Just heard on the news that voters in San Francisco has passed a law that prohibits any resident of San Francisco from owning a handgun.
How does that work? Will San Francisco pay people the fair market value of their handguns? Or will they make people turn them in and say, ‘Sorry you spent hundreds or thousands of dollars. Gimme.’? Will there be a registration whereby current handgun owners may keep their handguns? Or must people move them out of the city, say to a friend’s house or a safety deposit box?
Some say it does, some say it doesn’t. Depends on how you read it, and whether the intentions of the Founding Fathers are taken into consideration. And I’m not sure the 2nd applies to states, as much as it does the Federal government.
Probably the same way as the Washington D.C. handgun ban doesn’t. The Washington D.C. ban has been in effect since 1976 and although there has been some talk about Congress repealing it, it hasn’t happened yet.
Here’s the way I understand it. The new law bans almost all private possession of handguns by San Francisco residents within city limits. Exceptions would be made for people who require guns for professional purposes, such as police officers, security guards and members of the military. Owners of handguns are required to relinquish their firearms to the police not later than April 1, 2006. As of this date, no reimbursement is set for those weapons. It’s been pointed out several times that even though the measure passed, it will more than likely be appealed in court and overturned. I’m not sure the government is able to seize property without recompense.
The NRA (and a group of like-minded organizations) has already announced they will file a lawsuit contesting this legislation (Prop H). This law does these things:
Bans private possession of all handguns within the city except for those held by active law enforcement officials (including private security guards) whil on duty. Not known is whether an FBI agent living in the city will be required to leave his gun at the office at the end of the day.
Bans all sales and private transfers of handguns for city residents.
Bans, within the city limits, the manufacture of all firearms (long guns, handguns, & shotguns).
Bans, within the city limits, the manufacture of all ammunition.
Bans, within the city limits, sales and private transfers of all ammunition.
The law goes into effect 1/1/06 and city residents have until 4/1/06 to turn in their handguns to police officials without penalty. After 4/1/06, unspecified penalties will be incurred. The law has no specific penalties in it, but allows for the San Francisco Board of Superviors, after consultation with the Mayor, the Sheriff & the Chief of Police, to enact the penalties.
Oh yeah. There is no provision in the legislation to compensate owners for any surrendered handgun. Legislated thievery. Appalling - particularly coming from a city which has long been a bastion of personal rights.
What major US Supreme Court cases (if any) have so far dealt with the question of whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens the right to own personal firearms, and to what degree impeding that right (requiring licensing, regulating, restricting who can own, banning various categories, etc) is or is not in violation of the Constitution?
I never hear references to a gun-ownership equivalent of Roe v Wade or Brown vs Board of Ed. Has the SCOTUS avoided weighing in on the issue to any meaningful extent so far?
Cite. I think this is incorrect. IIRC, the 14th has been applied to bind states to certain provisions of the Constitution, but never the 2nd Amendment.
Well, cosidering there’s a handgun ban in DC, Chicago and NYC (I think), and has been for a long time, I’m assuming the courts have already established that it’s not a constitutional violation.
SCOTUS has carefully failed to rule on this issue. Neither side really wants to take it to the Supreme Court, in case they lose. They(we) would rather deal on a local and state level, where the stakes aren’t quite so high.
Actually, SCOTUS has consistantly refused to rule on the Constitutional issue, to the point of actually tapdancing around to a slight-of-hand distraction; see US vs Miller as a lonely example of the Supreme Court actually addressing the 2nd Amendment issue.
Here’s and article from the San Francisco Chronicle regarding the law. Although the article doesn’t mention it, one of the rare CCW permits issued by the City of San Francisco is for none other than Senator Dianne Feinstein, who apparently thinks irony is a metal. Given that firearms are still freely available outside the city limits it seems unlikely that this law will have any positive impact on reducing violent gun-related crime even if they were somehow able to force criminals to initially relinquish illegally owned and unregistered firearms. Another example of policy to be seen “doing something about this problem” without actually accomplishing anything.