornia is just as tough.

xLusi0n
03-11-2006, 8:21 PM
So if someone broke into my house and I called 911 and the cops took too long to get there...assuming I'm still alive, could I sue the city police - since I've been stripped of any powers to protect myself.

shopkeep
03-11-2006, 8:41 PM
I'm just glad I don't live in the bay area where all these loonies are. I'm NOT glad that this is even in the courts. If this is upheld in court gun bans will be enacted in Los Angelos and possibly Sacramento next.

Supernam
03-11-2006, 9:15 PM
The San Francisco city attorneys office responded that local government, under home rule powers, is entitled to protect residents from handgun violence.

Yes, however you do this by arming the law abiding citizens with guns, not disarming them.

jdberger
03-11-2006, 10:06 PM
So if someone broke into my house and I called 911 and the cops took too long to get there...assuming I'm still alive, could I sue the city police - since I've been stripped of any powers to protect myself.Nope. Police don't have any obligation to prevent crime. (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html#6) There is a better link to a better case out there but I couldn't find it the first place I looked and I'll bet that there are folks on this board who could fnit and explain it in a clearer manner than I ever could.

dwtt
03-11-2006, 10:39 PM
There was a woman in Washington D.C. who was raped in her own home. Because of the gun ban in D.C. she was unable to have a gun at home to protect herself and she sued the city claiming the police had an obligation to protect her since the city prevented citizens from protecting themselves by enacting a gun ban. The courts ruled that the police don't have an obligation to ensure citizens are protected. The woman lost her case and a precedent was set. If a SF resident gives up his handgun, then is victimized because she has lost her ability to protect herself, the city is not responsible. Kamala Harris, the SF District Attorney, would also say the criminal isn't responsible, because it was the "system" or a bad childhood that drove the criminal to commit the crime. If the SF gunowner keeps her handgun and shoots an attacker in her own home, I'm sure Kamala Harris would not hesitate to portray the homeowner as a vigilante and criminal, and the attacker as a "victim" of gun violence.
If prop H is upheld in the courts, San Francisco will become like Washington D.C. and the murder and violent crime rate would go up.

jdberger
03-11-2006, 10:48 PM
Kamala Harris is only interested in prosecuting cops.

xLusi0n
03-11-2006, 11:14 PM
Call it civil disobedience or call me a criminal, but if I lived in SF, I would BREAK THE LAW and ILLEGALLY keep a CA approved hand gun in my home - disregarding the city gun ban. Not because I think the law is crap (though I do) but I'd rather get slapped with some jail time and pay whatever fines than to be victimized in my own home.

Justang
03-12-2006, 12:51 AM
hmm. Since I have a CA CCW, could I visit SF and carry?

Where do I sign the petition? I'm in Kern County for the weekend (Ridgecrest), and there is no place listed to sign. help... I wanna sign!

shopkeep
03-12-2006, 1:12 AM
hmm. Since I have a CA CCW, could I visit SF and carry?

Absolutely. The ordinance only bans San Francisco residents from possession. If you live outside San Francisco you can use your handgun to practice at San Francisco ranges (if they remain open) and also keep your handgun at your business in San Francisco. Likewise, you can transport or execute a CCW within San Francisco city limits.

Basically all Proposition H does is disarm law abiding San Francisco residents. It does not disarm criminals or other law abiding citizens who are not San Francisco residents. I'm still trying to figure out how and why this is expected to reduce crime.

adamsreeftank
03-12-2006, 1:41 AM
It's bizzare that a citizen would be arrested for posessing a legal handgun in a safe in their home, but a "visitor" who drove in from Oakland could legally bring an arsenal, as long as they are transported unloaded and in a locked box.

I love living in the bay area, but I'm glad I don't live in SF. I'm really worried what will happen if this gets upheld. I'm sure a proposition like that would have no trouble passing here.

cooslf
03-12-2006, 8:57 AM
This is no brainer. I don't know what in the world these politicians are thinking. Prop H is abosulte CRAP. It will never stop the gangsters or criminals to get the firearms as they don't obey the laws. This Prop H only ripes off law abiding citizens' right. As many point out, we will be on the mercy of the criminals when we got victimized. They can just do whatever they want. We just have nothing to protect ourselves and the police might not come in time. Where are the laws to protect law abiding citizens?
It is crazy that you will end up be the one to go to jail for using firearms to protect yourself instead of the criminals...
It's so frustrating to live in CA...

mow
03-12-2006, 9:01 AM
I'm just glad I don't live in the bay area where all these loonies are.

You're kidding right? I thought Sacoftomatoes had all the lunatics:D :p :D

crs1
03-12-2006, 10:09 AM
I know this has probably been addressed, but what if you live in SF and your office (you are the president/owner) is out of the city...Can't you just keep your guns in the safe at the office and get a taser for home use. (I know its not ideal, but at least so you don't have to give up your guns while this is all worked out)

Mssr. Eleganté
03-12-2006, 12:02 PM
Yes, it will be perfectly legal for you to keep your handguns at your office outside of San Francisco. It will also be legal for you to buy a 12 gauge shotgun to keep at your SF home for self defense.

xenophobe
03-12-2006, 12:12 PM
Nope. Police don't have any obligation to prevent crime. (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html#6) There is a better link to a better case out there but I couldn't find it the first place I looked and I'll bet that there are folks on this board who could fnit and explain it in a clearer manner than I ever could.

Well, that's not QUITE true.

A police officer is required to respond to a dispatched call, and they're required to prevent a serious crime if they are witnessing it unless it's a situation they cannot take control over.

If they get a call from someone being robbed, raped, murdered, etc... they can't just decide to stop off at Dunkin Donuts and procede at a leisurely pace.

Sure, if they can't get to a scene in time, or if they fail to protect, they can't really be held liable.

If an officer's negligence is directly responsible for someone's death, you bet that the city or agency can be liable.

CSkyhawk72
03-12-2006, 12:18 PM
Hi everybody! San Fransicko is leading the way to a totalitarian government. First they strip your freedom to smoke a cigarette in public, then they grab your handguns.... what's next? Where does it stop? What's to stop them from outlawing rifles and shotguns next? I mean, heck, Prop H (also known as Preparation H, by the sane few in SF) deems ammunition sales illegal in SF as well!!!

Forget this dump, why pay 2 million dollars for a house, just so we can't protect it?

... yeah, San Fransicko SUCKS!!!!!

gmcem50
03-12-2006, 12:32 PM
Call it civil disobedience or call me a criminal, but if I lived in SF, I would BREAK THE LAW and ILLEGALLY keep a CA approved hand gun in my home - disregarding the city gun ban. Not because I think the law is crap (though I do) but I'd rather get slapped with some jail time and pay whatever fines than to be victimized in my own home.

Honestly, is SF really that great a place to live that you would stay there and put up with this? Why not move to a less restrictive city? Geez, now I sound like the CA-haters on AR15.com!:eek:

Charliegone
03-12-2006, 2:08 PM
If you leave you will just be giving them what they want...a city full of morons, uhh forget that one..:D like I said don't leave! Fight it. If you do stay and defy them they will know you have had enough of their bs politics!

QuickOnTheDraw
03-12-2006, 2:27 PM
How many people do you think are going to abide by this? I believe many will defy and take a chance! I would rather have peace of mind than no protection especially in my own home with my family. I can just see it now, s.f. store owners coming across the bay to buy up all the shotguns for protection. So next time your in s.f at the local liquor store, just think about the shotgun under the counter that is pointed right at your genitals? SSeems as though this could make things worse?

dwtt
03-12-2006, 7:21 PM
I hope every gun owner or anyone who wants to keep a firearm for self defense in San Francisco go buy a shotgun for home defense. At least they should do it before shotguns and rifles are outlawed.
If the court upholds prop H in San Francisco, then the entire state is in a lot of trouble, because extremists like Koretz will try to take it state wide.

crs1
03-12-2006, 8:01 PM
Yeah, Koretz wanted to save Tookie....He is from another area that behaves like SF....West Hollywood...another lot of freaks and libtards...Unfortunately none of them will ever vote him out of office.:mad:

I have had alot of email discourse with Koretz regarding microstamping...

I love when you pin down a politician on issues and clearly win the debate with logic, truth, and reasoning, prooving them wrong, and all they can do is reply, and I quote..."Be that as it may, I still disagree with you."

shopkeep
03-12-2006, 8:13 PM
I could see Proposition H being duplicated in other urban areas if it is upheld. It will not, however, ever go state wide because that would give the pro-gun crowd too much ammo. Going statewide with Prop H would be handing a HUGE victory to the pro-gun camp because it would say, "We told you that gun control = gun prohibition and here's the proof!".

No, instead they will continue to make it harder and harder to get guns approved for sale. The chamberloaded/mag disconnect is a deadly combo that pretty much eliminates every new semi-auto from the market except a handful of guns from Smith & Wesson. Note how there's no outrage over that new law despite the fact it basically banned semi-autos in the state.

They're pushing it at this point... one of these days soon they'll pass serialization or some other ridiculous scene and all hell will break out. Right now 90% of California gun owners are still content to be able to have a 12 guage for home defense or to go hunting. Once you step on their feet we should see efforts like RKBA get more serious.

Consider the present run of RKBA and the off-list lowers only a precursor to the hell we're going to give them in the future using the internet and other mass communication methods :D! Just look at how effective this forum was at bringing in tens of thousands of new AR-15s and AK-47s!!!

blakpuc
03-13-2006, 8:25 AM
So if someone broke into my house and I called 911 and the cops took too long to get there...assuming I'm still alive, could I sue the city police - since I've been stripped of any powers to protect myself.
nope, because you can still use your shotgun, or your cali legal AR, if you prefer.

Jarhead4
03-13-2006, 9:44 AM
Law Enforcement does not have to enforce laws. It is called selective enforcement. This has been held up in court. So regardless of what crime is being committed, they are not legally obligated to enforce the law. However, it would make the Police Chief, and the city look bad if they don't enforce the popular laws like murder.

Another thing about SF is one of their Board members said that we should disband our military. I saw it on Fox News on Hannity and Colmes. Colmes gave him several chances to retract his statement, but he wouldn't. He said what good have they (the military) done in the last 5 years. Colmes asked him who would protect them, and he said the police would protect them. The police will tell you that they cannot protect the individual. It just goes to show that they live in a fantasyland in SF.

I say that the Federal Government, and the State Government pull any money that they are sending to SF, and let them be on there own.

They are a bunch of Numb nuts!!!!

bg
03-13-2006, 10:05 AM
I think the problem will be in the "home law" part. Denver
runs on a home law and has some very restrivtive gun
laws. If it is upheld, it will then have to go the
California Supreme Court. If its upheld there, it
will eventually end up before the SCOTUS.

It'll be interesting to see if the highest court takes
it. ALL eyes will be watching the case if so.

I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling this is
going to be a long drawn out legal battle.

CSkyhawk72
03-13-2006, 10:24 AM
In regards to the whole military thing with the Board of Stupidvisors... that was the beloved Gerardo Sandoval. I might be mistaken, but wasn't he the turd that spearheaded the campaign against bringing the USS Iowa to San Fransicko? Someone's gotta clean house in City Hall, and get this Board of Clowns out of office.... replaced with more sensible people. It's a shame that such a beautiful city has turned into this.

ajwells
03-13-2006, 1:01 PM
So if someone broke into my house and I called 911 and the cops took too long to get there...assuming I'm still alive, could I sue the city police - since I've been stripped of any powers to protect myself.

Not a chance. From what I've seen and read Police are required by law to protect. Although I am sure they make a extremely huge effort to do so - they can't be held responsible for not doing so. I actually agree with that in someways. Otherwise you'd have the cops sued for practically every crime, it would be ridiculous.

rips31
03-13-2006, 1:16 PM
i bought my 12ga back in october. i knew the damn thing would pass. does that mean i'm giving up my handguns? well...some bg will hafta find out.

McMadCow
03-13-2006, 2:49 PM
does that mean i'm giving up my handguns? well...some bg will hafta find out.


Exactly. What handgun ban? That certainly is news to me. I would have surely turned in my handgun had I known...

shopkeep
03-13-2006, 4:18 PM
Don't underestimate the power of the PRK though folks. Even though back in 1982 a similar ordinance was thrown out, a Fringe Socialist Elite has completely captured the state of California on all levels and has a clear vision of what it wants. Regardless of how something conflicts with existing law and case law the Socialist Elite will move forward with its agenda. Just look at the DOJ and its creation of multiple tiers of "Assault Weapons".

Now that the court system is within their control, I can pretty much assure you that Prop H is going to be upheld. Once it goes to a court outside California then it will get shut down. The courts here are all just as corrupt as the rest of the state government.

Remember folks, we may have the law on our side but they have THE STATE! All of it!

unimog_88
03-13-2006, 5:38 PM
There was a woman in Washington D.C. who was raped in her own home. Because of the gun ban in D.C. she was unable to have a gun at home to protect herself and she sued the city claiming the police had an obligation to protect her since the city prevented citizens from protecting themselves by enacting a gun ban. The courts ruled that the police don't have an obligation to ensure citizens are protected. The woman lost her case and a precedent was set. If a SF resident gives up his handgun, then is victimized because she has lost her ability to protect herself, the city is not responsible. Kamala Harris, the SF District Attorney, would also say the criminal isn't responsible, because it was the "system" or a bad childhood that drove the criminal to commit the crime. If the SF gunowner keeps her handgun and shoots an attacker in her own home, I'm sure Kamala Harris would not hesitate to portray the homeowner as a vigilante and criminal, and the attacker as a "victim" of gun violence.
If prop H is upheld in the courts, San Francisco will become like Washington D.C. and the murder and violent crime rate would go up.

Amen, brother.

mikey357
03-13-2006, 7:32 PM
So if someone broke into my house and I called 911 and the cops took too long to get there...assuming I'm still alive, could I sue the city police - since I've been stripped of any powers to protect myself.

You could sue but you wont win. Courts have ruled that the police are not to protect any individual but society as a whole. Many have sued but none have won.

bg
03-13-2006, 8:44 PM
Don't underestimate the power of the PRK though folks. Even though back in 1982 a similar ordinance was thrown out, a Fringe Socialist Elite has completely captured the state of California on all levels and has a clear vision of what it wants. Regardless of how something conflicts with existing law and case law the Socialist Elite will move forward with its agenda. Just look at the DOJ and its creation of multiple tiers of "Assault Weapons".

Now that the court system is within their control, I can pretty much assure you that Prop H is going to be upheld. Once it goes to a court outside California then it will get shut down. The courts here are all just as corrupt as the rest of the state government.

Remember folks, we may have the law on our side but they have THE STATE! All of it!

I agree with you 100%.