« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: San Francisco Voters Approve Handgun Ban  (Read 2461 times)

Offline IcePlatinumSky

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
    • View Profile
San Francisco Voters Approve Handgun Ban
« on: November 09, 2005, 09:52:59 AM »
Well there goes the rest of 2nd amendment in komiefornia!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_ ... o_measures
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by IcePlatinumSky »
Logged

Offline gixser13

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2221
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2005, 11:10:09 AM »
I will leave my thoughts over at AZshooters
« Last Edit: November 09, 2005, 11:53:54 AM by gixser13 »
Logged

Offline Greg

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2005, 11:32:46 AM »
](*,)

I fucking hate this state.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Greg »
Logged
-Greg of Christian\'s Team

Offline Giland

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2005, 01:24:30 PM »
Their citizens will get what they deserve.
So now, only 3 classes of citizens have the ability to carry a gun.
Cops, security guards, and criminals.
Serving your country is not a bad thing, unless you are a liberal I guess.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Giland »
Logged
________________________________
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.

Ricky

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Exactly
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2005, 02:24:03 PM »
Quote from: "Giland"
Their citizens will get what they deserve.
So now, only 3 classes of citizens have the ability to carry a gun.
Cops, security guards, and criminals.
Serving your country is not a bad thing, unless you are a liberal I guess.



Damned straight about that! Thats just what I was going to say.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!"

What the hell is wrong with the great USA? We are giving up rights and fredoms so fast its beyond conception.
I saw where some senatorial turd is pushing to have ALL US citizens medical records on a computer, so when the supposed bird flu strikes, the feds will know who, where, and when, and can the order quarantines quickly.

I am ALL for disease prevention, but computerized records...NO

I never have felt comfortable with the term "Homeland", too  much like der fatherland, and with the way those fatcats in power are just lying to us, and bending us over, what is next?

FLASH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Ricky »
Logged

Offline Patty o' Brian

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Staff Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2005, 03:42:17 PM »
So now they want to stop all of the responsible people from owning hand guns. I can kind of understand where they are coming from. But they should not have banned them, they should have put stricter laws on them. Like making the process to own a hand gun more extensive.
Its like prohabition all over again. When guns are outlawed gun crimes will most likely go up. because the city would have no way of knowing who the gun is registered to.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Patty o' Brian »
Logged

Offline Mooncruiser

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2241
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2005, 07:07:05 PM »
Just remember.. "THEY" weren't just the people pushing the issue on the ballot, it was voted in by a majority of citizens who bothered to participate in the process and go vote.

Keep that in mind when you get older. And the rest of us who are voting age, too.

Chip
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Mooncruiser »
Logged
~~ All men should know before they die, what they are running to, and from, and why ~~

AIRSOFT ADDICTS
Saguaro Airsoft Team

Offline Doc Hollywood

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2005, 10:36:09 PM »
Point of order:   This "law" was passed by a municipalily of a State, not the federal government who has the only authority to regulate firearms.  This "law" will be taken to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually to the US Supreme Court (which will decline to hear it of course).  It is very likely that the enforcement of this law will be prohibited until a REAL judicial decision has been made.

The law also only applies to the (very small) city limits of the City of San Francisco (so the Oakland Raiders wont loose their gats!).  Its a stupid law that violates both the California and the US Constitution - but not the second amendment. It violates the federal preemption power in that a state is trying to exercise power that only the federal government may exercise.  Arguing 2nd amendment is a loosing case - but the federal courts wont like the state crossing the line much....  it will be interesting to see where this goes.  I'll be providing nearly free legal representation to any San Francisco resident charged under this "law"....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Doc Hollywood »
Logged

Offline gixser13

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2221
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2005, 10:41:33 PM »
Dont tell me your going to exchange sexual favors for representation, You know we are talking SAN FRAN  MAN!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by gixser13 »
Logged

Offline busta_cap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant General
  • *****
  • Posts: 3887
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2005, 11:45:48 PM »
Quote from: "gixser13"
Dont tell me your going to exchange sexual favors for representation, You know we are talking SAN FRAN  MAN!
Dude, David, its San Francisco... even the politicians fit into the 1/3 category... :oops:


edit: You could always have flash bribe the policy makers with new jobs.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by busta_cap »
Logged

Offline Reaver

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • First Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 888
    • View Profile
    • http://teamfe0.tripod.com
(No subject)
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2005, 05:31:41 AM »
Quote from: "Doc Hollywood"
Point of order:   This "law" was passed by a municipalily of a State, not the federal government who has the only authority to regulate firearms.  This "law" will be taken to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually to the US Supreme Court (which will decline to hear it of course).  It is very likely that the enforcement of this law will be prohibited until a REAL judicial decision has been made.

The law also only applies to the (very small) city limits of the City of San Francisco (so the Oakland Raiders wont loose their gats!).  Its a stupid law that violates both the California and the US Constitution - but not the second amendment. It violates the federal preemption power in that a state is trying to exercise power that only the federal government may exercise.  Arguing 2nd amendment is a loosing case - but the federal courts wont like the state crossing the line much....  it will be interesting to see where this goes.  I'll be providing nearly free legal representation to any San Francisco resident charged under this "law"....


  I havn't read the law yet, however, if it bans the right of the people to bear arms... then it does violate the 2nd ammendement.  And in October of 2004, the Justice Department released a 96 page document stating that the 2nd ammendment is indeed a right of the individual... not of the state or the federal government.  So San Fran is guilty on consitutional grounds as well as federal grounds.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Reaver »
Logged

Offline Giland

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2005, 12:22:56 PM »
they are only banning hand guns, not all guns.

Lets not forget the part where they are pushing schools to not allow military recruiters on campus.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Giland »
Logged
________________________________
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.

Offline Doc Hollywood

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2005, 02:36:46 PM »
Quote from: "gixser13"
Dont tell me your going to exchange sexual favors for representation, You know we are talking SAN FRAN  MAN!


And I went to great effort to not say anything about those polesmoking asspackers so as to not offend anyone on the forum.  Honsetly though, how many faggots do you know that even own a handgun???
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Doc Hollywood »
Logged

Offline Doc Hollywood

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2005, 02:50:08 PM »
Quote from: "Reaver"
Quote from: "Doc Hollywood"
Point of order:   This "law" was passed by a municipalily of a State, not the federal government who has the only authority to regulate firearms.  This "law" will be taken to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually to the US Supreme Court (which will decline to hear it of course).  It is very likely that the enforcement of this law will be prohibited until a REAL judicial decision has been made.

The law also only applies to the (very small) city limits of the City of San Francisco (so the Oakland Raiders wont loose their gats!).  Its a stupid law that violates both the California and the US Constitution - but not the second amendment. It violates the federal preemption power in that a state is trying to exercise power that only the federal government may exercise.  Arguing 2nd amendment is a loosing case - but the federal courts wont like the state crossing the line much....  it will be interesting to see where this goes.  I'll be providing nearly free legal representation to any San Francisco resident charged under this "law"....

  I havn't read the law yet, however, if it bans the right of the people to bear arms... then it does violate the 2nd ammendement.  And in October of 2004, the Justice Department released a 96 page document stating that the 2nd ammendment is indeed a right of the individual... not of the state or the federal government.  So San Fran is guilty on consitutional grounds as well as federal grounds.


Its a common misconception that the "right to keep and bear arms" can not be restricted or abbridged in any way.  The US Supreme Court has consistantly held that reasonable intereferences to the right to firearms by the government based on a valid public policy are permissible.

Felons can not have any guns.  Neither can those convicted of domestic violence. Neither can someone who is judicially determined to be mentally incompetent.  

The right to restrict firearms is a valid power of the government. HOW and WHY the restriction is enacted is the pass or fail of the legislation.  Thats why its not the 2nd Amendment that is violated (not guilty - guilt only applies in criminal proceedings).  

But no one wants to hear what I have to say since I probably dont know anything anyway  :-#
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Doc Hollywood »
Logged

Offline -MAD- SARGE

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant General
  • *****
  • Posts: 3279
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2005, 03:32:22 PM »
In refrence to the article....Blah Blah Blah....I used to think, "Who needed a fully automatic AK 47?"  I used to think that some of those who wanted them were probally nut jobs.  Well, there are nut jobs everywhere lets face it, but they shouldnt be the reason to restrict responsible people.  Should we ban cars?  They kill more people than guns do here in the United States. And we all know how crazy California Drivers are, maybe they should focus on more strict traffic laws and outlaw SUVs.   Though someone should ban this guy from all guns. http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=3d131 ... 610&f=copy
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by -MAD- SARGE »
Logged


Don't be an Escalefter.
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »