CONCERNING PROPOSITION H: A PROGRESSIVE DILEMMA

There is nothing progressive about a gun ban. It hands exclusive control of firearms over to the state and the corporation, further empowering the prison-industrial complex, deepening their involvement in the affairs of violence-blighted neighborhoods, siphoning funds away from more effective, less punitive methods of stemming the violence. Nor does it become San Francisco, a city that prides itself on championing the rights of every odd duck who flies into town to then turn around and pass a measure that instantly criminalizes every paper-plinker and collector of antique six-shooters living within its borders--not to mention any abused spouse making a stand against a brutal ex before the cops arrive. Proposition H, the proposed gun ban which made it to this year's ballot, would increase the number of illegal firearms in circulation, since every handgun within city limits not in the folds of the state and the corporation would be designated a hot gun.

Putting this prohibition to the vote unites citizen gun owners of every race, creed, sexual preference and political stripe in defense of what they see as a vital right, while at the same time, it drives a polarizing wedge between neoliberal backers in City Hall, looking to score political points against an industry they despise, and the proletarian street which is largely distrustful of anything smacking of fascism. It compells more people to join the NRA.

I've lived in the Tenderloin for 16 years, and I can recall at least two incidences of what I could clearly determine to be gunfire within close earshot of my apartment. I have seen the somber faces of grieving moms, bewailing the loss of their children to gunfire. I personally knew someone whose life was lost to government-sanctioned gunfire. That said, I cannot in good conscience support Proposition H. How can I, who favor the legalization of marijuana and oppose the criminalization of abortion, invoke civil government's most expensively punitive powers against those least likely to abuse firearms, while it continues to be business as usual in the world of crime and terrorism?

The gun laws in this state are plenty strong in language, yet have not slowed criminals in the least. It is already against the law for anyone on record for committing a violent crime to be in possession of a firearm, yet the majority of handgun crimes are committed by people who are legally barred from possessing them in the first place. Proposition H may be the strongest gun law of them all, but as such, will also be the least enforceable--at least not without a major beefing up of law enforcement and a great broadening of their powers of search and seizure. Add to that the recent news I read of there being cameras installed to monitor certain select patches of neighborhoods for criminal behavior, and San Francisco's starting to feel like an authoritarian dystopia.

Instead of "stronger" gun laws, we could use more enlightened gun policies, such as diversionary programs, cash rewards for combat-ready weapons and ammo, more effective witness protection, improvements in education and mental healthcare, to mention a few. I'm sure they'd do a better job of treating criminal violence and controlling guns than just dumping it all on the shoulders of the penal system. We may even solve a few murders in the process.

It would be a great coup for San Francisco to reduce or eliminate gun deaths, while shunning fascism's siren call. Resorting to a measure that is as unoriginal, unimaginative, unworkable and unfair as Proposition H will make that goal way harder. Regardless of one's attitude toward firearms, there is nothing to like about this prohibition on the table. So let us demand more progressive solutions from our "liberal" leadership and oppose Proposition H. It is as progressive as prison.