If You Stay It'd Better Be To Set Up A Resistance Cell

If you're in California, specifically the Bay area, leave. Don't pass Go. To Hell with the $200. Just get out while you can.

Updated

Jed at FreedomSight as well as James at Hell In A Handbasket both have more on this. What's "this"? What's the reason to abandon California?

San Fransisco wants a ban on handgun possession. A complete ban. This is not a "junk gun" ban, nor an "assault weapons" ban. This is a "Mr. & Mrs. San Fransisco turn them in" ban. Now according to the SF Gate story I think they're just talking about handguns, although the reporter uses the words "guns" & "firearms" in some spots. I'd assume it's a handgun ban & the reporter is (surprise surprise) just ignorant of the difference.

"San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city."

Of course cops will need guns. After all cops' lives are valuable, unlike the peasants of SF.

"The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses."

Again I think they just mean handguns. Someone needs to tell this reporter that "guns" & "firearms" can be interchangeable while neither is with "handguns". But so no handguns or ammo. Lovely.

"Barnes said the initiative is a response to San Francisco's skyrocketing homicide rate, as well as other social ills. There have been 86 murders in the city so far this year compared to 70 in all of 2003."

Yes; thugs who break laws prohibiting murder & assault will obey a city ban on handguns. Why doesn't the city just ban not being nice to other people?

"The hope is twofold, that officers will have an opportunity to interact with folks and if they have a handgun, that will be reason enough to confiscate it,' he said. 'Second, we know that for even law-abiding folks who own guns, the rates of suicide and mortality are substantially higher. So while just perceived to be a crime thing, we think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city."

Good Lord. They hope that by making them illegal cops will be able to confiscate them. Such compelling logic is beyond me. First of all this is Cali. & not just Cali; this is SF. Were this NC - any part of NC - a cops life insurance rates would not be nearly as cheap after such a bonehead measure was enacted. Don't get me wrong; the folks back home wouldn't just start gunning down cops, but one cop by himself wouldn't disarm one Tarheel. As long as the cop didn't mention it everything would be just fine for all concerned.

Or as I'm still kind of amused by it, here's what someone said in the comments to this post from The Smallest Minority about a similar occurrence:

"That reminds when my 8 year old daughter was at a gunshow with me and we were staffing a 'gun rights' booth. The discussion was HOT and heavy with a large group of people around.......I caught only a piece of the discussion that my daughter was having with the LEO.......the LEO said 'What if the President gives the order for the Police to take all the guns?'.....my 8 year old told the LEO 'Don't come to my house! We'll shoot you and bury you in the backyard!'
The LEO just stopped with this look on his face.............and then he walked away."

(thanks to Geek With A .45 for pointing that one out.)

But alas this is SF we're talking about. Things would be different in America.

But suicide? Please, please tell me it's a misquote & this pitiful bastard isn't trying the old "gun owners are more suicidal" bullshit. Kevin at The Smallest Minority is the blogger to go to for a good refutation of bogus stats. Hopefully he'll take some time & post yet again why this statement by the jack ass is not worth as much as a road killed skunk on a hot highway.

"The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal, however, by Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group. Sam Paredes, the group's executive director, said the state has for years had a 'pre-emption law' on the books that bars local governments from usurping the state's authority to regulate firearms." (Link added of course)

Unfortunately as we found out here in Colorado, some judges won't let pre-emption get in the way of a good gun ban.

"The amazing thing is they are going to turn San Francisco into ground zero for every criminal who wants to profit at their chosen profession,' Paredes said. 'People are going to be assaulted, people are going to be robbed, people are going to be pushed around by thugs and the police are going to be powerless to do anything about it."

Ayup.

"Under the language of the measure, the ban would not apply police officers, security guards, members of the military, and anyone else 'actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment."

I wonder how hard it'd be to hire yourself as your own bodyguard?

"If approved by a majority of the city's voters, the law would take effect in January 2006. Residents would have 90 days after that to relinquish their handguns."

Hence it should be called the April of 2006 Flee Frisco Act. (If it was NC it'd be the "shoot at anything in blue just like yer grandpappy did" bill.)

"Five supervisors on Tuesday submitted the proposed ban directly to the Department of Elections, one more than the minimum needed to get the measure on the ballot without signatures from registered voters. The next election is scheduled for November 2005, although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has talked about calling a special election before then."

I wonder how the stealth pro-gun candidate will react to this?

"Besides Daly, the sponsors include Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Tom Ammiano, Bevan Dufty and Matt Gonzalez, the outgoing president of the 11-member Board of Supervisors. Consisting of four Democrats and a Green Party member, the group is nonetheless considered 'ideologically diverse' by San Francisco standards, Barnes said."

By SF standards one has to look right to see past Lenin. Nuff said?

"How many residents would be affected by the ban is unclear, since California does not require residents to register handguns that are kept in a private residence of business. Only 10 people in San Francisco have been issued concealed weapons permits allowing them to carry guns and the city has only three licensed gun dealers, Barnes said."

10 CCW licenses? See I'd like to think that the number is due to people carrying without begging for permission or paying a fee to exercise their Right to SArms, but odds are in SF not a lot of people apply, & only those ten were able to go down on the issuing official well enough persuade the guy in charge to give them a permit. I wonder if Difi still has her carry permit. She was a SF resident if I recall.

& actually Cali does have handgun registration. It happens at the time of sale for new handgun purchases, & there's a form you're required to fill out if you move to Cali & take your handguns with you. It might not be searchable by the press, but from what I understand there is statewide registration.

< sarcasm > Luckily we all know that registration has never been & will never be used for confiscation. < / sarcasm >

"Washington, D.C. is the only major American city that currently bans handgun possession by private citizens. Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, said San Francisco officials are remiss to use the District of Columbia's experience as a model.

'If gun control worked, Washington, D.C. would be the beacon. However, it's the murder capital of the United States,' Arulanandam said."

Heh. Score one for the NRA.

"Penalties for violations have not been set, but would be recommended by the mayor in consultation with the police chief, the sheriff and the district attorney, according to language in the measure."

Oh I disagree; the penalties have been set. An exodus of the kind of people a crime plagued city needs most; a lack of tourism dollars from gun owners across the country; a much narrower selection of gun makers to acquire weapons for the cops from; losing at least three SF businesses. Now what's not set is the price the officials will pay & frankly that depends on how many gun owners in SF decide to stick around. If there's a sizable number & they're as stubborn as I am, then after the first confiscation attempt on any one of them I'd expect, nay hope that the city council members who backed such bullshit would know how Dr. Frankenstein felt when he looked out of his castle & saw those pesky peasants with their torches & pitchforks.

"Barnes said that since initiative was crafted with input from the city attorney's office and an outside consultant to avoid potential conflicts with state law, the supervisors were confident it would withstand legal scrutiny.

'We'll see when and if it's litigated,' he said."

In other words to hell with the law & the people's Rights. Cali is bad for gun owners as it's too damn long constitution does not mention the Right to Arms. Judges in Cali seem to be mroe sympathetic to victim disarmament than in other places. All that added together means there's a good chance this SF ban, if enacted would survive a legal challenge. The only shot they have is getting a judge to apply the 2nd amendment from the U.S. constitution via the 14th amendment. Not impossible, just unlikely as hell.

I have friends in Cali. In fact a very dear friend in the Bay area. I'll tell you like I'll tell them: unless you honestly think you can fight this kind of bullshit, either through legal, legislative, or covert means, then get the hell out of Cali. There are several states that won't be foreign to refugees from Der People's Republik of Kalifornia, Colorado being one of them.

If I was from Cali I'd be tempted to stay & fight. Course I have no idea how that would balance against a desire to just let Cali go to Hell & prove to the rest of America that Cali's way leads only to death. But I understand the desire to fight for your home.

If you don't have those kind of roots there, leave. Do it now & beat the rush. Come help strengthen one of the states that doesn't think Lenin had some good ideas they just weren't pushed hard enough.

Whatever you decide I will try to help in any way I can. There are a lot of good people in Cali & even in the Bay area. I fear though that they are outnumbered. Then again common sense seems to be outnumbered out that way.

This SF law will probably get voted on. & if it gets voted on it'll probably pass. If it gets challenged in court it'll likely survive.

As I was looking at The High Road for more info on the SF handgun ban I came across this thread. It's about a Californian expressing frustration because of an economical surplus handgun being taken off Cali's "approved" list. There's decent talk of leaving Cali v. staying.

Here's The High Road thread discussing the proposed SF handgun ban.

Now assuming SF goes all out in each step (getting it on the ballot, passing it, surviving a legal challenge) it'll be bad for any SF residents gun owning or not. In ten years think of it as D.C. with hipper bars & cheaper drugs.

But there is something that can be done. The first thing I'd ask is that you call Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Michael Savage & any other conservative/republican/non-socialist talk show hosts that you can think of & inform them about this. Generate some discussion. If they attempt to downplay it simply ask if in 2001 they thought SF would allow gay marriage. Hopefully that will let them realize it is more than feasible in SF.

Next tell any businesses you trade with that deal with the SF government that they can have your business or SF's, but not both. I'll try to find out which gun maker deals with the SFPD currently.

Getting in touch with the SF tourism board or whatever the hell they call it would be a good idea. Tell them you simply can't imagine spending the money you were going to spend in a city that disrespects your Right to Arms.

Finally if you're a SF resident call the chamber of commerce & tell them you intend to move before the ban goes into effect.

I doubt any or all of those things will help or prevent this from happening in SF, but it's worth a shot. After all, if God was willing to spare Sodom because of ten good people then we should try to keep SF from going to hell, as I know there's at least one decent person there, & presumably hundreds if not thousands.

Update: Geek With A .45 sent me this link to Doe v. San Francisco. It's a case from 1982 where a San Fransisco handgun ban was struck down as violating Califonria's pre-emption law.

The Geek feels it's binding & that SF won't be able to survive a challenge based on this precedent. I'm still skeptical. SF could be just taking a shot in the dark that the courts will be more sympathetic to its desire to ban all guns. But also it could be taking advantage of a change in the law or a newly enacted law. Also it could just have a new angle that they feel will let them win in court should their ban be challenged.

"Barnes said that since initiative was crafted with input from the city attorney's office and an outside consultant to avoid potential conflicts with state law, the supervisors were confident it would withstand legal scrutiny.

'We'll see when and if it's litigated,' he said."

Barnes is an aid to Supervisor Daly. Now it's possible he could be bluffing or the legal advice they received was flawed. But I would presume that SF wouldn't be discussing this unless they thought they had a fighting chance.

In any event I hope The Geek is correct. But my inner skeptic won't let me dismiss this. After all I live in a state that has a pre-emption law & just moved from a city that has a gun ban in spite of it.

Update: Leland Burrill at Bernalchemist has a post up concerning SF's proposed handgun ban. In it he links to this story of an 83 year old man who uses a revolver to kill an armed intruder. Guess where he lives. Now granted the story is dated 2000 but I think the point is still as valid almost 5 years later: people use firearms for self defense. & unlike Tim Lambert's assertions if the old man would have lacked a firearm he wouldn't have had another means of effective defense.

So SF wants a community of defenseless prey for its criminal class. That's what the result will be, despite protestations of the public good.

Prof. Volokh has more on why you should pay attention to what SF is trying to do. He also points out is much more far reaching than first thought. It would only ban possession of handguns but it would ban the sale of all firearms & ammunition.

< sarcasm > I'm glad there's no slippery slope at play, aren't you? < /sarcasm >

Posted by Publicola at December 16, 2004 06:48 AM