PDA

View Full Version : SF Ordinance to ban hollowpoints & require locked storage in home


unusedusername
09-07-2011, 2:38 PM
Hi all,

There is an ordinance that has been brought up by Supervisor Mirkarimi in SF that states that it's purpose is to:

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Police Code by adding Sections 4511 and 613.9.5 to add findings to ordinances: 1) requiring a handgun to be kept in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock; and 2) prohibiting the sale of enhanced- lethality ammunition.

I do not see a schedule for the hearing of it (per the Brown act requirements) yet. I've already forwarded it to the "right people".

The purpose for this thread is to pick the ordinance apart.

I've read it and despite the title saying it plans to do all kinds of unconstitutional things it seems that all this does it add a bunch of "findings" into the law that do not have any force behind them :confused: ???

Does anyone see that this does anything?

Can someone who lives in SF contact the sups and see if/when this will be heard, of if there is another part to this document that I am missing that actually makes some changes? (I'm a bit south of SF)...

I've attached the PDF here since google docs seems to be down right now.

Bhobbs
09-07-2011, 2:40 PM
Some places just like to get sued don't they.

stix213
09-07-2011, 2:51 PM
SF already bans sale of HP's. What is this new proposal changing?


The licensee shall not sell, lease or otherwise transfer to any person any ammunition that:
(1)
Serves no sporting purpose;
(2)
Is designed to expand upon impact and utilize the jacket, shot or materials embedded within the jacket or shot to project or disperse barbs or other objects that are intended to increase the damage to a human body or other target (including, but not limited to, Winchester Black Talon, Speer Gold Dot, Federal Hydra-Shok, Hornady XTP, Eldorado Starfire, Hollow Point Ammunition and Remington Golden Sabre ammunition; or
(3)
Is designed to fragment upon impact (including, but not limited to, Black Rhino bullets and Glaser Safety Slugs).

Librarian
09-07-2011, 3:13 PM
The ordinances themselves, in all their glory, already exist. The new bit is Ordinance amending the San Francisco Police Code by adding Sections 4511 and 613.9.5 to add findings Mirkarimi just wants to get his name associated with those things by adding fantastical imaginings. No new restrictions.

nicki
09-07-2011, 3:15 PM
The second ammendment isn't about "sporting purposes", it is about "self defense" and the ammo you are trying to "ban" is common and is not only "extremely well suited" for those purposes, but is safer in an "urban enviroment" with regards to "stray rounds".

BTW, does this mean that the SFP is going back to FMJ ammo?

Nicki

Crom
09-07-2011, 3:15 PM
This is already being litigated in court. The case is Jackson v. San Francisco (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Jackson_v._San_Francisco) <--Wiki is a little out of date but the RECAP docket is current and link below for your review.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.215014/gov.uscourts.cand.215014.docket.html

stix213
09-07-2011, 3:19 PM
The second ammendment isn't about "sporting purposes", it is about "self defense" and the ammo you are trying to "ban" is common and is not only "extremely well suited" for those purposes, but is safer in an "urban enviroment" with regards to "stray rounds".

BTW, does this mean that the SFP is going back to FMJ ammo?

Nicki

The law exempts LEO of course.

No one said the SF city council were anything but complete morons. Only morons would require that all ammo sold within the city have increased apartment wall and ballistic vest penetration capability than normal home defense HP ammo. But that's SF for you, act with your heart while shooting your head. :rolleyes:

cineski
09-07-2011, 3:20 PM
This is the same ilk of people who banned .50 because gang members were using them :rolleyes:. There is not sense in their noggins.

The second ammendment isn't about "sporting purposes", it is about "self defense" and the ammo you are trying to "ban" is common and is not only "extremely well suited" for those purposes, but is safer in an "urban enviroment" with regards to "stray rounds".

BTW, does this mean that the SFP is going back to FMJ ammo?

Nicki

paul0660
09-07-2011, 3:25 PM
He is a piece of work. I met him in 2006ish at a winetasting fundraiser. The sort of fellow who suffers his subjects presence without a hint of humility. Started the California Green Party in the 90's, wants to legalize drugs, does the whole BOS foreign policy dance, and, unbelievably, is running for Sheriff, the only guy who could possibly be worse than the departing Hennessy. If you see him, run the other way, don't walk.

http://fecalface.com/openings3/gunderson_11/P1020341.jpg

unusedusername
09-07-2011, 5:36 PM
This is already being litigated in court. The case is Jackson v. San Francisco (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Jackson_v._San_Francisco) <--Wiki is a little out of date but the RECAP docket is current and link below for your review.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.215014/gov.uscourts.cand.215014.docket.html

Ah, I see. I guess there is nothing to worry about with this ordinance then. :)

Why does a politician want to put his name on something that is about to be struck down? :facepalm: *sigh*

huntercf
09-07-2011, 6:45 PM
Ah, I see. I guess there is nothing to worry about with this ordinance then. :)

Why does a politician want to put his name on something that is about to be struck down? :facepalm: *sigh*

He's a SF politician, these are the zealots that give idiots:26: a bad name.

BigDogatPlay
09-07-2011, 8:38 PM
The new bit is Mirkarimi just wants to get his name associated with those things by adding fantastical imaginings. No new restrictions.

And doubtless trying to fluff his candidacy for county sheriff...... :rolleyes:

Dhena81
09-07-2011, 9:38 PM
How can they pass such a law in regards to keeping your gun locked in your house with Heller. BTW someone should tell them Speer Gold dot is a bonded bullet and most HP ammo is supposed to retain their initial weight. Does anyone know where this no use for sporting came from that makes me laugh everytime.

swilson
09-07-2011, 9:41 PM
It bans (well re-bans) the sale of hollowpoints, but what about possession? What about softpoints? Or do hunting rounds serve "no sporting purpose"?

DannyInSoCal
09-07-2011, 9:45 PM
It's a pathetic attempt to simply be able to say "I tried to make it safer"....

email
09-07-2011, 9:53 PM
This will go over like a fart at a funeral.

Cali-Shooter
09-07-2011, 9:58 PM
Only SF would re-ban an already banned item. Ok, I sort of take it back, it wouldn't be surprising if CA would try to re-ban already banned items as well given this idiot state's leadership.

CapS
09-08-2011, 12:49 AM
Does anyone know where this no use for sporting came from that makes me laugh everytime.

Not sure if it was the first use, but I believe the phrase was in the Nazi anti-gun laws.
:eek:

Cap

voiceofreason
09-08-2011, 5:20 AM
So in a self-defense shooting in which a round goes THROUGH an assailant and into an innocent bystander... SF is liable due to HP rounds being outlawed?

CHS
09-08-2011, 9:01 AM
Has anyone pointed out to him that if these "enhanced lethality" bullets are so incredibly awful and bad, WHY ON EARTH are they letting the cops have them??

1911_sfca
09-08-2011, 9:02 AM
Obviously he wants to disarm the Sheriff's Deputies...

paul0660
09-08-2011, 9:13 AM
It bans (well re-bans) the sale of hollowpoints, but what about possession? What about softpoints? Or do hunting rounds serve "no sporting purpose"?

It bans the sale of hollowpoints by regulated dealers, not possession nor private sale.

yellowfin
09-08-2011, 9:21 AM
It would be nice to have some federal legal precedence by this to strike down NJ's laws on HP's.

donw
09-08-2011, 9:26 AM
The second ammendment isn't about "sporting purposes", it is about "self defense" and the ammo you are trying to "ban" is common and is not only "extremely well suited" for those purposes, but is safer in an "urban enviroment" with regards to "stray rounds".

BTW, does this mean that the SFP is going back to FMJ ammo?

Nicki

not likely would the LE be subjected to the same rules as us peons...:(:mad:

akoba
11-03-2011, 10:52 AM
So i cannot bring/use my HP when i go to SF? :(

a1c
11-03-2011, 10:57 AM
So i cannot bring/use my HP when i go to SF? :(

Please re-read the text of the proposed ordinance. It doesn't ban HP, just the sale of HPs.

Wherryj
11-03-2011, 4:50 PM
:cool:I wonder how SF would view my DDupleks Hexolit32 12ga slugs?

CHS
11-03-2011, 4:58 PM
:cool:I wonder how SF would view my DDupleks Hexolit32 12ga slugs?

They would probably treat them the same way they treat nuclear bombs :)

ja308
11-03-2011, 7:56 PM
This once proud city is following the old tactic of "death by 1000 cuts" regarding 2A

The state govt is on board too -- just not so blatant yet.

Someone should see a pattern here - restricted mags , flash hiders/flashsuppressor,
Too powerful, not powerful enough, too small, too large .... on and on blah blah blah.

Course one thing for sure there is NO agenda -- it is all happening by ACCIDENT! Umhum

misterjake
11-03-2011, 8:04 PM
I love it when politicians want to severely limit firearms yet at the same breath legalize drugs citing it does not work as there is an under ground black market...

Databyter
11-03-2011, 8:08 PM
Hi all,

There is an ordinance that has been brought up by Supervisor Mirkarimi in SF that states that it's purpose is to:



I do not see a schedule for the hearing of it (per the Brown act requirements) yet. I've already forwarded it to the "right people".

The purpose for this thread is to pick the ordinance apart.

I've read it and despite the title saying it plans to do all kinds of unconstitutional things it seems that all this does it add a bunch of "findings" into the law that do not have any force behind them :confused: ???

Does anyone see that this does anything?

Can someone who lives in SF contact the sups and see if/when this will be heard, of if there is another part to this document that I am missing that actually makes some changes? (I'm a bit south of SF)...

I've attached the PDF here since google docs seems to be down right now.
I assume that the ammo restriction will also apply to the SF Police Dept. right? ...

After all they might HURT somebody with that lethal kind of ammo.

ja308
11-03-2011, 9:50 PM
I love it when politicians want to severely limit firearms yet at the same breath legalize drugs citing it does not work as there is an under ground black market...

good point -- think it's because no one ever beat a proffessional army with drugs .

Yet our colonist's did so with private arms . Every totalitarian wanna be govt knows this.

The Hitler quote where he says all CONQUERORS who have allowed arms have prepared their own down fall.
I believe the word Conquerors is applicable to the mindset of gun grabbers

The Geologist
11-04-2011, 8:20 PM
Just use hollow point copper bullets, cause those are non-toxic:thumbsup:

DarthSean
11-05-2011, 1:25 AM
The locks were struck down in Heller so that will be a soft target for whoever sues if they enact this.

The licensee shall not sell, lease or otherwise transfer to any person any ammunition that:
(1)
Serves no sporting purpose;
(2)
Is designed to expand upon impact and utilize the jacket, shot or materials embedded within the jacket or shot to project or disperse barbs or other objects that are intended to increase the damage to a human body or other target (including, but not limited to, Winchester Black Talon, Speer Gold Dot, Federal Hydra-Shok, Hornady XTP, Eldorado Starfire, Hollow Point Ammunition and Remington Golden Sabre ammunition; or
(3)
Is designed to fragment upon impact (including, but not limited to, Black Rhino bullets and Glaser Safety Slugs).

Declaring ammo to have no sporting purpose without a definition of sporting purpose would likely be unconstitutionally vague. Additionally this ordinance would ban some target ammo like some Sierra and Lapua products, as well as may smaller caliber FMJs that tend to tumble, like the M193 and M855 which are commonly used for target practice. Last of all, having a ban on expanding ammo, but requiring all ammo to have sporting uses would effectively prevent vendors from selling very common bullets that are most useful for hunting. And since FMJs and non-expanding roundnose bullets are not allowed, they would likely run afoul of state and federal hunting laws.

CHS
11-05-2011, 8:31 AM
Declaring ammo to have no sporting purpose without a definition of sporting purpose would likely be unconstitutionally vague. Additionally this ordinance would ban some target ammo like some Sierra and Lapua products, as well as may smaller caliber FMJs that tend to tumble, like the M193 and M855 which are commonly used for target practice. Last of all, having a ban on expanding ammo, but requiring all ammo to have sporting uses would effectively prevent vendors from selling very common bullets that are most useful for hunting. And since FMJs and non-expanding roundnose bullets are not allowed, they would likely run afoul of state and federal hunting laws.

More importantly, you have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to self defense. The SCOTUS said so :)

Self defense trumps "sporting".

They can't ban modern self-defense ammo just by declaring it non-sporting as long as you have a fundamental right to self defense.

WDE91
11-05-2011, 8:37 AM
I smell something brew up against San Francisco...

m03
11-05-2011, 8:45 AM
Does anyone know where this no use for sporting came from that makes me laugh everytime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Write Winger
11-05-2011, 10:02 AM
I love it when politicians want to severely limit firearms yet at the same breath legalize drugs citing it does not work as there is an under ground black market...

Opiate is the opiate of the masses. :D