I am sure the criminals and bad guys are shaking in their pants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.ktvu.com
SF Board Of Supervisors Approves Penalties For Handgun Possession

POSTED: 9:56 pm PST March 14, 2006

SAN FRANCISC0 -- San Francisco city supervisors Tuesday voted unanimously to approve penalties for sales, manufacturing, distribution and possession of handguns within the city limits and to place the ordinance in the police code.

The penalties were proposed by Mayor Gavin Newsom. It was the first reading of the proposed measure.

With the board's approval, the sale, distribution, transfer, manufacture or possession of a handgun within city limits will count as a misdemeanor and the penalties for violating the ordinance will be a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in county jail, or both.

The second reading of the measure will be next week.

The vote won't immediately change the way city law enforcement treats handgun owners, retailers or manufacturers.

Although the measure -- known as Proposition H -- was approved by San Franciscans by 58 to 42 percent in November, the city has been engaged in a legal battle with a group of plaintiffs opposed to the ban. The list of plaintiffs includes the National Rifle Association, the San Francisco Police Officers Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, as well as seven individuals.

San Francisco Superior Court judge James Warren said on Feb. 23 that he will issue a ruling on the case by mid-June.

In the meantime, the city has agreed not to enforce the ban until a ruling is issued.

Tuesday's vote was basically "just housekeeping," said Matt Dorsey, spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, because Proposition H required the supervisors to vote on the mayor's proposed penalties within 90 days of Jan. 1, the date the measure became effective.

Opponents say that the ban would unfairly penalize otherwise law-abiding citizens, that the penalties for a first violation of the ordinance are too high and that a ban would violate California law.

San Francisco police Officer Michael Nevin, Jr., who is based at San Francisco's Southern Police Station, wrote in an article published in the San Francisco Police Officers Journal in October that although "the handgun ban initiative does a good job in circumventing the Second Amendment, it does little to address the deeper cultural issues of crime and violence."

"Good intentions don't necessarily make good law. Disarming law-abiding citizens is not the answer," Nevin wrote.

In a letter to Board of Supervisors president Aaron Peskin Monday, Carol Ruth Silver, a San Francisco attorney and former city supervisor, urged the board to consider changing the penalty for the first offense under the new law banning handguns from a misdemeanor to an infraction.

A misdemeanor offense would mean "criminalizing previously legal behavior and the potential for ruined lives," Silver wrote.

On Tuesday Silver said "I still have some hope that in the coming weeks I will be able to talk to the mayor's office or some of the supervisors about the problem," which is that a misdemeanor can "create havoc in the life of an otherwise law-abiding person."

A second reading of the measure may include an amendment, which would mean the measure then receives a third reading.

This process is "to give the public knowledge about what's going on," Silver said.

Proponents of the ban, which was authored by Supervisor Chris Daly, counter that handgun violence is a serious problem in San Francisco and that guns present "a significant threat to the safety of San Franciscans."

The city attorney's office stated in late 2005 that the decision to ban handguns in the city should be "of no significant interest to anyone outside San Francisco" and that the ban does not run counter to state law.

The city attorney is an idiot.

Why doesn't that state just break off and float away already.

No offense, CA_ Kid ;-)

Quoted: Why doesn't that state just break off and float away already. No offense, CA_ Kid ;-)

{Aliens Movie Pilot}I think we should just nuke it from orbit and get the hell out of here.{Aliens Movie Pilot}

But it's for the children.  We must ban them because criminals won't break the law.  

Although the measure -- known as Proposition H -- was approved by San Franciscans by 58 to 42 percent in November, the city has been engaged in a legal battle with a group of plaintiffs opposed to the ban. The list of plaintiffs includes the National Rifle Association, the San Francisco Police Officers Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, as well as seven individuals.

Quoted: Although the measure -- known as Proposition H -- was approved by San Franciscans by 58 to 42 percent in November, the city has been engaged in a legal battle with a group of plaintiffs opposed to the ban. The list of plaintiffs includes the National Rifle Association, the San Francisco Police Officers Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, as well as seven individuals.

One thing came to mind when I read that bullshit. PRetty much aptly named.





The looney left indeed.

Just one more reason to never visit san fiasco, as if any more were needed.

This is funny.  I saw this program last night on CourtTV about San FranShitco, how the police use civilian-looking decoys and drunk-bum decoys to catch criminals.

What I got out of that was that crime is going UP in SF, the criminals are preying on the weak and defenseless  and THE CITY GOVERNMENT IS MAKING MORE PEOPLE DEFENSELESS!!!!


Holy Shit, Batman!!!!!

If someone provides me a cheap Lorcin and a plane ticket, I will deliberately go there and get arrested.  I am serious.

Why is it so hard to include the URL ?

Quoted: Quoted: Why doesn't that state just break off and float away already. No offense, CA_ Kid ;-) {Aliens Movie Pilot}I think we should just nuke it from orbit and get the hell out of here.{Aliens Movie Pilot}

It didn't even take 9 minutes in this thread.

Quoted: Just one more reason to never visit san fiasco, as if any more were needed.

Just applies to residents of SF.  Passin' thru, no problems.  ETA which makes me think the perfect defense would be, "I was just leavin"


Handgun violence is a serious problem in San Francisco. According to a San Francisco Department of Public Health report published in 2002, 176 handgun incidents in San Francisco affected 213 victims in 1999, the last year for which data is available. Only 26.8% of firearms were recovered. Of all firearms used to cause injury or death, 67% were handguns.
San Franciscans have a right to live in a safe and secure City. The presence of handguns poses a significant threat to the safety of San Franciscans.
It is not the intent of the people of the City and County of San Francisco to affect any resident of other jurisdictions with regard to handgun possession, including those who may temporarily be within the boundaries of the City and County.
Article XI of the California Constitution provides Charter created counties with the "home rule" power. This power allows counties to enact laws that exclusively apply to residents within their borders, even when such a law conflicts with state law or when state law is silent. San Francisco adopted its most recent comprehensive Charter revision in 1996.

Quoted: POSTED: 9:56 pm PST March 14, 2006 SAN FRANCISC0 -- San Francisco city supervisors Tuesday voted unanimously to approve penalties for sales, manufacturing, distribution and possession of handguns within the city limits and to place the ordinance in the police code. The penalties were proposed by Mayor Gavin Newsom. It was the first reading of the proposed measure. With the board's approval, the sale, distribution, transfer, manufacture or possession of a handgun within city limits will count as a misdemeanor and the penalties for violating the ordinance will be a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in county jail, or both. The second reading of the measure will be next week. The vote won't immediately change the way city law enforcement treats handgun owners, retailers or manufacturers. Although the measure -- known as Proposition H -- was approved by San Franciscans by 58 to 42 percent in November, the city has been engaged in a legal battle with a group of plaintiffs opposed to the ban. The list of plaintiffs includes the National Rifle Association, the San Francisco Police Officers Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, as well as seven individuals. San Francisco Superior Court judge James Warren said on Feb. 23 that he will issue a ruling on the case by mid-June. In the meantime, the city has agreed not to enforce the ban until a ruling is issued. Tuesday's vote was basically "just housekeeping," said Matt Dorsey, spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, because Proposition H required the supervisors to vote on the mayor's proposed penalties within 90 days of Jan. 1, the date the measure became effective. Opponents say that the ban would unfairly penalize otherwise law-abiding citizens, that the penalties for a first violation of the ordinance are too high and that a ban would violate California law. San Francisco police Officer Michael Nevin, Jr., who is based at San Francisco's Southern Police Station, wrote in an article published in the San Francisco Police Officers Journal in October that although "the handgun ban initiative does a good job in circumventing the Second Amendment, it does little to address the deeper cultural issues of crime and violence." "Good intentions don't necessarily make good law. Disarming law-abiding citizens is not the answer," Nevin wrote. In a letter to Board of Supervisors president Aaron Peskin Monday, Carol Ruth Silver, a San Francisco attorney and former city supervisor, urged the board to consider changing the penalty for the first offense under the new law banning handguns from a misdemeanor to an infraction. A misdemeanor offense would mean "criminalizing previously legal behavior and the potential for ruined lives," Silver wrote. On Tuesday Silver said "I still have some hope that in the coming weeks I will be able to talk to the mayor's office or some of the supervisors about the problem," which is that a misdemeanor can "create havoc in the life of an otherwise law-abiding person." A second reading of the measure may include an amendment, which would mean the measure then receives a third reading. This process is "to give the public knowledge about what's going on," Silver said. Proponents of the ban, which was authored by Supervisor Chris Daly, counter that handgun violence is a serious problem in San Francisco and that guns present "a significant threat to the safety of San Franciscans." The city attorney's office stated in late 2005 that the decision to ban handguns in the city should be "of no significant interest to anyone outside San Francisco" and that the ban does not run counter to state law.

Interesting in that it appears the SFPD is against the ban......I wonder why these high and mighty libtard politicians, who probably never even walked anywhere near a crime ridden neighborhood, don't even listen to those who enforce the law...After all, they would know better.....

Quoted: If someone provides me a cheap Lorcin and a plane ticket, I will deliberately go there and get arrested.  I am serious.

I will contribute to that, does anybody want to donate a few bucks for the plane ticket?

Quoted: If someone provides me a cheap Lorcin and a plane ticket, I will deliberately go there and get arrested.  I am serious.

Why?

Quoted: If someone provides me a cheap Lorcin and a plane ticket, I will deliberately go there and get arrested.  I am serious.

You'll probably have to demand to be arrested.  It's not like they are going to actually enforce the law, it's just there to harass and scare the average joe into sending his kids to "Meathead"'s free pre-school.

I thought the NRA successfully fought this measure months ago...?

Quoted: Interesting in that it appears the SFPD is against the ban......I wonder why these high and mighty libtard politicians, who probably never even walked anywhere near a crime ridden neighborhood, don't even listen to those who enforce the law...After all, they would know better.....

It's a well-known fact that the Left hate the police.  If it were up to them, they would not allow them to own any personal firearms and leave their service weapon at the police station for the next shift.

Quoted: Quoted: Interesting in that it appears the SFPD is against the ban......I wonder why these high and mighty libtard politicians, who probably never even walked anywhere near a crime ridden neighborhood, don't even listen to those who enforce the law...After all, they would know better..... It's a well-known fact that the Left hate the police.  If it were up to them, they would not allow them to own any personal firearms and leave their service weapon at the police station for the next shift.

the fruitcakes in SF don't think we should even have a military cause the police will protect us from invaders

Just once I'd like to ask a supporter of these type bills exactly WHO they are protectiing by taking a gun away from an honest, law abiding citizen.  Harvy Milk?

If they claim it's "For the children" make them eat their words, and only disarm those with children.

I guess it's unreasonable to have them stop and think for a minute what they will actually achieve with another gun law.  They just want us all to be "Safer".

possession of a handgun within city limits will count as a misdemeanor

IIRC, when I lived in California a few years ago, carrying a handgun without a permit was a misdemeanor anyway.

FWIW, carrying a concealed lock-blade knife was a felony. It was OK to carry in a belt pouch, however.

Too bad, SF is a pretty cool town.


This 'home rule' thing is interesting.  I wonder if they will end up regretting this law as it could be a strong 2nd ammendment case for the newly swung court.  The lefties there could make a new bumper sticker "We're the ones that got the 2nd incorporated!"

They really won't like my penalties for bothering me.

One day there will be a BIG earthquake in Kalifornia

Quoted: possession of a handgun within city limits will count as a misdemeanor IIRC, when I lived in California a few years ago, carrying a handgun without a permit was a misdemeanor anyway. FWIW, carrying a concealed lock-blade knife was a felony. It was OK to carry in a belt pouch, however.

They called them "leaners"....could go either way.  This is so your gang-banger can go down for it while your local political contributor can get a little slap on the wrist.