They made america free

Cuz I like guns and guns like me
I like guns they made America free

Guns by D.I.

November is almost upon us my friends and it’s voting time! There’s an evil proposition on the books known as Proposition H that states that “no resident of the City and County of San Francisco shall possess any handgun.” Residents would have 90 days to turn them over to the cops or face still-to-be-determined punishments for possessing them in their homes, places of business, or anywhere else. It also prohibits the sale of “all firearms and ammunition” inside city limits. Visitors are free to pack heat though. So if a criminal is in the mood to go on a crime spree, why not go where you know that the law abiding residents are going to be unarmed and easy prey? It tips the balance of power in favor of the criminals and puts common citizens at greater risk.

The San Francisco Police Officers Association (POA), representing men and women dedicated to a life of service to public safety, must evaluate any legislative effort affecting its membership. After careful review and analysis, the POA does not support the proposed ballot initiative that would nullify the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for selfdefense purposes.

Did you get that? The COPS even know it’s wrong and don’t support it. Should you? That’s of course up to you but you should read up a little bit before voting yes. Especially when you look at Washington D.C. and what happened when they enacted a similar law. Their murder rate basically doubled. My personal views are that every citizen should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon of any fashion they desire. You’re a hell of a lot less likely to start some shit with someone or break into a home if you know that anyone and everyone has the right to carry a weapon. Oh yeah, and it’s in that pesky little Constitution.

I highly recommend reading the San Francisco Handgun Ban FAQ and SF Gun Ban Website. You can also read POA Opposes Proposition H for the full text of the Police Officers Association statement.

8 Comments so far

  1. joann Landers (unregistered) on October 29th, 2005 @ 4:46 pm

    I do believe in our right to keep and bear arms but I am not so sure about just any incompetent being allowed to carry a concealed weapon. So many people out there with mental or drug problems.

  2. cd (unregistered) on October 30th, 2005 @ 4:27 pm

    Also – and this is just a picky statutory nerd gal’s issues – the language “no resident of the City and County of San Francisco shall possess any handgun” is grammatically incorrect. It should say “no resident *may*.” Its okay Supes and City Attorneys, even the Legislature and Congress make that mistake – frequently.

  3. seamus (unregistered) on October 31st, 2005 @ 10:38 am

    Right on, Jason. While I think the 2nd Amendment argument is specious (SF gun owners are hardly a “well-regulated militia”) as well as the DC argument (crime rates are multi-variable), this law basically hands over all security to the SFPD. After Hurricane Katrina, we saw people defending themselves with their guns after all the civil authority evaporated. When the Big Quake hits SF and the members of the SFPD are trying to save their own families (or can’t get here from their suburban homes), how are law-abiders supposed to defend themselves without legal guns?

  4. Hip Liz (unregistered) on October 31st, 2005 @ 4:36 pm

    not so sure about just any incompetent being allowed to carry

    Current law puts so many stipulations on gaining a license to carry concealed that no “incompetent” will ever get it. Unfortunately almost no county will uphold the Constitution and grant the permit regardless. Before we talk about letting “any” citizen carry concealed, we should at least allow the right to citizens who have proven themselves qualified. We don’t even do that.

  5. Jason D- (unregistered) on November 2nd, 2005 @ 4:10 pm

    I’m not for allowing any “incompetent” to operate a dangerous piece of equipment as I’m not for unlicensed drivers. I think we do a fairly decent job of making sure people are somewhat qualified to own guns although I’d like to see a handling proficiency test along with the written test. You have to take a driving test to get a drivers license why not require a rudimentary safety course to own a gun? It’s something I’d support if it loosened the restrictions on carry and conceal. If everyone does own a weapon it would be nice if some of them could aim :-) Although after watchign the gang bangers in LA go to the range to practice I’m not so sure I want those guys trained. Best thing you can do if a banger is shotig at you is to stand still and give them an easy target. Miss every time :-)

  6. morey (unregistered) on November 4th, 2005 @ 9:28 am

    Specious, Seamus? First off, the bill of rights is intended for citizens. Why on earth would they throw in a red herring like a right for military officers? They didn’t. If you seriously believe that a “well regulated militia” means anything other than an armed populace, you need to read the Federalist Papers.

    In the second place, they call it the bill of rights for a reason. Like it or not, in our republic, gun ownership *is* a right. It is not a privilege, under which you can apply stipulations such as arbitrary levels of training.

    This is all beside the point. Criminals do not, by definition, give one shit about rules. All this does is drive small businesses out of town, and give the power to the police and corporations. It is a truly vile piece of legislation.

    HTH. HAND.

  7. Jason D- (unregistered) on November 4th, 2005 @ 9:30 am

    “It is a truly vile piece of legislation.”

    Amen brutha!

  8. Yevgeni Stepanov (unregistered) on November 6th, 2005 @ 12:02 pm

    Prop H is theft.

    If you own a valuable handgun (a vintage M1911 for example) you would be told to “turn it in” despite the fact that the City will give you nothing for it.

    Prop H will NOT lower crime. Criminals don’t obey any of these laws to begin with.

    Look at the works of Gary Kleck, a liberal who supports the likes of Kennedy. He started out believing strongly in Gun Control. After doing research, he learned the facts: Criminals don’t want people to own guns. Why? Because guns PREVENT crime about 2 MILLION times PER YEAR.

    More importantly, the Media does not even report on this. Even when a crime is thawrted by a gun-owning civilian, that fact manages to be dropped from a story before it reaches the public.

    Is the Second Amendment “archaic?” If so, then so is the FIRST Amendment. Technology has changed there, as well.

    Y A Stepanov

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.