The San Francisco Gun Ban Initiative (Proposition H) will appear on the next election ballot in November. Several supervisors have touted the ban as a step in curbing violence and increasing public safety. The San Francisco Police Officers Association (POA), representing men and women dedicated to a life of service to public safety, must evaluate any legislative effort affecting its membership. After careful review and analysis, the POA does not support the proposed ballot initiative that would nullify the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for selfdefense purposes.

www.njcsd.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=2

I just don't understand why this has ever been a newworthy item and why it hasn't been dropped yet.  It's illegal as the CA Constitution has preemption.  Local jurisdictions cannot ban guns.

EDIT: The preemption clause

State Preemption of Firearm Regulation    53071. It is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of regulation of the registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms as encompassed by the provisions of the Penal Code, and such provisions shall be exclusive of all local regulations, relating to registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms, by any political subdivision as defined in Section 1721 of the Labor Code.    53071.5 By the enforcement of this section, the Legislature occupies the whole field of regulation of the manufacture, sale, or possession of imitation firearms, as defined in Section 12250 of the Penal Code, and that section shall preempt and be exclusive of all regulations relating to the manufacture, sale, or possession of imitation firearms, including regulations governing the manufacture, sale, or possession of BB devices and air rifles described in subdivision (g) of Section 12001 of the Penal Code.

EDIT: Seciont 53071.5 also seems to state that local jurisdictions cannot ban BB guns and airsoft guns.

One of the Supervisors dropped their support of the ban.

Quoted: I just don't understand why this has ever been a newworthy item and why it hasn't been dropped yet.  It's illegal as the CA Constitution has preemption.  Local jurisdictions cannot ban guns.

And that means what in real life?

What it means is that Arnold will sign an exemption for San Francisco so they can do as they please.

Just like he did with the dangerous dog laws. The same preemption was in place. Arnold signed a law last week allowing local jurisdictions to ban specific breeds.

Guns will probably be next.

You live in LA? Embrace the future.

Grrrrr, I can't wait to move to Nevada side Lake Tahoe, Beatiful lake, fresh air, powdery snow and all I can buy AR15's !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoted: Quoted: I just don't understand why this has ever been a newworthy item and why it hasn't been dropped yet.  It's illegal as the CA Constitution has preemption.  Local jurisdictions cannot ban guns. And that means what in real life? What it means is that Arnold will sign an exemption for San Francisco so they can do as they please. Just like he did with the dangerous dog laws. The same preemption was in place. Arnold signed a law last week allowing local jurisdictions to ban specific breeds. Guns will probably be next. You live in LA? Embrace the future.

Arnold couldn't just sign an exemption.  It would take a Constitutional amendment.  Admittedly those are a bit easy to get around here, you only need a simple majority for them to pass.  One of the reasons why when you buy a 'pocket' US & CA Const book the US portion takes up about the first 30 or so pages and the CA portion takes up the next 300 pages.

We have amendments covering fig tree planting!  

I'll grant you it's doable, sure, but they haven't gone a route that will have an effect.

EDIT: I live in San Diego county.  Pretty conservative down here.

Exemption, amendment, whatever, you know what I mean.

It happened because the media ran with the "dangerous dog" ball and politicians listened.

Guns are right behind.