Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
SAF Blasts Proposed San Francisco Handgun Ban: 'We Beat That In 1982'
SAF Blasts Proposed San Francisco Handgun Ban: 'We Beat That In 1982'
SAF Blasts Proposed San Francisco Handgun Ban: 'We Beat That In 1982'
12/16/2004 5:07:00 PM
To: State Desk
Contact: Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, 425-454-7012
BELLEVUE, Wash., Dec. 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Calling it an "ill-considered return visit of anti-gun bigotry," the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today blasted plans to put a handgun ban on the November 2005 ballot in San Francisco, Calif. reminding proponents of the measure that such a ban was declared illegal when first tried in 1982.
"This issue was decided by the California courts more than 22 years ago, and the gun ban extremists lost," recalled SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "Why some city supervisors want to waste the time, and money, of voters to revisit an issue that was unanimously trounced by the State Court of Appeals makes no sense. Even if the ban were to pass, it will not hold up in court."
In late June 1982, then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein pushed through a handgun ban in San Francisco that lasted only three months before it was overturned by the California State Court of Appeals. Twenty days after the ban was enacted, SAF took Feinstein and the city to court, ultimately beating the ban on Oct. 30 of that year. The city appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court, which allowed the Appeals Court ruling to stand in January 1983.
SAF is already in contact with the San Francisco Chapter of the Pink Pistols, a gay gun rights group, which opposes the ban.
Tom Boyer, spokesman for the San Francisco Pink Pistols said, "It grieves me that our board of supervisors would sacrifice the basic human right of self defense, depriving those who are the least physically able to defend themselves, for political gain."
"It is incredible," Gottlieb added, "that in a city where the government has supposedly taken a lead in defending individual rights and freedoms, it is still considered acceptable to practice social bigotry, so long as gun owners are the victims. This may come as a shock to the moral inquisitors in San Francisco, but gun owners have civil rights, too, just like any other social group. Those civil rights are not up for grabs at the whims of the Board of Supervisors, or even the popular vote. We fought this battle once, and we're not afraid to fight it again."
---
The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, Conn.; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers & an amicus brief & fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Yes will someone Please step in and blast the idiotic Supervisors in SF.
A handgun has saved my life at least three times. What about those statistics.
I am a single white female.
A handgun has saved my life at least three times. What about those statistics.
I am a single white female.
... only outlaws will have guns. That's one of the popular phrases cited by 2nd Amendment advocates.
I'd like to ask SF radicals if they are really all that pleased with idea that police, military and rent-a-cops would be the only folks in SF with handguns
I don't like guns, but I don't like the idea that police are the only ones that get to have them.
I'd like to ask SF radicals if they are really all that pleased with idea that police, military and rent-a-cops would be the only folks in SF with handguns
I don't like guns, but I don't like the idea that police are the only ones that get to have them.
or subject to slavery at any time. -- Malcolm X
So, the drug gangs in SF are gunning down cops with AK-47s, so the natural thing for the Supes to do is to take away guns from law-abiding people and merchants. Right. So very San Francisco. Even though state law says very clearly that no one needs a permit or a license to have a gun at home or at one's business. Let the Supes pass the law. Ignore it.
It always disgusts me when so-called "liberals" and "progressives" support gun control, especially hand gun control. When guns are taken from the people - and only the cops, army and National Security State agencies have them - then that is fascism.
If you're against imperialist war, the Patriot Act and invasions of our civil liberties, you must also be against taking arms from the people! I'm much more scared of the police, FBI and CIA having guns than I am with my neighbor having guns!
If you're against imperialist war, the Patriot Act and invasions of our civil liberties, you must also be against taking arms from the people! I'm much more scared of the police, FBI and CIA having guns than I am with my neighbor having guns!
is not progressive. It's reactionary.
ain't gonna do smack againsts tanks, helicopters and bombs
not to mention the plethora of other sophisticated armor and weaponry at their disposal
you kid yourself to think the people have the power to physically overtake our own military -- that time has long past
not to mention the plethora of other sophisticated armor and weaponry at their disposal
you kid yourself to think the people have the power to physically overtake our own military -- that time has long past
Maybe one did and maybe one didn't. We have no way to tell without proof. That part of the story is missing. Where is it? Where is the proof? The proof is the single most important part of the story. Why is it not being reported? We, the readers, deserve better journalism than this. Stop taking us for such fools as to accept without question an unsubstantiated assertion.
The 2nd amendment is an important part of the Bill of Rights, and we Progressives need to defend it. If we do not defend it, then we cannot honestly claim to be defending the Bill of Rights.
