San Francisco agrees to delay handgun ban (strikes deal with NRA)

[Kadie]

San Francisco agrees to delay handgun ban
Suzanne Herel, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, December 28, 2005


(12-28) 14:36 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The city will delay for two months the enactment of a controversial handgun ban that voters approved last fall under an agreement with the National Rifle Association, City Attorney Dennis Herrera said today.

In return, the NRA -- the ban's principal legal opponent -- won't pursue a temporary restraining order and has approved a briefing schedule beginning in mid-February that is expected to decide the legality of the new law.

If the NRA had sought a restraining order, the move likely would have delayed further the enactment of the law while the court considered that matter.

In November, 58 percent of San Francisco voters approved Proposition H, which consists of two provisions. One bans possession of handguns by city residents who are not peace officers or who do not need them for professional purposes. Residents have until April 1 to relinquish their weapons.

The second section, which was to go into effect Sunday, is the one being delayed: It bans the sale, manufacture, transfer or distribution of firearms within San Francisco. That portion of the law has less effect on the city, which is home to just one gun shop, High Bridge Arms. Two other dealers have permits to sell guns in San Francisco.


more...
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/28/MNGPIGE9VB5.DTL

[Dunvegan]

1. NRA: Quit meddling in the will of the voters...

...who asked you? (I suppose the answer would be highly educational.)

Freewheeling handguns and MAC10s in urban areas = MORE BAD things will happen to citizens.

Registered and tightly controlled firearms = LESS BAD things will happen to citizens.

Oversight and restriction does NOT contravene the right to bear arms in the constitutionally-protected militia sense.

I live in San Francisco, and have the freedom and opportunity (if wished) to arm myself as a militia-ready citizen...i.e., as per Amendment Number Two.

This new law does nothing to intefere with the spirit and intent of the Second Amendment.

So what is the inteference really about?

[benEzra]

2. Umm, all of 7% of the SF population over 18 voted for the ban, IIRC

58% of a minuscule turnout...

and I suspect the NRA is intervening on the behalf of law-abiding SF handgun owners who don't want their property confiscated.

Are your street criminals lining up to turn in their handguns yet?

[Silverhair]

3. The other 42% have the right to challenge the law.

They are part of "the people" aren't they?

[JackieO]

4. yep

We are.

[Dunvegan]

5. I stand on my initial statement:

The new ban does not prevent me from arming myself under the rights granted to me by the Second Amendment.

I grew up in Michigan where there are two seasons: Hunting and Fishing.

I'm versed in gun safety and ownership.

And the law in SF does not prevent my ownership of a firearm, under the Second Amendment.

If you want, let's put it up for a vote again.

I actually worked Hunter's Point in San Francisco one year in the Get Out the Vote campaign.

I'd be willing to do it for a re-vote on this one.

(Edited to add a link to Google search on "Hunter's Point" "San Francisco" and "Murder")