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.