It seems that the good citizens of San Francisco have banned all private ownership of firearms.
Measure H prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and make it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses.
Only two other major U.S. cities — Washington and Chicago — have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.
Supervisor Chris Daly, who proposed the measure, said the victory showed that “San Francisco voters support sensible gun control.”
Citing statistics that show most homicides in the city involve handguns, Daly said “every life that’s saved with Proposition H is a big win.”
One might ask Mr. Daly: has he looked at the murder rates in Chicago and Washington, DC?
Although law enforcement, security guards and others who require weapons for work are exempt from the measure, current handgun owners would have to surrender their firearms by April.
Has it never occurred to our good friends on the left that the people who shoot other people aren’t usually defined as law-abiding? Has it never occurred to them that the people who break other laws, such as the laws against murder and rape and robbery might not be so civic-minded as to obey this law?
Of course, as the Angry Clam noted, San Francisco:
tried this in the 1980s, when (Dianne) Feinstein was mayor. It didnâ€™t work then, because the California Court of Appeal ruled that state firearms regulations preempt such local regulations, and localities lack the power to ban guns. Likewise, when West Hollywood tried to ban â€œSaturday Night Specials,â€ a different district of the Court of Appeal rejected the law as preempted by state law.
And, as the Disgruntled Mollusc also pointed out, San Francisco is the city which deliberately violated California state law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The liberals in the city government have plenty of recent experience with breaking laws with which they do not agree, and many of the city’s liberal voters agreed with that action; why would they be so unable to see that people who don’t agree with the law just passed might also choose not to obey that law?
Our liberal friends are just so good at being able to see how people in other cultures might not agree with us on everything, and tell us that we have to accept and embrace this multicultural diversity. Why is it, then, that they are so poor at being able to see that there are people (I’ll call them criminals, if that isn’t too judgemental) right under their noses, who don’t agree with their ideas of what is right and wrong, and just might not be willing to do things their way?