Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > THE CALGUNS COMMUNITY > CGSSA Northern California Chapters > Bay Area Chapter
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-05-2013, 10:38 AM
nutcase nutcase is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation San Francisco magazine ban passed committee

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors' Neighborhood Services and Safety Committee will be holding a special meeting on Thursday, October 10, in San Francisco City Hall Room 250 (the main chamber) to discuss two items. One of those is file 130585 which includes five proposals:

1) Prohibit possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds (with some exceptions: peace officers, gunsmiths, magazines possessed prior to January 1, 2000 for firearms where no 10-round or small magazine is available, etc.)

2) Require firearms dealers in San Francisco to provide a notice to firearms purchasers with information on San Francisco's firearms laws

3) Make it a "rebuttable presumption" that a registered owner of a firearm maintains possession of that firearm if he or she has not filed a report stating it was lost or stolen (basically, if you don't report a gun as lost or stolen and it was and then it was used in a crime, the police can presume you were the one in possession of it when the crime was committed; you must prove you were not)

4) Amend the ordinance that went into effect earlier this year regarding the electronic reporting of sales / transfers of ammunition. With the revisions, all sales in San Francisco must be reported electronically, sales from vendors outside San Francisco shipping to San Francisco must still report sales of 500 or more rounds. Adds the requirement to collect and submit the purchaser's thumbprint (requirement applies to out-of-state vendors as well).

5) Require that minors may only enter a shooting range when accompanied by a parent or guardian (reasoning: prevent minors from going out with their 18 year old friends without permission from their parents or guardians)

If anyone plans to go, please note that public comment is usually limited to two minutes per speaker.

You may bring written comments and have them submitted; you must bring at least four copies (one for each of the three committee members, and one for the clerk of the committee); six is probably better (3 committee members + 1 committee clerk + 1 board clerk + 1 sponsoring Supervisor who will likely be at the meeting).

Be respectful, coherent, and succinct.

The only things the committee can do are:
1) Retain the item (which can then be pulled by the full Board)
2) Pass it out of committee
3) Make a recommendation to the full Board of "Do Not Pass"

Open with "Good afternoon Committee Members".
Close with "I respectfully urge a recommendation of 'Do Not Pass'".

I hope to be there, but I am dealing with other things right now and may not be able to make it.

A scanned copy of the proposal is available at:
http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfil...S130585tdr.pdf

UPDATE October 11: On Thursday, October 10, 2013, the Neighborhood Services and Safety Committee moved the file to the full board. It will be heard at an upcoming full Board meeting (I can't remember which date).
__________________
liberal, socialist, pro-gun

Last edited by nutcase; 10-11-2013 at 9:10 AM.. Reason: noted that the ordinance was moved out of committee
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-05-2013, 7:11 PM
sfhondapilot sfhondapilot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: 415 and 530
Posts: 622
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Wow, talk about a waste of legislation. Let's see, there is only one gun store in SF, so #2 applies to all of 1 store.

There are no ranges in SF. Thus, #5 has no effect.

#4 will virtually kill the ability to purchase ammo over the internet.
__________________
David
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-05-2013, 7:29 PM
nutcase nutcase is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

@sfhondapilot: I think Pacific Rod and Gun Club out on Lake Merced is still around (through 2015 anyway) so #5 does have an effect. Their website says that minors must be accompanied by an adult (not necessarily a parent or guardian). I tried reaching out via their website to their President and the "General Information" contact, but I never received a response.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-05-2013, 10:35 PM
JelloSF's Avatar
JelloSF JelloSF is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: SF
Posts: 97
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Wish I could be there, but I'm out of town this upcoming week.
#4 is really the worst here, considering that i get almost all of my ammo online.
#5 is definitely stupid cause pacific rod and gun is a shotgun clays range only. I doubt many minors are really going there without the permission of their parents/guardians. $10 to shoot 25 clays and $10 for a box of ammo that you MUST buy from them?! I love the idea of shooting there, but it's financially ridiculous.

With the ammo shipment thing, will they base it off my billing or shipping address? What's to stop me from shipping my ammo to work (not in SF) or a PO Box/UPS/FedEx store in San Mateo county and drive 15 minutes to pick it up?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-06-2013, 7:10 AM
sfhondapilot sfhondapilot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: 415 and 530
Posts: 622
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nutcase View Post
@sfhondapilot: I think Pacific Rod and Gun Club out on Lake Merced is still around (through 2015 anyway) so #5 does have an effect. Their website says that minors must be accompanied by an adult (not necessarily a parent or guardian). I tried reaching out via their website to their President and the "General Information" contact, but I never received a response.
You are correct! I always forget about that club. Good idea to reach out to them.
__________________
David
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-09-2013, 12:10 PM
MMXX's Avatar
MMXX MMXX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Mt Diablo
Posts: 349
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Top
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-09-2013, 12:38 PM
tenclip's Avatar
tenclip tenclip is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 240
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Sigh. The worst part about the ammo reporting is that the list they are keeping somewhere is no doubt accumulative and has no one is going to apply any sound logic to it. At least not in the form of assumed weekly/monthly range consumption or IDPA/USPSA comps.

"Damn will you look at that. None of our law-abiding citizens could possibly need 10,000 rounds a year. He must be up to no good."
__________________
IDPA - SSP/ESP/CCP | USPSA - Production/L10 | Personal Handgun Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-10-2013, 4:40 PM
nutcase nutcase is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well, I was able to make the meeting, but the only speakers on the ordinance were Chief of Police Greg Suhr and myself.

Supervisor Cohen mentioned that she was adding "technical" amendments to the proposal regarding reporting ammunition sales to take it back to the 500 round threshold. She mentioned that the Police Department has asked to have a full year to implement the current ordinance and refine their procedures to determine if any refinements to the ordinance would help them out.

The Chief mentioned that there is a webpage for reporting ammunition sales. He said that they have had a few "logins" from people using that but they're still "following up" on the information.

I mentioned that it appears that the current webpage for reporting sales doesn't allow anyone using it to fully comply with the law as there is no way to include the purchaser's signature as required; I also mentioned that unless the City's IT department implements a better method for making the reports, there won't be any way to attach an image of the purchaser's thumbprint as would be required -- I don't know if the thumbprint requirement was amended out, though, as they did not provide copies of the amendments.

Chief Suhr mentioned that he's all in favor of more restrictions on guns [aside: Before the meeting someone said something like "no one cares about guns" and the Chief replied "I care about guns"]. He said he's glad that San Francisco has some of the toughest gun laws. He and Supervisor Cohen mentioned the shootings against officers as a reason to impose the mag ban.

Supervisor Cohen (while reading my written comments) noted that there is only one range in San Francisco that Section 5 (requiring minors be accompanied by a parent or guardian) would affect and that the club has a policy in place to require minors be accompanied by an adult. She said this ordinance would ensure that policy remains in effect if management ever changed. (Of course, in reality, this ordinance actually places further restrictions and does not simply ensure the current policy remains in place.)

I asked that they consider an amendment in Section 5 to add "an adult authorized by the minor's parent or guardian" to the list of people who can take a minor to the range as the current proposal would preclude a grandfather taking his granddaughter, aunts and uncles taking nieces and nephews, and family friends taking each others' children to the range. But that fell flat (not unexpectedly).

I also said that, at least for me, the mag ban isn't a Second Amendment issue or a Fifth Amendment issue of illegal takings; rather, I see it as an issue of whether this is the best method -- or even an effective method -- of reducing violent crime. I said I believed that the people who would choose to shoot at officers are not the people who will choose to relinquish their possessions and people intent on doing harm will continue to illegally acquire and use these magazines.

I also provided a bit of a "sound bite" in that I said "We cannot, with the stroke of a pen, erect a barrier and prevent these magazines from entering our City, or make those magazines that would be prohibited that are already here just disappear."

And I noted that I had included information from studies that show one the best ways to reduced violent crime is get kids involved in their communities and to gain a sense of self-worth not tied to a life of crime. I said that programs like bring together educators, mentors, social workers, and employers would do far more to reduce violent crime than legislating against objects.

[Aside: State Senator Mark Leno was in the audience for the presentation of the mag ban. I overheard him, Supervisor Cohen, and Chief Suhr speaking outside chambers after the presentation. Senator Leno made a remark along the lines of "The assault weapons these magazines are used in are already banned, so now we're banning the magazines, too? That's great." (Of course we all know that not all magazines holding more than 10 rounds are used in "assault weapons"; however, I didn't have the guts to interrupt and mention that.) They also talked about "community guns" and that people have guns buried in their backyards. This mag ban would allow the police to arrest those who store the guns even if they don't use them. Chief Suhr also directed Senator Leno and his guests to the photograph on the wall outside chambers taken October 9, 19?? -- the first day that the Board of Supervisors ever met -- and mentioned his great-grandfather was the Supervisor for then-District 12.]

I think KGO was there primarily covering Item 2 on the agenda -- issues regarding Parks & Rec's policies for driving off paths in parks; this is in reaction to the death of a young mother who was sunbathing and was run over by a Parks & Rec truck that was driven across the lawn. I don't know if they'll also cover the mag ban ordinance.
__________________
liberal, socialist, pro-gun

Last edited by nutcase; 10-10-2013 at 4:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-12-2013, 10:18 PM
JelloSF's Avatar
JelloSF JelloSF is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: SF
Posts: 97
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Way to represent. Sorry I couldn't be there, but I'm glad someone spoke up.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-15-2013, 2:16 PM
joelogic's Avatar
joelogic joelogic is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,472
iTrader: 202 / 100%
Default

Nice work!

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...tion-controls/
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-15-2013, 2:26 PM
MontClaire's Avatar
MontClaire MontClaire is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: *CLASSIFIED*
Posts: 4,401
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

yet pot for everyone! smoke anywhere! yaaaay!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-15-2013, 3:44 PM
missiondude's Avatar
missiondude missiondude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,526
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenclip View Post
Sigh. The worst part about the ammo reporting is that the list they are keeping somewhere is no doubt accumulative and has no one is going to apply any sound logic to it. At least not in the form of assumed weekly/monthly range consumption or IDPA/USPSA comps.

"Damn will you look at that. None of our law-abiding citizens could possibly need 10,000 rounds a year. He must be up to no good."
If I was using 10,000 rounds a year for "up to no good" purposes there would be an awfully large pile of bodies building up somewhere...

The stupidity of parts of this state is staggering.
__________________
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The original common sense gun law...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-15-2013, 5:24 PM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Rancho Cordova, California
Posts: 8,813
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontClaire View Post
yet pot for everyone! smoke anywhere! yaaaay!
I don't mind the legalization of pot - even though I personally am alergic to smoke of any kind and will not be partaking. Prohabition of anything is an automatic fail. It didn't work with alcholol, drugs, prostitution, and it definately will not work with guns.

The best argument against gun bans is to point at the failed war on drugs, and the failed prohibition on prostition. Anyone who wants to get a line of coke or find a hooker can do so faster than they can get a pizza delivered despite the fact that both those things have been banned since before any of us were even born. What makes them think a ban on guns would be any different. They are smart enough to know this, since as politicians the are probably very familiar with both coke and hookers. So clearly their agenda here is not to stop crime, as even a fifth grader can figure out a gun ban will not stop gun violence any more than a ban on drugs stops the free flow of drugs into this country.

Just like with the ban on pot, all a ban on guns does is turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. We won't give up our guns no matter what law they pass. We simply do not recognize their authority to override our constitional birthright. We will jump through hoops in an effort to keep our guns legal, but if they outright ban them that's when none of us will comply...and they know it. Just like a pot smoker is going to keep smoking pot regardless of the law gun owners are going to keep their rifles. And just like pot smokers, gun owners are not gang bangers or hardened criminal types simply for liking something these particular law makers dislike, but doctors, lawyers, bankers, housewives, IT specialists, cops, and the like.

The truth is, it is not the guns they don't like. It is the people who like guns that they hate. They hate the people. Think about that. That is really sad. Just read about the conversation the OP overheard, they are eager to be able to arrest law abiding citizens just because they own guns and they think this law will give them an excuse to do that. Not that they will get to go after hardened criminals, but that get an excuse to lock up ordinary gun owners. That is just pathetic.

Last edited by tacticalcity; 10-15-2013 at 5:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-15-2013, 9:03 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,095
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

#4 is unenforceable. They have no jurisdiction over any vendors outside of San Francisco. They can try suing them like with the magazine repair kits, but since the law doesn't apply to anyone outside of SF I can't imagine a judge would let a suit like that proceed.

#3 is unConstitutional.

#1 is ex post facto deprivation of property.

Find a lawyer to 'splain it to them.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-15-2013, 9:03 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,095
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

#4 is unenforceable. They have no jurisdiction over any vendors outside of San Francisco. They can try suing them like with the magazine repair kits, but since the law doesn't apply to anyone outside of SF I can't imagine a judge would let a suit like that proceed.

#3 is unConstitutional.

#1 is ex post facto deprivation of property.

Find a lawyer to 'splain it to them.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-15-2013, 9:52 PM
jims1001 jims1001 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF East Bay 510 area
Posts: 149
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I have a question regarding #4. If I don't remember wrong, shipping ammo to SF has been banned. How can a dealer outside SF ship the ammo to SF legally?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-15-2013, 10:24 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Soooo.... if a hypothetical "friend" shoots USPSA Open or Limited, what is my imaginary "friend" supposed to do? He/she wouldn't be able to leave mags with other members of his/her squad that reside outside SF because of CA's ban on loaning std cap mags. Even switching to Production is a PITA due to the Roster.

Now what? Should I tell my "friend" to give up shooting and take up an acceptable hobby like smoking weed instead?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-16-2013, 12:59 AM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 8,832
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
Soooo.... if a hypothetical "friend" shoots USPSA Open or Limited, what is my imaginary "friend" supposed to do? He/she wouldn't be able to leave mags with other members of his/her squad that reside outside SF because of CA's ban on loaning std cap mags. Even switching to Production is a PITA due to the Roster.

Now what? Should I tell my "friend" to give up shooting and take up an acceptable hobby like smoking weed instead?
I wonder if your friend could put the mags inside a lockable, steel case...



http://www.midwayusa.com/product/593...-4-steel-black

...and have another member of the squad hold the box, but not have a key for access. Would that pass the smell test?

-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-16-2013, 10:28 AM
nutcase nutcase is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jims1001 View Post
I have a question regarding #4. If I don't remember wrong, shipping ammo to SF has been banned. How can a dealer outside SF ship the ammo to SF legally?
Shipping ammo to SF is not banned -- depending upon how a lawyer wishes to interpret Section 613 of the Police Code which requires a license issued by the Police Department for sales of ammunition.

Section 615 defines a "Remote [Ammunition] Vendor" and says that they must report sales of 500 or more rounds to the Chief of Police. It does not mention any licensing provisions so one could interpret it to mean that the licensing scheme in 613 only applies to vendors in SF.
__________________
liberal, socialist, pro-gun
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-16-2013, 10:30 AM
nutcase nutcase is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
Soooo.... if a hypothetical "friend" shoots USPSA Open or Limited, what is my imaginary "friend" supposed to do?
I think the Board of Supervisors would tell your "friend" to move out of San Francisco.
__________________
liberal, socialist, pro-gun
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-16-2013, 10:50 AM
drew3630 drew3630 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Solano County
Posts: 344
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

I heard this (I don't remember exactly what station, KCBS?)
Good job - you sounded rational and literate

"I also provided a bit of a "sound bite" in that I said "We cannot, with the stroke of a pen, erect a barrier and prevent these magazines from entering our City, or make those magazines that would be prohibited that are already here just disappear."

And I noted that I had included information from studies that show one the best ways to reduced violent crime is get kids involved in their communities and to gain a sense of self-worth not tied to a life of crime. I said that programs like bring together educators, mentors, social workers, and employers would do far more to reduce violent crime than legislating against objects."
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-16-2013, 11:18 AM
nutcase nutcase is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

@drew360: Thanks for the kind words. I did stumble a little; I LOATHE public speaking, and three minutes is not a lot of time. I had a script that I had prepared, but I was also trying to address, on the fly, points brought up by the Chief and Supervisor Cohen, and I knew it was likely that some news source would pick it up (KCBS picked up my quotes from the committee meeting earlier this year that put the ammo sales restrictions in place; I figured they'd pick up on this one, too).
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-05-2013, 6:34 AM
conradca conradca is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You should be able to buy ammo paying cash outside of SF.

Regulations on assault rifles are insane because they are hardly ever used in crimes. Furthermore the same logic can be used to ban all semi autos including pistols and semi auto rimfires. We just avoided the progressive fascists in Sacramento banning all semi auto rifles this year.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:34 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.