Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
mweiss

San Francisco Votes For Gun Ban

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In a sweeping victory for Fascism, voters of San Fransisco turned out a majority vote in favor of disobeying the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment by banning guns for self defence in the home. You heard right: it will be illegal and a felony to own or possess a handgun in your own bedroom as defence against a criminal invasion.

Certain media outlets are beginning to cover the story. This is a dangerous precident. I hope it gets overturned in the SCOTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certain media outlets are beginning to cover the story. This is a dangerous precident. I hope it gets overturned in the SCOTUS.

I believe it has been tried before and got overturned by the state courts themselves. Hell, I read somewhere that even the mayor (who supports the ban) was sure it would be overturned by the courts. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.

Edited by tommyedison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe it has been tried before and got overturned by the state courts themselves. Hell, I read somewhere that even the mayor (who supports the ban) was sure it would be overturned by the courts. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.

I don't know what these people were thinking. This is so obviously unconstitutional, they can't possibly expect it to stand up in court. (A sick part of my mind kind of hopes it does, so that I can point and laugh as their cesspool of a city turns into a magnet for every violent criminal in northern California. But, as I keep telling myself, that would be wrong. And principles like the right to self-defense must be upheld even for these wannabe serfs, or else eventually they'll be coming for my own guns. Of which I have four, and my wife is a better shot than I am. So invade my house at your own risk.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't work before when they tried it. I don't think think they reasonably expect this piece of unconstitutional law to stand up. They are just trying to send a message. Of course that message is constituion be damned, we'll quit obeying the parts we don't like.

Thank god this started out as a republic and not a democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...] it will be illegal and a felony to own or possess a handgun in your own bedroom as defence against a criminal invasion.

"Handgun" usually means pistol or revolver. Will it be legal to own a long gun -- a rifle or shotgun?

Edited by BurgessLau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long guns will still be legal, but buying or transferring ammo for them will not.

That being said, I feel confident that the California Supreme Court will throw this law out with haste, even the mayor expects that to happen. California has a state level pre-emption law that prohibits cities from making their own firearms laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a sweeping victory for Fascism, voters of San Fransisco turned out a majority vote in favor of disobeying the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment by banning guns for self defence in the home. You heard right: it will be illegal and a felony to own or possess a handgun in your own bedroom as defence against a criminal invasion.

Certain media outlets are beginning to cover the story. This is a dangerous precident. I hope it gets overturned in the SCOTUS.

On a related note, here in New Zealand it has for some time now been rather difficult to use self defense as a valid use of firearms against another person. at least as far as I can tell after some research.

The law enforcement authories are so paranoid about gun laws here that there was this case of one guy who has having his property raided by what I beleive to be armed offenders from memory. He rung the police from his shed, but it was a rural area and they told him they could be some time (in many rural areas in New Zealand there is a shortage of police, but that is another matter), so he decided he had to take matters into his own hands....

So he ended up taking a shot at one of them as they were making off with some of his quad bikes, and injured one of them, upon which they took off. Later he was prosecuted and had his firearms license revoked etc...

There have been cases where someone broke into someones house with a gun, the home owner has shot at them, and been charged. And one case where a offender broke into a house, the dog managed to attack him, and the owner was sued!

So, in short, some states in America have it good compared to the sorry state of affairs of such things here in NZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, in short, some states in America have it good compared to the sorry state of affairs of such things here in NZ.

Back when Clinton was president, America was on a quick trend to exactly that state. Thankfully, there has been a more Conservative trend in this country over the past few years. So Clinton's gun laws have been eased up considerably. In fact, last year (I think) I was surprised to hear that my home state of Ohio passed a law allowing people to carry a concealed weapon. Of course, you still need to take a little course on gun safety and register with the government, but at least it's progress in the right direction...

Too bad I can't say the same about a backwards state like California.

Long guns will still be legal, but buying or transferring ammo for them will not.
lol, so what is the point of owning one? If you can't even buy ammo for it how are you supposed to defend yourself? Just out of curiousity how does that law apply to making your own ammo? Is it legal to buy empty shells/slugs/gun powder?

It sounds to me like they effectively banned rifles and shotguns as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law only applies within the borders of San Francisco, so it will still be possible to buy rifle ammo outside the city, and I don't think taking it home will count as "transfering".

In any case, the Mayor knows it will be quickly overturned, and said something to the effect that it is essentially just a public opinion poll. (That the city will end up spending millions in court fees on.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
?

You'll have to unpack that, I'm afraid.

(khaight was replying to my comment: "revenge for Texas, how bizarre.")

I was suggesting that liberals, gay and otherwise, reacted against the gay marriage law in Texas with a vote to ban guns in San Francisco. I was suggesting they were voting in an irrational knee-jerk reaction.

But who can tell? One reason that was a stupid thing for me to write is that everyone certainly has reason to be disturbed by political movements against gays. Another reason is that it appeared to be a knock at one of the (the?) most unjustly hated minorities on earth. It was not. Also, many gays took up the banner they rightly deserve and protested the gun ban. What an exciting event for the future of individualism. Fundamentally, mine was the posting equivalent of "gleeking" spittle. It was an interesting thought, but an arbitrary and negative thing to write publicly. For moral reasons and out of selfishness, I aspire to the level of civility that is demonstrated on this site. I want my posts to be legit. For what it is worth, I just wanted to apologize for tainting the subject at hand.

PS:

Ironically, my frustration on this issue relates to one of the most important problems in politics and philosophy: faction. This is something that Objectivists praise James Madison for addressing. It is *precisely* what frustrates me so much about this issue and also why I am so horrified to review the unclarity of my post. Instead of each group seeing itself as an embattled minority we should all respect the smallest minority on earth, the individual. The glorious thing about the gays who were opposed to the gun ban is that they know that we must seek out a unity of the good in the free-will of thinking individuals. Banning guns and self-defense hurts the individual the most. All individuals benefit from being able to protect themselves, especially if you are among one of the most hated minorities on earth.

We should be objective politically for moral reasons. Faction is the enemy of the thinking individual. Objective moral integrity in life can only be observed where faction and the exploitation of irrelavent or petty difference are minimized. That is really the crux of this issue: if only the majority of gays would take up the banner of moral objectivity they deserve as individuals with minds. If only they would see themselves as good, and mean it objectively. That is what Objectivists hope. That is why this issue is so frustrating and so inspirational.

Incidentally, I think existentialists mean this when they say "existence precedes essence." I would not put it that way for the reasons discussed above. Nevertheless, I have no lack of respect for the thoughtfulness that founds that sentiment. Irrelavent differences are irrelavent and should never be exploited. Same goes for the petty. This is a political fact, but more importantly it is a moral/ethical fact. The most impressive thing about a person is their willingness to think; Ayn Rand wrote of that. That is what a philosopher is and the details of his philosophy decrease in importance the further they reach from this impressive trunk.

Obviously, anyone who would intentionally exploit irrelavent details can be viewed with contempt by the good. He is a threat to individuals and he pelts society with discord apples. He is also irrationally depriving himself of value in life. There is nothing morally selfish about such prejudices. Despite the inane political correctness of recent times, a fear of being misinterpreted on this issue is healthy. That is why I am writing this, in addition to reiterating my own moral dislike for the exploitation of differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scottkursk:

You said that the last time people tried to ban guns that it, "didn't work." I went to the link you posted about the Morton Grove case in Illinois.

Here is what it says:

"On June 8, 1981, the Morton Grove Village Board of Trustees passed the history -making ban on handgun possession, as well as the sale of handguns. The Village Board's 4-2 vote led the Village into nation-wide prominence as the first community to ban the possession of handguns within its boundaries. This decision subsequently became the battleground for pro-gun and anti-gun factions across the country and worldwide. The ordinance survived three separate legal challenges. One suit was heard in the Illinois State Supreme Court and another, the U.S. Court of Appeals. On October 3, 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, leaving intact the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals which ruled that Morton Grove's handgun ban did not violate citizens' right to keep and bear arms according to the Second Amendment. Gun control legislation continues to be a hot topic of debate at all levels of government -- local, state, and federal. Morton Grove, Illinois, remains at the forefront of this debate. "

Then I went to the timeline that was on that website (Here is the link) and found that I couldn't find anything that overturned the Morton Grove law (the timeline goes up to 2001).

So why do you say it didn't work based on the Morton Grove thing? Did The Morton Grove ordinance finally get overturned in the last 5 years?

Edited by Evan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(khaight was replying to my comment: "revenge for Texas, how bizarre.")

I was suggesting that liberals, gay and otherwise, reacted against the gay marriage law in Texas with a vote to ban guns in San Francisco. I was suggesting they were voting in an irrational knee-jerk reaction.

I highly doubt that the San Francisco handgun ban has anything to with the gay marriage law in Texas. Are you familiar with the political atmosphere of San Francisco? This isn't the first time they've attempted to ban handguns, and I doubt it'll be the last. This city is overwhelmingly liberal, and has a long, long history of being in favor of anti-gun, pro-multiculturalism, pro-environmnetalism, pro-feminism laws.

Here are a couple of excerpts from a paper I recently wrote on this subject:

... This isn’t the first time San Francisco has tried to institute a firearm ban. In 1982, state court overruled an almost identical ban, noting that such legislation would contradict California state law which allows the sale and possession of firearms and ammunition. According to a New York Times article dated November 10, 2005, Mayor Gavin Newsom “has acknowledged that the measure probably wouldn't withstand legal scrutiny, but said it had symbolic value[!]” When Measure H is thrown out in court, it will mean thousands upon thousands of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on legislative costs and legal fees in support of something possessing only “symbolic value,” i.e. possessing no actual value. Thousands upon thousands of taxpayer dollars will have been spent, not on some lasting piece of legislature benefiting taxpayers, but advancing someone’s political agenda. (And, let’s face it, this kind of spending is not exactly unheard of these days.)

Even if Measure H would stand up in court, even if the state of California did not already have laws in place which directly contradict such a measure, a firearm ban would still present no value to San Francisco taxpayers—firearm bans are not an effective means of fighting against violent crime. Criminals don’t respect other laws, so why would they respect a law banning firearms? The effects (or lack thereof) of firearm bans in other cities have shown that they don’t. ...

<snip> A bunch of boring stuff about the history of handgun bans in America. <snip>

...Since firearm bans are not disarming villains, then what do they accomplish? They disarm law-abiding citizens—citizens who would use those guns, not to commit crimes, but to prevent themselves from being the victims of crime. Every man has a right to his own life, and as a consequence, has the right to defend himself from attackers. This is why the Second Amendment prohibits the government from infringing on an individual’s right to bear arms. City residents have voted this right into oblivion, with gang-infested Oakland right across the bay. Congratulations, San Francisco, you’ve unleveled the playing field, and the bad guys have the advantage.

The National Rifle Association is already making moves to oust Measure H, and I’m looking forward to the day they succeed. Until then, I’ll take solace in the fact that I live in a safe neighborhood, where I require little in the way of self-defense. My heart goes out to those who don’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a sweeping victory for Fascism, voters of San Fransisco turned out a majority vote in favor of disobeying the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment by banning guns for self defence in the home. You heard right: it will be illegal and a felony to own or possess a handgun in your own bedroom as defence against a criminal invasion.

Certain media outlets are beginning to cover the story. This is a dangerous precident. I hope it gets overturned in the SCOTUS.

As the original champion of reasoned thought stated himself "Republics fall into Democracies, and Democracies fall into Despotisms" (Aristotle) San Fransisco fell into a despotism back in the 60s when it drank the wine of Dionysus, and now they are voting like a bunch of drunken madmen.

P.S. - "How fortunate for leaders that men do not think." (Adolf Hitler) :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I highly doubt that the San Francisco handgun ban has anything to with the gay marriage law in Texas. Are you familiar with the political atmosphere of San Francisco? This isn't the first time they've attempted to ban handguns, and I doubt it'll be the last. This city is overwhelmingly liberal, and has a long, long history of being in favor of anti-gun, pro-multiculturalism, pro-environmnetalism, pro-feminism laws.

Here are a couple of excerpts from a paper I recently wrote on this subject:

That is very interesting. It's one of the reasons why I replied. Thankyou for bringing that information to the thread. It's amazing how ignorance can hurt a situation in any issue. The more information aired the better.

I should reiterate that the post above, concerning the exploitation of the minds of individuals, is a statement of fact. As may be clearer with a rereading, it is not a confession.

Again, thankyou for that info.

Edited by unskinned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its about time someone stood up for non-violence. unfortunatley, it seems the u.s will again be unscathed by the prohibition on the handguns. but its one small step, unfortunaltey there are many, many cities all over the country plagued by gun violence.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

Sad that there are so many still subsrcibing to it.

Edited by Eternal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its about time someone stood up for non-violence. unfortunatley, it seems the u.s will again be unscathed by the prohibition on the handguns. but its one small step, unfortunaltey there are many, many cities all over the country plagued by gun violence.
How do you come to the conclusion that the government should have the ability to prevent you from protecting yourself through the use of a handgun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...