PDA

View Full Version : Wtf ?


saltwater
08-03-2007, 2:32 AM
Speaking about SF’s new law requiring gun owners to keep their handguns locked up, S.F. District Attorney Kamala Harris said,

"Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs,"

nwnguy
08-03-2007, 2:37 AM
As my law professor always used to say, "tell them to go fly a kite!"

M. Sage
08-03-2007, 2:55 AM
Excuse me, Ms. Harris? You know where Baker Beach is? Good. Now head on down there and pound some sand.

Warrantless searches of homes? I can't wait to see this crap.

triggerhappy
08-03-2007, 7:02 AM
I'm sure mayor Kruschev, I mean Newsom, would approve

bulgron
08-03-2007, 7:19 AM
Got a link on this?

Taken out of context, this is pretty outrageous. Taken into context, it might be still outrageous. But I'd at least like to see the news article or interview where this quote came from.

On the face of it, that statement seems to reflect a huge misunderstanding of our constitutional protections. Do they not make law students read and understand the constitution anymore?

Who is this Kamala Harris and why does she appear to believe that she lives in a communist country?

Librarian
08-03-2007, 8:05 AM
Got a link on this?
"It is fair to say that a majority of gun crime is committed with illegal guns," District Attorney Kamala Harris said. “It’s a reality that a lot of weapons and guns that we find in connection with a homicide are stolen."

The idea, she contends, is to remind legal gun owners how to behave.

"Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs," Harris said.
link (http://cbs5.com/politics/local_story_136215501.html)

bulgron
08-03-2007, 8:16 AM
Uhhh,

From that article, this caught my eye:


The proposed legislation would also require people who commit crimes with guns to sign up with the police department, then probation officers could keep better tabs on them.


So if you're on probation, you already have to "sign up" with the police department.

Do they mean to make a "gun offenders registry" along the lines of a sex offenders registry, so that even after you've done your time and are off probation, etc, you still have to register with the police department?

If so, do they mean to extend that registry to everyone, including people guilty of misdemeanor carry violations?

It's absolutely stunning to me that the people of San Francisco are willing to put up with things like this. I live only an hour south of that city, but I never go there, and things like this is why.

And then, of course, there's this:


Even though criminals already don't follow the law, city leaders believe any gun crackdown makes the city safer.

“It’s just time and it’s the right thing to do,” said Harris, citing existing laws in Alameda and Los Angeles counties that are similar to the proposed ones for San Francisco.


So they know that their gun laws won't effect the people who are actually causing the problems, but they pass them anyway. As for "It's just time" I wonder if the city isn't looking at Parker with a whole new level of nervousness and rushing to pass more gun control laws before the entire house of cards comes crashing down around their ears.

tacticalcity
08-03-2007, 11:33 AM
They still need a warrant right? Or if they don't have a warrant then they need your permission? Or does the NEW law say that owning a gun is complied conscent to search? Would be very scary stuff if it did.

WHISKY TANGO FOXTROT!

scootergmc
08-03-2007, 11:37 AM
Do they mean to make a "gun offenders registry" along the lines of a sex offenders registry, so that even after you've done your time and are off probation, etc, you still have to register with the police department?


A gun registration is very feasible. It's probably on a future freshman assemblyman's agenda. :rolleyes: Heck, there are already sex, arson, and narcotics registrations, why not more?

dfletcher
08-03-2007, 12:11 PM
Uhhh,

From that article, this caught my eye:



So if you're on probation, you already have to "sign up" with the police department.

Do they mean to make a "gun offenders registry" along the lines of a sex offenders registry, so that even after you've done your time and are off probation, etc, you still have to register with the police department?

If so, do they mean to extend that registry to everyone, including people guilty of misdemeanor carry violations?

It's absolutely stunning to me that the people of San Francisco are willing to put up with things like this. I live only an hour south of that city, but I never go there, and things like this is why.

And then, of course, there's this:



So they know that their gun laws won't effect the people who are actually causing the problems, but they pass them anyway. As for "It's just time" I wonder if the city isn't looking at Parker with a whole new level of nervousness and rushing to pass more gun control laws before the entire house of cards comes crashing down around their ears.

The similarities with the DC law are I believe intentional. I think Parker is very much on their mind - I think they want to get this in front of the liberal 9th Circuit so that court will rule (again) there is no individual right and/or that anything short of an outright ban on ownership, is not considered an infringement.

BTW, I heard (sorry for the speculation, hope someone verify if this is accurate?) Newsome requested & was denied 4473 information from ATF on SF residents? If accurate, doesn't it seem the city wants to be able to follow through on the Harris "we're going to march in" threat?

.223
08-03-2007, 12:14 PM
"Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs,"

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

M. Sage
08-03-2007, 12:23 PM
BTW, I heard (sorry for the speculation, hope someone verify if this is accurate?) Newsome requested & was denied 4473 information from ATF on SF residents? If accurate, doesn't it seem the city wants to be able to follow through on the Harris "we're going to march in" threat?

It wouldn't surprise me, IIRC he's part of Bloomberg's group.

Dont Tread on Me
08-03-2007, 2:09 PM
This all designed for us to forget during an election year Newsom spends his evenings drunk ****** his best friend's wife.

The direction this is heading is that you end up having to have the police inspect your home to insure you have enough security to own a gun. Window locks, alarm, safe bolted to the wall etc. Another way of chipping away at gun ownership.