Anyone know?
This is really a good news to all the bad guys, after passed this law, they can rob whenever they want in SF. because all they know no body have handgun in home for defend! and they still can have their weapon! This law is really helping bad guys for their "business". hahaha
Mr. Daly,
FACT: Washington, D.C., banned handguns in response to its skyrocketing homicide rate in 1976. But nearly three decades later, it had more murders per capita than any other city its size.
Next up: San Francisco. As it is now, no one (other than the criminals that is), can carry a concealed weapon in the city. Now you want to take away the right of a person to defend themselves in their own home from a violent intruder.
Your quote: "I don't feel like I need to own a gun to protect myself. Certainly, I am a high-profile elected official and now a lot of gun owners don't like me individually, but if I'm in a situation where I feel threatened, I'll call the police," Daly said.
Mr. Daly, let me let you in on a little secret: I have been a police officer for almost seven years. Over the past thirty years police have been turned into a "reactive" force by lawyers and politicians like you...meaning these days we mostly take statements and file police reports on violent crimes. We don't really have the backing of our administrators anymore to make that extra effort to catch the dangerous and violent felons...our pursuit policies are extremely restricted, or use of force guidelines hamper us from dealing effectively with the worst offenders, defense lawyers and activist judges let violent predators free on technicalities and our district attorneys slap us in the face by not going for the appropriate punishment for cop killers. All this means more empowerment to the criminal element. The criminals outnumber the police by 1000 to 1. And you think we can protect you?
What makes you think I can get to your house in time to save your life when some nut is kicking down your door in order to rape your wife, your children, and kill you? His savage attack will take less than 5 minutes. IF you are able to call 911 as he is coming through your door and blurt out to the operator what is happening in your terror-induced brain lock, how long do you think you will have before the police get there to save you?
Let's break it down:
Maybe I can be dispatched within 30 seconds, maybe I will be within 20 blocks of your house, and maybe, just maybe, my partners and I will not be tied up on another homicide, rape, assault or burglary-in-progress. I have to fight traffic, find the correct address, gain access to the house or apartment building, and most importantly, wait for my backup to successfully navigate the same obstacles and go in with me. Best case scenario, it takes us 7 minutes. Maybe we are extremely lucky and we catch the bad guy as he is leaving through your back door drenched in your family's blood.
But in reality, the only thing I am going to be able to do is take photographs of the carnage and statements from your unarmed neighbors about what they heard as they were trembling from behind their doors.
Now, imagine the same scenario where you have the means to defend yourself. Thousands of violent assault attempts are ended peacefully each year in this country because the potential victim has a firearm and a shot is never fired; just the mere sight of a fiream encourages the attacker to cease his actions. The overwhelming majority of these incidents are never reported to police because the victim fears legal repercussions.
Maybe you "don't feel like you need to protect yourself," but who are you to know what is best for those people who base their lives on reality? Thankfully the majority of people in this country do feel they have a right to protect themselves and their loved ones (oh, and by the way, that right is clearly spelled out in the Bill of Rights). Maybe you are comfortable with living with your head stuck in the sand assuming nothing bad will ever happen, but let me give you a dose of reality: I deal with the victims of violent crime every day, and they are victims because they are just like you. I can see weakness in your eyes from your photograph. You and your fellow ostrich are easy prey for violent felons -- you walk, talk, and look like weak-willed people who assume nothing bad will ever happen to you and if it does, the police will always be "just around the corner" to save you. Predators are overjoyed that socialists like you continue to disarm their prey and are confident in their knowledge that they will not face any consequences for their actions.
The founding fathers of this country were very clear with their intentions regarding self defense and the Second Amendment. Who are you to take away the basic right of self defense from a man or woman? Instead of trying to force your paternalistic, ill-informed, misguided, disasterous, idealogically-driven policies on the public, why don't you educate yourself and look at the historical patterns of disasterous gun-control in America and the UK over the past thirty years? It is a fact that counties and cities that allow their citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights by owning and carrying concealed firearms has a dramatic effect on decreasing violent crime. Look at cities that outlaw gun ownership...D.C., New York, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the list goes on....and you see a huge number of rapes, murders, felonious assaults, home invasions and the like. Look at the cities in America that allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves...Seattle, Dallas, Kansas City, Denver to name a few...and you see a clear pattern of low homicide and violent crime rates. Just compare Seattle (yes to concealed carry) and Oakland (two cities of comparable size and demographics) and then ask yourself how can you possibly think taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will make them safer???
May God protect the poor citizens of San Francisco...you certainly won't. You are exactly the reason I moved my family from the Bay Area three years ago.
Sincerely,
Brian Bonnar
FACT: Washington, D.C., banned handguns in response to its skyrocketing homicide rate in 1976. But nearly three decades later, it had more murders per capita than any other city its size.
Next up: San Francisco. As it is now, no one (other than the criminals that is), can carry a concealed weapon in the city. Now you want to take away the right of a person to defend themselves in their own home from a violent intruder.
Your quote: "I don't feel like I need to own a gun to protect myself. Certainly, I am a high-profile elected official and now a lot of gun owners don't like me individually, but if I'm in a situation where I feel threatened, I'll call the police," Daly said.
Mr. Daly, let me let you in on a little secret: I have been a police officer for almost seven years. Over the past thirty years police have been turned into a "reactive" force by lawyers and politicians like you...meaning these days we mostly take statements and file police reports on violent crimes. We don't really have the backing of our administrators anymore to make that extra effort to catch the dangerous and violent felons...our pursuit policies are extremely restricted, or use of force guidelines hamper us from dealing effectively with the worst offenders, defense lawyers and activist judges let violent predators free on technicalities and our district attorneys slap us in the face by not going for the appropriate punishment for cop killers. All this means more empowerment to the criminal element. The criminals outnumber the police by 1000 to 1. And you think we can protect you?
What makes you think I can get to your house in time to save your life when some nut is kicking down your door in order to rape your wife, your children, and kill you? His savage attack will take less than 5 minutes. IF you are able to call 911 as he is coming through your door and blurt out to the operator what is happening in your terror-induced brain lock, how long do you think you will have before the police get there to save you?
Let's break it down:
Maybe I can be dispatched within 30 seconds, maybe I will be within 20 blocks of your house, and maybe, just maybe, my partners and I will not be tied up on another homicide, rape, assault or burglary-in-progress. I have to fight traffic, find the correct address, gain access to the house or apartment building, and most importantly, wait for my backup to successfully navigate the same obstacles and go in with me. Best case scenario, it takes us 7 minutes. Maybe we are extremely lucky and we catch the bad guy as he is leaving through your back door drenched in your family's blood.
But in reality, the only thing I am going to be able to do is take photographs of the carnage and statements from your unarmed neighbors about what they heard as they were trembling from behind their doors.
Now, imagine the same scenario where you have the means to defend yourself. Thousands of violent assault attempts are ended peacefully each year in this country because the potential victim has a firearm and a shot is never fired; just the mere sight of a fiream encourages the attacker to cease his actions. The overwhelming majority of these incidents are never reported to police because the victim fears legal repercussions.
Maybe you "don't feel like you need to protect yourself," but who are you to know what is best for those people who base their lives on reality? Thankfully the majority of people in this country do feel they have a right to protect themselves and their loved ones (oh, and by the way, that right is clearly spelled out in the Bill of Rights). Maybe you are comfortable with living with your head stuck in the sand assuming nothing bad will ever happen, but let me give you a dose of reality: I deal with the victims of violent crime every day, and they are victims because they are just like you. I can see weakness in your eyes from your photograph. You and your fellow ostrich are easy prey for violent felons -- you walk, talk, and look like weak-willed people who assume nothing bad will ever happen to you and if it does, the police will always be "just around the corner" to save you. Predators are overjoyed that socialists like you continue to disarm their prey and are confident in their knowledge that they will not face any consequences for their actions.
The founding fathers of this country were very clear with their intentions regarding self defense and the Second Amendment. Who are you to take away the basic right of self defense from a man or woman? Instead of trying to force your paternalistic, ill-informed, misguided, disasterous, idealogically-driven policies on the public, why don't you educate yourself and look at the historical patterns of disasterous gun-control in America and the UK over the past thirty years? It is a fact that counties and cities that allow their citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights by owning and carrying concealed firearms has a dramatic effect on decreasing violent crime. Look at cities that outlaw gun ownership...D.C., New York, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the list goes on....and you see a huge number of rapes, murders, felonious assaults, home invasions and the like. Look at the cities in America that allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves...Seattle, Dallas, Kansas City, Denver to name a few...and you see a clear pattern of low homicide and violent crime rates. Just compare Seattle (yes to concealed carry) and Oakland (two cities of comparable size and demographics) and then ask yourself how can you possibly think taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will make them safer???
May God protect the poor citizens of San Francisco...you certainly won't. You are exactly the reason I moved my family from the Bay Area three years ago.
Sincerely,
Brian Bonnar
Mr. Daly,
FACT: Washington, D.C., banned handguns in response to its skyrocketing homicide rate in 1976. But nearly three decades later, it had more murders per capita than any other city its size.
Next up: San Francisco. As it is now, no one (other than the criminals that is), can carry a concealed weapon in the city. Now you want to take away the right of a person to defend themselves in their own home from a violent intruder.
Your quote: "I don't feel like I need to own a gun to protect myself. Certainly, I am a high-profile elected official and now a lot of gun owners don't like me individually, but if I'm in a situation where I feel threatened, I'll call the police," Daly said.
Mr. Daly, let me let you in on a little secret: I have been a police officer for almost seven years. Over the past thirty years police have been turned into a "reactive" force by lawyers and politicians like you...meaning these days we mostly take statements and file police reports on violent crimes. We don't really have the backing of our administrators anymore to make that extra effort to catch the dangerous and violent felons...our pursuit policies are extremely restricted, or use of force guidelines hamper us from dealing effectively with the worst offenders, defense lawyers and activist judges let violent predators free on technicalities and our district attorneys slap us in the face by not going for the appropriate punishment for cop killers. All this means more empowerment to the criminal element. The criminals outnumber the police by 1000 to 1. And you think we can protect you?
What makes you think I can get to your house in time to save your life when some nut is kicking down your door in order to rape your wife, your children, and kill you? His savage attack will take less than 5 minutes. IF you are able to call 911 as he is coming through your door and blurt out to the operator what is happening in your terror-induced brain lock, how long do you think you will have before the police get there to save you?
Let's break it down:
Maybe I can be dispatched within 30 seconds, maybe I will be within 20 blocks of your house, and maybe, just maybe, my partners and I will not be tied up on another homicide, rape, assault or burglary-in-progress. I have to fight traffic, find the correct address, gain access to the house or apartment building, and most importantly, wait for my backup to successfully navigate the same obstacles and go in with me. Best case scenario, it takes us 7 minutes. Maybe we are extremely lucky and we catch the bad guy as he is leaving through your back door drenched in your family's blood.
But in reality, the only thing I am going to be able to do is take photographs of the carnage and statements from your unarmed neighbors about what they heard as they were trembling from behind their doors.
Now, imagine the same scenario where you have the means to defend yourself. Thousands of violent assault attempts are ended peacefully each year in this country because the potential victim has a firearm and a shot is never fired; just the mere sight of a fiream encourages the attacker to cease his actions. The overwhelming majority of these incidents are never reported to police because the victim fears legal repercussions.
Maybe you "don't feel like you need to protect yourself," but who are you to know what is best for those people who base their lives on reality? Thankfully the majority of people in this country do feel they have a right to protect themselves and their loved ones (oh, and by the way, that right is clearly spelled out in the Bill of Rights). Maybe you are comfortable with living with your head stuck in the sand assuming nothing bad will ever happen, but let me give you a dose of reality: I deal with the victims of violent crime every day, and they are victims because they are just like you. I can see weakness in your eyes from your photograph. You and your fellow ostrich are easy prey for violent felons -- you walk, talk, and look like weak-willed people who assume nothing bad will ever happen to you and if it does, the police will always be "just around the corner" to save you. Predators are overjoyed that socialists like you continue to disarm their prey and are confident in their knowledge that they will not face any consequences for their actions.
The founding fathers of this country were very clear with their intentions regarding self defense and the Second Amendment. Who are you to take away the basic right of self defense from a man or woman? Instead of trying to force your paternalistic, ill-informed, misguided, disasterous, idealogically-driven policies on the public, why don't you educate yourself and look at the historical patterns of disasterous gun-control in America and the UK over the past thirty years? It is a fact that counties and cities that allow their citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights by owning and carrying concealed firearms has a dramatic effect on decreasing violent crime. Look at cities that outlaw gun ownership...D.C., New York, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the list goes on....and you see a huge number of rapes, murders, felonious assaults, home invasions and the like. Look at the cities in America that allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves...Seattle, Dallas, Kansas City, Denver to name a few...and you see a clear pattern of low homicide and violent crime rates. Just compare Seattle (yes to concealed carry) and Oakland (two cities of comparable size and demographics) and then ask yourself how can you possibly think taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will make them safer???
May God protect the poor citizens of San Francisco...you certainly won't. You are exactly the reason I moved my family from the Bay Area three years ago.
Sincerely,
A Police Officer
Seattle, WA
FACT: Washington, D.C., banned handguns in response to its skyrocketing homicide rate in 1976. But nearly three decades later, it had more murders per capita than any other city its size.
Next up: San Francisco. As it is now, no one (other than the criminals that is), can carry a concealed weapon in the city. Now you want to take away the right of a person to defend themselves in their own home from a violent intruder.
Your quote: "I don't feel like I need to own a gun to protect myself. Certainly, I am a high-profile elected official and now a lot of gun owners don't like me individually, but if I'm in a situation where I feel threatened, I'll call the police," Daly said.
Mr. Daly, let me let you in on a little secret: I have been a police officer for almost seven years. Over the past thirty years police have been turned into a "reactive" force by lawyers and politicians like you...meaning these days we mostly take statements and file police reports on violent crimes. We don't really have the backing of our administrators anymore to make that extra effort to catch the dangerous and violent felons...our pursuit policies are extremely restricted, or use of force guidelines hamper us from dealing effectively with the worst offenders, defense lawyers and activist judges let violent predators free on technicalities and our district attorneys slap us in the face by not going for the appropriate punishment for cop killers. All this means more empowerment to the criminal element. The criminals outnumber the police by 1000 to 1. And you think we can protect you?
What makes you think I can get to your house in time to save your life when some nut is kicking down your door in order to rape your wife, your children, and kill you? His savage attack will take less than 5 minutes. IF you are able to call 911 as he is coming through your door and blurt out to the operator what is happening in your terror-induced brain lock, how long do you think you will have before the police get there to save you?
Let's break it down:
Maybe I can be dispatched within 30 seconds, maybe I will be within 20 blocks of your house, and maybe, just maybe, my partners and I will not be tied up on another homicide, rape, assault or burglary-in-progress. I have to fight traffic, find the correct address, gain access to the house or apartment building, and most importantly, wait for my backup to successfully navigate the same obstacles and go in with me. Best case scenario, it takes us 7 minutes. Maybe we are extremely lucky and we catch the bad guy as he is leaving through your back door drenched in your family's blood.
But in reality, the only thing I am going to be able to do is take photographs of the carnage and statements from your unarmed neighbors about what they heard as they were trembling from behind their doors.
Now, imagine the same scenario where you have the means to defend yourself. Thousands of violent assault attempts are ended peacefully each year in this country because the potential victim has a firearm and a shot is never fired; just the mere sight of a fiream encourages the attacker to cease his actions. The overwhelming majority of these incidents are never reported to police because the victim fears legal repercussions.
Maybe you "don't feel like you need to protect yourself," but who are you to know what is best for those people who base their lives on reality? Thankfully the majority of people in this country do feel they have a right to protect themselves and their loved ones (oh, and by the way, that right is clearly spelled out in the Bill of Rights). Maybe you are comfortable with living with your head stuck in the sand assuming nothing bad will ever happen, but let me give you a dose of reality: I deal with the victims of violent crime every day, and they are victims because they are just like you. I can see weakness in your eyes from your photograph. You and your fellow ostrich are easy prey for violent felons -- you walk, talk, and look like weak-willed people who assume nothing bad will ever happen to you and if it does, the police will always be "just around the corner" to save you. Predators are overjoyed that socialists like you continue to disarm their prey and are confident in their knowledge that they will not face any consequences for their actions.
The founding fathers of this country were very clear with their intentions regarding self defense and the Second Amendment. Who are you to take away the basic right of self defense from a man or woman? Instead of trying to force your paternalistic, ill-informed, misguided, disasterous, idealogically-driven policies on the public, why don't you educate yourself and look at the historical patterns of disasterous gun-control in America and the UK over the past thirty years? It is a fact that counties and cities that allow their citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights by owning and carrying concealed firearms has a dramatic effect on decreasing violent crime. Look at cities that outlaw gun ownership...D.C., New York, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the list goes on....and you see a huge number of rapes, murders, felonious assaults, home invasions and the like. Look at the cities in America that allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves...Seattle, Dallas, Kansas City, Denver to name a few...and you see a clear pattern of low homicide and violent crime rates. Just compare Seattle (yes to concealed carry) and Oakland (two cities of comparable size and demographics) and then ask yourself how can you possibly think taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will make them safer???
May God protect the poor citizens of San Francisco...you certainly won't. You are exactly the reason I moved my family from the Bay Area three years ago.
Sincerely,
A Police Officer
Seattle, WA
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$120.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network