PDA

View Full Version : SF Committee approves Gun Control Measures


JawBone
07-09-2007, 4:18 PM
(07-09) 14:43 PDT -- The San Francisco Board of Supervisors' public safety committee today approved most of a package of gun-control measures introduced by Mayor Gavin Newsom in May.

The committee sent to the full board measures that would require handguns to be kept in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock; prohibit the possession or sale of firearms or ammunition on property controlled by the city and county; and require that licensed firearms dealers provide an inventory of their firearms to the Police Department every six months.

The committee did not forward to the board the most controversial of the measures -- the creation of a local registry of gun offenders -- due to concerns about civil liberties. Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, head of the committee, said he expects it to also make it to the full board after some tweaking of the language by the Newsom administration.

"due to concerns about civil liberties." What a joke.
Source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/09/BAG81QTHF65.DTL&tsp=1)

The Soup Nazi
07-09-2007, 4:32 PM
Wouldn't this kind of crap be shot down considering how things went down in D.C.?

leelaw
07-09-2007, 5:02 PM
Wouldn't this kind of crap be shot down considering how things went down in D.C.?

They might be looking for the 9th to rule in their favor to push the issue.

Or they're just looking to spend taxpayer money draining funnds from the NRA to oppose it.

CCWFacts
07-09-2007, 5:03 PM
Wouldn't this kind of crap be shot down considering how things went down in D.C.?

NO NOT AT ALL! Maybe in the future but what has happened thus far in DC has no legal impact on us here. The Parker ruling applies only in DC. If DC appeals the case (I assume they will) and the Supreme Court grants cert (I assume they will) and they support the case (maybe) and they give us some kind of test to apply to laws (maybe) and then there is another case that binds this federal ruling on the states, THEN yes, Parker would shoot down this type of law. Notice how many "ifs" and intermediate steps there are there.

What might shoot down the storage provision would be the state preemption. Maybe. I would guess that the sales limitation provisions will hold up.

Sutcliffe
07-09-2007, 5:04 PM
Newsom was quoted on camera as saying it was after the ban was tried the last time. Why he's trying it seems like more political motivation more than anything. They need to be seen as trying to solve their criminal problems. It goes far deeper than a simple hunk of steel.

CCWFacts
07-09-2007, 5:22 PM
Newsom was quoted on camera as saying it was after the ban was tried the last time. Why he's trying it seems like more political motivation more than anything. They need to be seen as trying to solve their criminal problems. It goes far deeper than a simple hunk of steel.

Newsom didn't support Prop H. The SF Chron and Examiner and Newsom and almost everyone else in leadership opposed Prop H because they all knew it would be thrown out. The only one supporting it was Chris Daly, who is basically a Socialist. Everyone (including Mr. Daly) knew it was a feel-good measure. The difference was that Daly was happy to blow $1mil or more of taxpayer money on it, whereas all the others were more realistic.

But yes, obviously the purpose of this bill is to make it look like they are addressing gun violence. They are not. This is about appearances. To actually address crime they would need to start seriously locking up violent offenders and seriously prosecuting felon-in-possession gun crimes. They aren't prepared to do those things because so many people in SF still believe that crime is caused by lack of opportunity or other social factors. It isn't; crime happens where it is tolerated.

SemiAutoSam
07-09-2007, 5:28 PM
Not sure about the rest but this little GEM would be against federal law from what I remember of it.


require that licensed firearms dealers provide an inventory of their firearms to the Police Department every six months.

CALI-gula
07-09-2007, 5:35 PM
...and require that licensed firearms dealers provide an inventory of their firearms to the Police Department every six months.


For such a large city, does the Police Departments even have the time, labor force, or resources to patronize such an idiotic and fruitless task? Do the Police Departments even NEED such a pointless task, and how do they feel about being thrust into doing it? I think they are little more busy than needing to tally something which is already in tally by Federal requirement. Wouldn't it be against Federal laws anyway to do so?

What will it prove, other than their inventory? And isn't this something already a requirement by Federal laws (i.e. bound book and ATF audits). Do they really think FFL dealers are selling on the side to criminals?

Will San Francisco also require pharmacists, pesticide handlers and exterminators, licensed fertilizer agents, demolitions experts, and car/truck rental agencies to regularly report their inventories to local Police Departments as well?

Fools. :rolleyes:

.

Piper
07-09-2007, 5:45 PM
This just an observation, and I know there are exceptions to the rule, but as a general rule, gunowner = republican and while not all democrats are criminals, a majority of criminals are democrats. So, if you remove gunowners from S.F. (Seriously Freaky) and rationalize a way to avoid arresting criminals, you pretty much tilt the balance toward a democrat voting majority. But that's just an observation.

whatever
07-09-2007, 6:49 PM
This just an observation, and I know there are exceptions to the rule, but as a general rule, gunowner = republican and while not all democrats are criminals, a majority of criminals are democrats. So, if you remove gunowners from S.F. (Seriously Freaky) and rationalize a way to avoid arresting criminals, you pretty much tilt the balance toward a democrat voting majority. But that's just an observation.

Of the people I know who own guns, more are registered as Democrat than Republican. It might be because this area seems to have more Democrats but in my observation gun ownership and gun rights concerns are not as "political" as people make it out to be.

Mnort10x
07-09-2007, 7:56 PM
San Francisco has only ONE GUN STORE, High Bridge Arms, and their waisting their time with laws like this? :mad:

Cliff C
07-09-2007, 7:59 PM
require that licensed firearms dealers provide an inventory of their firearms to the Police Department every six months.

What licensed firearms dealers in the city of SF might those be?

I thought the last one shut their doors a couple of years ago.

Cliff

CCWFacts
07-09-2007, 8:03 PM
Murder in SF:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/09/BAGF2QTLGJ4.DTL&tsp=1

This is in Bayview. Most of the killings in SF occur in neighborhoods like Bayview, Hunters Point, etc. I can promise you, if stockbrokers were getting mugged in Pacific Heights, there would be a vastly different response. a) they would demand that DA Harris lock these people up and b) they would demand CCW. But as long as the victims are poor minorities in Bayview, the status quo is acceptable and feel-good measures are all that is needed.

Piper
07-09-2007, 9:18 PM
So what your saying is Newsom and the gang are using the poor to get unconstitutional gun laws passed while exterminating them at the same time. Wow! That's devious.

Osprey
07-09-2007, 9:27 PM
I guess Gavin needed to pass some feel-good legislation to draw attention away from the fact that he ****s his friends' wives and can't hold his liquor. Pathetic little man.

CCWFacts
07-09-2007, 9:29 PM
Well, it's not like they sit around in a smoky room somewhere and say, "I'd love to pass some unconstitutional laws. Let's do it in a way to make poor minorities suffer!"

It's more like, "People in Pac Heights feel guilty so let's pass some law to make everyone feel like we're doing something good, so they don't have to feel guilty about the murder rate a couple zipcodes over. And people in Pac Heights know that if some big trouble ever starts, SFPD will be right there protecting them, so it would be better if guns were generally unavailable around here, because we already have SFPD protection in these areas." That last bit of logic is also what works in LA. During the LA riots, there were buildings burned all over the place, but no damage at all in Beverly Hills. BHPD made it clear that that would not be allowed to happen. BH residents had no need for guns because BHPD is so on top of things, so it would be logical for BH residents to want the poor areas as disarmed as possible.

That's the logic that's working here. No anti-constitutional conspiracies, just different levels of police protection. If you know you've got great police protection in your area, gun control is rational. And the rich areas always have great police protection.

Osprey
07-09-2007, 9:32 PM
Will Gavin and Kamala be personally responsible for going door-to-door to make sure people are in compliance with the new measures?

oaklander
07-09-2007, 10:36 PM
Here's the ordinances:

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/committees/materials/070682.pdf

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/committees/materials/070683.pdf

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/committees/materials/070684.pdf

jdberger
07-10-2007, 1:25 AM
Time for everyone to buy a shirt. (http://www.sanfrantees.com/gavin.htm)

http://www.sanfrantees.com/images/gavlarge.gif

Fun at parties and the next Shoot-n-Q.! :D

sako
07-10-2007, 10:02 AM
They need to start locking up the thugs that are causing the violence in these neighborhoods, but that often requires the help of the people in the communities where these thugs roam. If nobody will come forward as a witness to a crime, out of fear of reprisals or a distrust of the police, then it makes the job of getting these thugs off the street all that more difficult. Also, the people of these communities plagued by crime need to start addressing the social & cultural issues in their communities that breed these thugs......broken families, drug abuse, lack of moral values, the victimization class thinking. Unless that changes, I expect new criminals/thugs to be bred as fast as you can lock them up. I don’t know how many times, I have been on the SF Muni and heard some kid with a radio or CD player near the rear of the bus or train blaring a song with lyrics containing the words: *****, hoe, mother f_ _K. When I was a kid, that is not what I and my peers listened to constantly.

hossb7
07-10-2007, 11:08 AM
Time for everyone to buy a shirt. (http://www.sanfrantees.com/gavin.htm)

http://www.sanfrantees.com/images/gavlarge.gif

Fun at parties and the next Shoot-n-Q.! :D

holy crap i'm getting one of those