Piper
08-03-2007, 2:35 PM
You know what this tells me? It tells me how insightful those guys were in the 18th century and just how miopic we have become in viewing government. This kind of stuff gives me pause to reread what people like Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin said. And now, here we are confronting tyrants and despots in our own country. Face it, we let them walk in on a whim and trample our rights. And now we're fighting like hell to hold onto what we have and get back what we lost.

Those patriots back then are probably shaking their heads or rolling over in their graves.

Charliegone
08-03-2007, 3:18 PM
That's my new sig.

bulgron
08-03-2007, 3:19 PM
Those patriots back then are probably shaking their heads or rolling over in their graves.

Actually, it's clear they knew this day would come. In fact, if anything surprises them, it's probably that it took this long to get here.

I really don't understand places like San Francisco. The people up there must really not understand what essential freedoms are all about.

grywlfbg
08-03-2007, 4:40 PM
Interestingly, someone posted in the other thread about these laws was that it would still be completely legal for you to CARRY a loaded firearm on your person while in your home. So when you come home from work you'd just have to holster up. May not be too comfortable in bed though (visions of Tackleberry in Police Academy).

Satex
08-03-2007, 4:51 PM
I think all gun owners in SF should be fitted with a GPS ankle bracelet! :eek: and their trigger fingers should be instrumented to make sure they dont bend past 45 degrees. That would help reduce crime.

dragonbait1a
08-03-2007, 10:39 PM
So other instances....

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."-Dianne Feinstein

"You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and handguns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns."-Fictional president Andrew Shepard in "The American President" Played by Michael Douglas (Who reportedly truly feels this way about ALL firearms)

These people truly believe in "the Greater Good." They think that by depriving EVERYONE of "the tools of Violence" the world will be safer. They don't care about self-defense, or slippery slopes. They don't see civilian resistance to tyranny as legitimate. They are working for "The Greater Good" the needs of the few are outweighed by the needs of the many. They don't see themselves as tyrants but as saviors. The answers to "Tragic shootings" is to ban guns. If they get rid of all LEGAL avenues of firearms the number if ILLEGAL firearms will be greatly reduced.

They see a world where carrying any "weapon" is prima facie evidence of intent to commit a heinous crime. Where to protect the many you have no right to privacy, where searches for contraband are at every Mass transit station, every Gated Community, every Workplace. And to them the world will be better because criminals will no longer have any avenues to buy one legally or steal one from us.

"Sure there will always be crime" They'll agree, "but now its harder and our cops have the tools to catch them, with ubiquitous surveillance and Warrant-less searches based on tips from neighbors. The world will be safer. You may give up some freedoms but it is for the Greater Good. If it saves the live of one child it will be worth it..."

They don't see themselves as totalitarians, but as people fighting for "A Safer Tomorrow" Guns in movies and on the news scare them. They just can't understand "Why would anyone want something so lethal? What are you going to do with it?" Target shooting? Well BB guns are far safer and they have Olympic Air Rifle and Air Pistol events, that should be good enough. Hunting? Meat is at the Supermarket, hunting for any other reason is cruel. Self defense? "The cops will protect all of us if we give them the right tools." To be prepared in the face tyranny? "How crazy are you?"

This is a composite from various strengths of pro gun-control people I've tried to educate. We know the falseness of these arguments (The spirituality of hunting, the tradition and precision of target matches, that the cops won't be there when you need them and that FREEDOM is it's own reason). But their argument is emotional, based on the fact that they don't want to get shot. Logical reasoning won't win that one.

They fear us, they can't understand us and they are coming to get us, "One gun at a time."

RGB

Mssr. Eleganté
08-04-2007, 1:05 PM
BTW, I heard (sorry for the speculation, hope someone verify if this is accurate?) Newsome requested & was denied 4473 information from ATF on SF residents? If accurate, doesn't it seem the city wants to be able to follow through on the Harris "we're going to march in" threat?

First of all, I don't think Newsom can even spell 4473, let alone know what it is. Secondly, ATF does not have a list of SF gun owners they could even give to Newsom if they wanted to. The info on the 4473's can't be legally compiled by ATF.

I could maybe see somebody in the Mayor's office asking if it there was any way to get a list of SF gun owners and ATF saying "nope".

MedSpec65
08-04-2007, 1:16 PM
This elitist moron Harris said this for sure. Can you imagine the City's liability if uniforms invade somebody's house simply because the resident has registered firearms? I should move back to the City and stage a sting operation with my cheapest handgun.

M. Sage
08-04-2007, 2:11 PM
First of all, I don't think Newsom can even spell 4473, let alone know what it is. Secondly, ATF does not have a list of SF gun owners they could even give to Newsom if they wanted to. The info on the 4473's can't be legally compiled by ATF.

I could maybe see somebody in the Mayor's office asking if it there was any way to get a list of SF gun owners and ATF saying "nope".

So what Harris is doing is just chest-thumping. That's what the whole law is about.

"Keep 'em locked and unloaded, or we'll GET YOU! We'll be checking in!"

But they have no way to check up, since they have no (legal) way to figure out who owns handguns. Yep, sounds like a real useful law to me. If they raid you, you've really got 'em on 4A issues, since the only way to find out you own a handgun is through illegal means, unless they want to try getting a warrant on an anonymous tip, when courts have said the police can't even do a Terry search on an anonymous tip.