How can we help the citizens of San Fran

[Salvage33]

Just got through reading the latest edition of "First Freedom" and was taken aback by the commissioners of San Francisco wanting to impose a ban on all firearms and ammunition sales in that city and county. This proposal will be on the next ballot, and if a simple majority vote for it, it will go into effect in 2006.

First question I have is it's constitutionality. If passed, could it stand up to constitutional scrutiny? I'm almost certain that the 9th Circuit would say it is, but believe if they did, it would certainly end up before the SOCUS.

Second, does anyone here have any ideas to help thwart the intended proposal? I would like to hear what you guys/gals have to say. Now, I don't need to hear any BS about being politically incorrect (re: guys/gals).

Third, would it be a viable exercise to toss these ideas around and forward them to the NRA/GOA folks who intend to fight this disarmament of the citizens of San Francisco?

John

[armedandsafe]

I know we must fight these battles when the show up, but I'm of mixed feelings. This would be a perfect opportunity to get our case before the SCOTUS. A total, outright ban on ALL civilian owned firearms is a pretty blatant attack on the Constitution.

Pops

[Salvage33]

Pops...I agree that it would be a great way to get our cause in front of the men in black. However, after the vote, should it pass, it would take more legal action to file a suit challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance. That would more than likely go to the Kalifornistan Supreme Court, and if upheld there, then would have to be appealed in Federal court...and this is where the clowns of the 9th Circus come into the act. After they upheld it, it would have to presented by petition to the SOCUS. The question I have is how long would that take?

Sheesh...D.C. is literally under house arrest due to the draconian gun laws there, and it has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the nation. Should this pass in San Fran, it might supplant D.C. And if it does, I sure as hell don't want to go there and risk being shot/killed by some dweeb with a gun who knows that both the tourists AND the citizens are not armed!

John

[armedandsafe]

However, after the vote, should it pass, it would take more legal action to file a suit challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance. That would more than likely go to the Kalifornistan Supreme Court, and if upheld there, then would have to be appealed in Federal court...and this is where the clowns of the 9th Circus come into the act. After they upheld it, it would have to presented by petition to the SOCUS. The question I have is how long would that take?

As I said, "mixed feelings." Whichever law we decide to actually force upon SCOTUS, those are the steps we will have to take. Should we attempt to take a similar action through the 5th Circuit Court, we just might get a favorable opinion. That would not help us get before the Supremes. The 9th Circus is the proper court to use, as they are so anti-constitutionalist, we would almost certainly have a ruling so egregious the Supremes would feel they would have to weigh in.

Don't retreat from a battle because it might be difficult. ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!

Pops

[Salvage33]

As I stated in the initial post, I am searching for ideas to defeat this law at the ballot box without having to go through the legal nightmare should it pass.

In that effort, does anyone suppose that if it were attacked from a standpoint of economic and racial bias that it could be voted in? San Francisco was one of the first cities, if not the first city, to ban the so called "Saturday Night Special" by banning the sale of that "class" of handgun. By doing so, they eliminated the rights of those not able to spend more money to purchase a hand gun not so classified.

In addition to that, historically speaking, restrictions were placed on gun ownership after the Civil War to keep firearms out of the hands of the recently freed slave population. This had nothing to do with crime, or criminal intent, and was based solely on race. The white population of the South did not want those people to have guns.

To that point, statistics indicate that violent crime is more prevalent in inner cities than in more affluent suburbs. The question then becomes, is gun control legislation actually discrimination against a class of people based on race and geography? There is heavy legislation against gun ownership in cities with large non-white populations; Detroit, Chicago, New York City, Washington, D.C., Houston, Miami, and Baltimore. Morever, violent crime seems to be more prevalent in these cities. Washington, D.C. has one of the highest murder rates in the country year after year.

Would I like to live in a city that FORBIDS me to own a gun? The answer, quite simply, is NO! I have the right to defend myself and my family. However, it seems that the powers that be in San Francisco seem to live under the impression that by banning guns, they will make the city safe. We all know that this will not happen simply because the criminals will have an easier time in the commission of crimes because they are already armed, not only with a firearm, but with the knowledge that the general population has been disarmed.

Another question that comes to mind is how many law abiding citizens will become criminals after this law is passed, if it is passed.

I would really like to see Marlin's input on this since he is a legal mind, unlike myself.

John

[armedandsafe]

You have good points, but... Because the law will apply equally to all, rich or poor, the discrimination ploy might seem week.

You aren't going to get any press from the normal media, so you will have to use underground techniques to get the message out. I used a one page newsletter I published every other week and posted at all the supermarket, department store etc. bulletin boards, laundromats, gun stores (of course) and any place else I could find to take them. I published about 1000 to 1500 per press, which started to run into expense. I did get donations from some ranges and gun stores, but the "It's a Cirme, Bill" passed anyway. I lost my business and went broke, but I don't regret the effort.

All I have to say, is "Sic 'em!" I'll help with what I can, if you call on me.

Pops

[Marlin]

You'll have to stop it at the Ballot Box.

It doesn't make any difference what I or anyone else of us feels, legal or not, as long as it is within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose judges are the most liberal, law making traitors in the US of A.

[Country101]

I vote we get rid of about 90% of the californians(any californians on the board being the 10%)....that oughta help out a bunch. Might help solve the issue of gay marriage too.

Seriously though, we need to get some good politicians(aint that an oxymoron...) in power over there. Somebody who is for guns(and good moral values as well.) That will be the best way to keep this stuff from happening. So, like Marlin said, it'll have to be taken care of at the ballot box.