Wednesday, November 09, 2005

San Francisco Bans Handguns (Again)

San Francisco voters enacted a ban on all handgun ownership and the sales of all firearms within their city.

Leaving aside the fact that a majority of San Franciscans apparently never read the Constitution and Bill of Rights for the United States (see 2nd Amendment), this ban flies in the face of California law wherein the declaration of rights we see

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1.
All people are by nature free and independent and
have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying
and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing,
and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining
safety, happiness, and privacy.


Full text of ban courtesty of SFGUNBAN


To deny that the defense of life, property and happiness that effective weapons are needed would take a colossal effort at the denial of simple truth.

The handgun ban includes a seizure of property without compensation from both private handgun owners and from businesses.

in 90 days from the effective date of this section, any resident of the City and County of San Francisco may surrender his or her handgun at any district station of the San Francisco Police Department, or to the San Francisco Sheriffs Department without penalty under this section.


Your minders in the government at all levels are allowed firearms including the dreaded handgun to enforce the laws

Specifically, any City, state or federal employee carrying out the functions of his or her government employment, including but not limited to peace officers as defined by California Penal Code Section 830 et.seq. and animal control officers may possess a handgun. Active members of the United States armed forces or the National Guard


This coupled with registration and weapons confiscation didn't work out very well last time as seen in Kristallnacht, so named for the broken glass everywhere from the windows of jewish owned businesses, when after having disarmed the Jewish populace the Nazi government and its thugs in the streets enacted the first part of their pogrom against the jews. Up to 200 people were murdered by the rampaging mobs.





The san fran gun ban does however allow the rich and large companies to protect their property, a right the people of san francisco voted to deny themselves:

and security guards, regularly employed and compensated by a person engaged in any lawful business, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment, may also possess handguns.



The people of san francisco were even fool enough to vote for the gun ban without knowing what the penalties would be!

Section 5. Penalties
Within 90 days of the effective date of this section, the Board of Supervisors shall enact penalties for violations of this ordinance. The Mayor, after consultation with the District Attorney, Sheriff and Chief of Police shall, within 30 days from the effective date, provide recommendations about penalties to the Board.



Now that we have seen portions of the law enacted by the citizenry of San Francisco, let's talk about the cost. I find it unlikely that San Francisco would be able to get away with confiscating personal property uncompensated, a violation of California's state constition as well as U.S. Constitution. The cost for implementing this program would be prohibitive for San Francisco. For insight into the level of financial woe the electorate of San Francisco has let themselves in for we can look to Canada's gun control (confiscation) efforts.

In Canada's gun control efforts expenses of $1 billion dollars have been racked up in the last ten years. On the same scale for San Francisco's three quarter of a million population the cost would be $24 million.

Now a few comments on the security from gun crime the San Franciscans think they have bought themselves:

Since the total firearms ban went into effect in Washington D.C. in 1976 the homocide rate has gone up 200%.

In the United Kingdom, which enacted a total firearms ban after the Dunblane mass killing of children by an insane man, the report by the U.K. government states
"the incidence of gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled from 13,874 in 1998 to 24,070 in 2003. And the incidence of firearms murder, while thankfully still very small, has risen 65 per cent,".

Perhaps Benjamin Franklin said it the best, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security".

3 comments:

RightDemocrat said...

I think that San Francisco voters have gone insane. Gun control does not reduce crime. Mandatory sentences for gun crimes will lower crime rates.

Don Meaker said...

One of the best laws passed against gun crime was in NY. It mandated a 20 year addition to the sentence for anyone who committed a crime using a sawed off shotgun.

The sawed off shotguns were dumped in mail boxes.

roninaz said...

Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.

One moment of lucidity does not make up for the flagrant disregard of the Human Right of Self Defense as demonstrated repeatedly in New York (the state and the city).