Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: SF passes "Lock up your gun law"

  1. #1
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AG26R6G3Q1.DTL



    SAN FRANCISCO
    Supervisors approve tough gun measure
    Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Wednesday, July 25, 2007

    San Francisco's already tough laws on firearms will get even stronger -- becoming some of the most restrictive in the country -- after a vote at City Hall Tuesday. But even new restrictions won't do much to stop the gun violence escalating on city streets, one sponsor of the new laws said after the vote.


    The violence that has been generally confined to more crime-plagued neighborhoods crossed into a major tourist area Monday afternoon, with a shooting that left one person dead and put bullet holes through the front window of a popular restaurant.
    Gun-related homicides, injuries from shootings, and gun crimes in and around schools are becoming increasingly common, according to the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice.


    The laws -- which gained final approval from the Board of Supervisors -- would restrict both the sale and possession of firearms. Specifically, they would prohibit the possession or sale of firearms on city property, require firearms in residences to be in a locked container or have trigger locks and require firearm dealers to submit an inventory to the chief of police every six months. The last provision is intended to allow city officials to know how many guns are sold, though there is only one gun shop in the city.


    "We're pleased that, as soon as the mayor signs this, San Francisco has the strongest anti-gun laws in the nation," said Nathan Ballard, spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom. The mayor sponsored the legislation, along with Supervisors Sophie Maxwell and Ross Mirkarimi.


    Despite the laws, however, Mirkarimi said he doubts they will quell the kind of violence that erupted on Monday afternoon, which police suspect may be tied to a feud between a San Francisco gang and an East Bay gang. The shooting happened at the corner of Ellis and Cyril Magnin streets, across from the Hilton hotel and near the Powell Street cable car turnaround. "Nobody should be surprised about the migration and proliferation of gun violence in San Francisco," Mirkarimi said. "We've been saying this for two-and-a-half years, that the murders, homicides and gun violence that have been occurring in the more routine areas ... have now migrated into other areas."


    The number of shootings resulting in nonfatal injuries continues to rise, with 269 such incidents in 2005 and 303 in 2006. As of May 10 of this year, there were 105. Supervisor Maxwell said the new restrictions, which passed 8-3, are separate issues from the violence in the streets. Supervisors Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly and Ed Jew voted "no."


    While the mayor has praised these new restrictions, he only expressed tepid support for Proposition H in 2005, which would have required gun owners to surrender their weapons to police and would have made it illegal to buy and sell firearms and ammunition in the city.


    Voters passed the proposition with 58 percent in favor, but it is tied up in court after the National Rifle Association challenged its constitutionality. Newsom said the vote amounted to a "public opinion poll." The gun owners association did not return a call for comment on the new restrictions Tuesday afternoon. Peskin said he didn't support the laws because he believes they will have no impact. "It is silly feel-good legislation with no teeth," Peskin said.


    Daly has questioned Newsom's commitment to gun control, noting that the mayor wasn't a strong backer of Prop. H, which Daly sponsored. Jew said sufficient laws already are in place and he questioned the further use of city resources on the issue in the wake of challenges to Prop. H.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    I realize that there is strong support among antis for so-called "safe storage" laws, but they seem to only support one size fits all laws to do it. Do people who live by themselves have to follow this? Why should someone with no children in the home have to lock up their firearms? Once again, chalk one up for the criminals. All the San Francisco supervisors have succeeded in doing is created a safer working environment for criminals seeking to burglarize peoples' homes. If I lived there, I'd move immediately.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AG26R6G3Q1.DTL



    SAN FRANCISCO
    Supervisors approve tough gun measure
    Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Wednesday, July 25, 2007

    ***SNIP***
    "We're pleased that, as soon as the mayor signs this, San Francisco has the strongest anti-gun laws in the nation," said Nathan Ballard, spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom. The mayor sponsored the legislation, along with Supervisors Sophie Maxwell and Ross Mirkarimi.
    ***SNIP***
    THIS IS NOT A RACE TO BE THE MOST-GUN-LESS CITY!!! OMG!!!

    Oh wait... of course it is. They don't care if it causes a huge spike in crime, so long as they can control those evil guns.



  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Next they should prohibit door locks, as they might cause injury to criminals during break-ins. Lockpicking can lead to carpal tunnel syndrome, and kicking in a door is just asking for a nasty splinters.

    And we should require sufficient night-time lighting to ensure the burglar doesn't trip over the sofa and get hurt or break the TV he's carrying out.

    And then comes mandatory liability insurance, in case your TV is so big he strains his back while lifting it; can't expect a thief to have an HMO.

    You know... sometimes I wish we had hurricanes along our west coast... maybe it would keep these nut jobs busy enough they wouldn't micromanage everybody's lives.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Next they should prohibit door locks, as they might cause injury to criminals during break-ins. Lockpicking can lead to carpal tunnel syndrome, and kicking in a door is just asking for a nasty splinters.

    And we should require sufficient night-time lighting to ensure the burglar doesn't trip over the sofa and get hurt or break the TV he's carrying out.

    And then comes mandatory liability insurance, in case your TV is so big he strains his back while lifting it; can't expect a thief to have an HMO.

    You know... sometimes I wish we had hurricanes along our west coast... maybe it would keep these nut jobs busy enough they wouldn't micromanage everybody's lives.
    Hurricanes? Katrina was a b*%#@. I would never wish that upon anyone. I would definitely not want some 'state emergency' to cause the local LE to feel 'empowered'. In case you're wondering, I was there. Also, from a different point of view, there are too many ways the politicos could spin the 'need for gun-control' in order to push through some nasty stuff while an huge chunk of coastline is suffering from a natural disaster.

    The 'home weapon safety status ensurability program' seems an awfully convenientprecursor for subsequently allowing violations of the 4th A. "We need to check your guns!" "Papers please!"

    Just my .02

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    CPL_in_WA wrote:
    Hurricanes? Katrina was a b*%#@. I would never wish that upon anyone. I would definitely not want some 'state emergency' to cause the local LE to feel 'empowered'. In case you're wondering, I was there. Also, from a different point of view, there are too many ways the politicos could spin the 'need for gun-control' in order to push through some nasty stuff while an huge chunk of coastline is suffering from a natural disaster.
    Wasn't referring to Katrina per se. From what I have seen/read, most hurricanes just knock out the electricty and cause some minor flooding and property damage. The sort of things that keep politicians busy. Didn't intend to sound like I wish bodily harm or serious property damage to occur.

    And if we did have some minor disruption of the nanny services, maybe people would wake up and realize they gotta be ready to take care of themselves.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    tattedupboy wrote:
    I realize that there is strong support among antis for so-called "safe storage" laws, but they seem to only support one size fits all laws to do it. Do people who live by themselves have to follow this? Why should someone with no children in the home have to lock up their firearms? Once again, chalk one up for the criminals. All the San Francisco supervisors have succeeded in doing is created a safer working environment for criminals seeking to burglarize peoples' homes. If I lived there, I'd move immediately.
    It's another "feel good" law.. A homeowner can ignore the law. Everyone knows cable locks can be defeated with a pair of plier in 30 seconds or less.

    What astounds me(and this isn't just California -- idiot politicians & fear-mongers are everywhere).. is that..

    The legislature is trying to stop GANG VIOLENCE, and they think a lock-up law is going to stop the problem. Don't lockup the guns, lockup the criminals.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Maryland, USA
    Posts
    230

    Post imported post

    Come on, give it a chance! [BAD SARCASM] It has worked very well in D.C. for what, 30 years? And by that I mean worked well for the criminals! I heard someone on a local D.C. news channel say something like, "This is not the time to abandon the gun laws in this city that has saved so many lives, we need to give the D.C. gun laws a chance to work." I absolutely agree with the part about saving lives...but I don't think those are the lives of the law-abiding innocent folks being saved...

    Is there a unit of measure on the word chance? If so, it must be well over 30 years.

    Too much violence in your city? Simply disarm your citizens and "poof" everything is better! The same mentality exists in my great state of Maryland.

  9. #9
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Supervisors approve tough gun measure
    Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Wednesday, July 25, 2007

    While the mayor has praised these new restrictions, he only expressed tepid support for Proposition H in 2005, which would have required gun owners to surrender their weapons to police and would have made it illegal to buy and sell firearms and ammunition in the city.
    Voters passed the proposition with 58 percent in favor, but it is tied up in court after the National Rifle Association challenged its constitutionality.
    Score another one for the NRA. Without it, Prop H would be in effect already.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •