San Francisco Voters Approve Handgun Ban

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Quigley_Sharps, Nov 9, 2005.

  1. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    SAN FRANCISCO - Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San Francisco and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters.

    The gun ban prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and makes 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.

    With all precincts reporting early Wednesday, 58 percent of voters backed the proposed gun ban while 42 percent opposed it.

    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.

    A coalition led by the National Rifle Association has said it plans to challenge the initiative in court, arguing that cities do not have the authority to regulate firearms under California law.

    The military recruitment initiative won with 60 percent in favor and 40 percent against.

    The measure, dubbed "College Not Combat," opposes the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. However, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking enlistees at city campuses, since that would put schools at risk of losing federal funding.

    It encourages city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters and create scholarships and training programs that would reduce the military's appeal to young adults.

    "We now have the moral weight of the city behind us, and it's definitely a valuable asset to have in our corner," said Bob Matthews, an activist for the proposition.
  2. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Now, that is a )(^*$&(*&^()*&( and !@#$!@#$@!# !@#$!@#$!@#$@!# joke! Might need to move this to the inferno so I can say what's on my !@#$ mind.

    Hey, I got your San Franciso Treat....its right here...let me turn it up [finger]
  3. ghostrider

    ghostrider Resident Poltergeist Founding Member

    Yeah, Clyde! Here you go, San Fransissyco. [haay] [grlft]
    They'll be just like LA when the Rodneyt King riots started, they'll run down to buy a gun and find out they can't.
  4. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    I heard you don't need a gun in San Francisco
  5. Valkman

    Valkman Knifemaker Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    The NRA has already filed a lawsuit, along with other pro-gun groups. I can't believe, even as liberal as SF is, thet they passed this. How so many can be so stupid is astounding.

    BTW, I was born there and had my liver transplant there. It was always a neat place and I love the Giants and 49ers. But it's gone over to the fruits and nuts and it's sad.
  6. 155gunner

    155gunner Monkey+++ Founding Member

    No big suprise from the land of fruits and nuts. Sounds like it will soon be a good time for the armed criminal element in SF. Whatta bunch of suckers.
  7. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    That sucks. Mecha and Laraza will gain even more power because of this.
  8. InFreedomsCause

    InFreedomsCause Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Hey, looks to me like SF is only protecting their, their underground gun-running economy. Better get in on it early and stake out a claim before the big bosses take over. :evil:
  9. E.L.

    E.L. Moderator of Lead Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    It is all a mute point, they tried this once before and it was overturned, as it violates their state laws. They know this, and even stated on Fox News that it was passed for the "spirit of it, and to prove a point." So, they wasted tax payer money on something when they knew it was not legal to start with and would be overturned. [haay] :mad:
  10. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    You know , actually, if the voters approved it, let them have their unarmed HELL. I don't like when it's shoved down my throat from a few in power but this was a majority rules thing.

    How can the NRA file suit over a Referendum win?
  11. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    My guess is because it is unconstitutional. One cannot simply "vote" rights to be removed, they are inalienable. We are sovereign, the People of the United States.

    I am surprised we haven't had a revolution yet...the propaganda and mind control really is amazing to me. [camo] The NRA suit should not fall through. Notice I said "should".

    The next step is changing the 2nd for Arnie...the last time a Austrian Nazi took over a nation was well, when his father was employed in Germany under Hitler. [nono]
  12. Valkman

    Valkman Knifemaker Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    The voters have passed things before that have been struck down in the courts - sometimes what the majority wants has nothing to do with it.

    I am SO glad I left that f$%king pit that is CA.
  13. martin97

    martin97 Fuel busted Trucker. Founding Member

    Could not agree more, the san fran's that voted to have their rights removed are stupid beyond words! I will forever be amazed at the sheer ignorance of some people, who do they expect to protect them from criminals? the police? HA! they show up just to tape off the bodies! let the gangs have their way with these morons! sound like a perfect case of natural selection.
    Arnie's a criminal right along with his globalist brother bush!
  14. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Only way they get to do it even by a vote is if they get enouph idiots out to amend the constitution to abolish the 2nd then pass it.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary