The entire amendment still give the right to bare arms.
I said that because pretty much all legal challenges to handgun bans have been defeated in appeals court.
However, I didn’t realize that this may be preempted by CA state law, so maybe in fact it will not be around long.
First they don’t let you have nukes in San Fran, now no handguns. Sheesh. Who says the slippery slope doesn’t exist?
The entire amendment still give the right to bare arms.
It depends on one’s interpretation. I think it’s pretty generous to say that the 2nd amendment guarantees people the right to own guns in their homes.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Anyone with who speaks English understands exactly what this sentence means; the right of the people to keep and bear arms is entirely contingent on a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
I am not anti-gun, but I think it is pretty amusing that everyone purposefully ignores the first part of the 2nd amendment or acts like it’s obvious that they have the fundamental right to own guns.
If the Founding Fathers (heads up “strict constructionists”!) had wanted a blanket arms right, why did they purposefully choose to place a condition of “well regulated militia” on it?
If the founding fathers wanted guns only to be used in a malitia why didn’t they say “Arms will be allowed only to those in a malitia.”?
there are commas seperating the term ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms.’
but you can still keep dogs
and bees
and dogs that when they bark bees fly out of their mouths
.
No neither kill people it’s the sudden transfer of energy that kills people…they should ban energy. Wait didn’t they try that already in CA a few years back.
~Matt
Damn, not fast enough. I was hoping to get a wager going.
Who is going to compensate the gun owners that turn in hand guns? An example of a law abiding collector can have a substantial investment in hand guns. Just curious if that is addressed. I am sure the majority of the guns turned in will be cheap but there will be exceptions.
An example of a law abiding collector can have a substantial investment in hand guns. Just curious if that is addressed.
The writ (as part of the NRA lawsuit challenging this motion) that I posted a reference to earlier addresses this situation, as well as the inability of the SF opera to perform certain shows, the SF museums having to surrender their colections, some of which, are, by definition, historical, and other issues not unlike the one that you raise here. I wonder what happens when the Navy pulls into port. ;->
Sounds like it was very poorly and carelessly drafted, from what little I know about it.
If the founding fathers wanted guns only to be used in a malitia why didn’t they say “Arms will be allowed only to those in a malitia.”?
That’s merely a different way of saying what they already said. The 2nd amendment clearly makes the right to own a gun contingent on the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.
there are commas seperating the term ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms.’
Yes, there are. I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean, though, as commas are not used to separate thoughts. Use of commas is often simply a matter of the writer’s whim, usually most necessary in separating differently-paced parts of the same expressed thought (like in this sentence). Parentheses are used by lazy writers, like me, who try and just get to the point. 
The amendment can really be read either way, and that’s exactly why it is worded the way it is. That’s why the framer’s wrote it the way they did, they were smart guys. They didn’t want the matter 100% settled.
The Constitution was written with an eye to the future and the understanding that people in the future were supposed to adapt it to modern-day realities. And we don’t live in the 18th century anymore.
Sounds like it was very poorly and carelessly drafted, from what little I know about it.
The SF Board of Sups carelessly drafted a resolution? Unthinkable!
Hehehe
.
Bet you didn’t know YOU were part of the militia. Not that I expect it changes your view of things.
10 USC Section 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Here’s the moral authority of Bill O’Reilly’s take:
Criticizing a ballot measure passed by 60 percent of San Francisco voters urging public high schools and colleges to prohibit on-campus military recruiting, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly declared on the November 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, “f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off-limits to you, except San Francisco.”
From the November 8 broadcast of Fox News’ The Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly:
O’REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I’m not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I’m the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, “Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you’re not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead.”
And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.
The 210-foot Coit Tower was dedicated in 1933 and contains a museum and murals that depict working life in 1930s California.
As was stated earlier a malitia can be a call up of citizens. The federal goverment has the power to go into an area and require all men with weapons to serve. Hince the right for individuals to bear arms.
Of course the bigger issue is gun control will never work.
The AP reports: In 1982, a state appeals court nullified an almost identical gun ban here largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law that allows for the sale and possession of handguns and ammunition.
The NRA filed its lawsuit Wednesday with the same court, the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, asking the judges to nullify the law that demands the surrender of handguns by April.
“Cities do not have the authority under the state law to ban the possession of handguns,” said NRA president Wayne LaPierre.
The group also claims the law unfairly puts San Francisco residents at a disadvantage, denying them the means to protect themselves. The law does not bar nonresidents from lawfully possessing handguns within city limits.
Mayor Gavin Newsom has acknowledged the measure likely wouldn’t withstand legal scrutiny, but said it had symbolic value.
T.