Voters in San Francisco have approved a ban on handguns in the city.
Measure H will prohibit the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and make it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses. That measure was approved by 58 percent of San Francisco voters.
San Francisco voters have also approved a measure to oust military recruiters from high school campuses in the city.
Measure I has been dubbed “College Not Combat.” It opposes the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. That measure was approved by 59 percent of San Francisco voters.
Proposition H, which requires city residents who already own guns to turn them in to police by April 1, was winning 58 percent to 42 percent with 98 percent of precincts counted.
The measure also makes it illegal to buy, sell, distribute and manufacture firearms and ammunition in the city.
Only two other cities in the country – Washington, D.C., and Chicago – have similar bans.
“San Francisco voters are smart and believe in sensible gun control,” said Supervisor Chris Daly, who was among the four board members who placed the measure on the ballot. “If Prop. H gets some handguns out of San Francisco and mitigates some of the violence, then it’s a win.”
Prop. H opponents said a ban on handguns will not reduce crime, because criminals aren’t likely to turn in their guns.
They also said the measure will be subject to costly legal challenges in court.
“It’s not a solution (to gun violence),” said Mike Ege, a board member of the Coalition Against Prohibition. “Most people don’t like guns, but they don’t want the opportunity to access them taken away, because sometimes bad things happen to good people.”
Chicago, Illinois In 1982, the City Council implemented a measure that would freeze the number of handguns allowed in the city. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the freeze in 1984, stating that the measure “does not trample fundamental personal rights.” The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and the handgun freeze in Chicago remains today.
See Chicago Municipal Code 8-20-200(c).
Washington, D.C. The City Council enacted legislation that completely banned the sale and possession of handguns in the city, and the ban remains active today. A lawsuit brought by the NRA challenging the constitutionality of the DC handgun ban was dismissed on January 15, 2004 by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who ruled the ban constitutional. According to Judge Walton: “The Court must conclude that the Second Amendment doesn’t confer an individual right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendments objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias.” Click here for more information on the DC Handgun Ban
See D.C. Code 6-2311, 6-2312, 6-2372…
What surprises me is this:
Oak Park, Illinois In Oak Park, the sale of handguns was banned in 1977, followed by the* banning of gun ownership* in 1984. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or carry, or for any person to permit another to possess or carry on his/her land or in his/her place of business any firearm
I’m not sure this would withstand a court challenge…
“It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or carry, or for any person to permit another to possess or carry on his/her land or in his/her place of business any firearm”
I always wonder how the exemptions are written for police officers and National Guard Armories in these cities. Does anyone have an idea?
San Francisco suffers from a medical condition known as *cranial-rectal inversion. *The recruiter thing’ll be thrown out by one of the courts, most likely the Supremes, after the typical 9th circuit support of the stupid and inane (and profoundly naive) thinking behind it.
The measure requires San Francisco residents to turn in their guns on April 1: "…require that every resident of San Francisco who owns a handgun to turn it in to the government by April 1st. April 1st, by the way, is more commonly known as “April Fool’s Day.” Even voters in San Francisco should be bright enough to figure out that law-abiding citizens will be the ones to turn over their guns, while the lawless, the criminal element, will not. The number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens will go down. The number of guns in the hands of criminals will not.
It is particularly amazing that 58% of the San Francisco voters would support this foolish measure after New Orleans. San Francisco faces the prospect of a natural disaster far worse than Katrina. Do the people of San Francisco think that the criminal element will just stay home and behave after the earthquake hits? There will be no violence? No looting? After the experience of the victims of the lawless in New Orleans it is hard to believe that any logical group of Americans would voluntarily disarm. But … I did say logical, didn’t I?
Perhaps. I don’t have a crystal ball or a time machine.
Why do you say that? I make no claims of expertise WRT the laws of the state of CA. You may be right.
But, if you read the writ, there’s an interesting comment in there that contradicts your prediction (WRT this measure being pre-empted by state law, the writ quoting the 11/05 NY Times ):
“‘It clearly will be thrown out.’, said SF Mayor Gavin Newsome on Friday, adding that he planned to vote for the measure anyway to show his opposition to the poliferation of handguns. ‘It’s so overtly pre-empted. Im having a difficult time with it, and that’s my one caveat. It’s really a public opinion poll at the end of the day.’”
also, “Since it was finalized, Mayor Gavin Newson(sic), Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Law Professor Frank Zimring (a leading gun control advocate) have each publicly acknowledged that the ordinance is preempted by state law.” (The quote above is actually from the footnote attached to this statement.)
So the whole thing may be moot, but I guess we’ll see.
