Not just SF, but the state legislature as a whole.
Blake-
I have provided 3 cites for you that I could find online. I have seen that number quoted in more than one books and frankly I believe it. You can sit there and say what if that, what if this, well if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. Where are the studies showing this apparently massive number of gun shot wounds that don’t end up in the hospital? Where are the studies showing all of these gun assaults that go unreported? If you don’t want to believe the studies I have cited whatever I don’t really care but to say that I am making stuff up is absolutely uncalled for.
This, specifically is bullshit I provided two cites in my post. If you disagree with them fine but to say that I am making up that number is simply absurd.
I tried to find some more or less trustworthy statistics. It seems like everyone has an agenda, either for or against. Antigunners want to show their “data” to favor them, Progunners show the data to favor them. I could not find anything specific to only handguns. I saw no reason to quote some “National Committee for Gun Control” any more than I would quote the NRA. Everyone seemed to be biased, and blatantly so. The following from the Dept of Justice does not parse the numbers down to handguns specifically, but what they had for overall numbers is very very interesting. They say there has been a large decline. I did not see any reason for the decline given. But note again, that there is very little mention of handguns specifically:
Interestingly, the British government has a problem with their statistics and says so quite honestly.
Again, they don’t filter down to handgun only, but their opinion of the data is very clear. It is in their view, inadequate and unacceptable. I would almost bet money, our data in the USA is just as suspect.
From this site San francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said:
"I voted for Proposition H because I am firmly opposed to the proliferation of handguns,’’ Newsom said only hours after 58 percent of city voters approved the measure. "Legally, though, Proposition H will most certainly not survive the court challenge on constitutional grounds."
So the Mayor himself is admitting the law is illegal and unconstitutional! When sworn in aren’t most Pols required to promise uphold the laws and the Constitution of the [State] & the United States?
I would like to know why then he voted for a law that he publicly admits is illegal & unconstitutional.
It’s San Francisco, that’s why. He’s playing to his audience. There are people and groups there who would outlaw practically anything you can imagine, just because they personally don’t like it or find it “icky”. Just imagine social engineering and political correctness gone berserk.
Actually, the California Constitution specifically directs that officials not decide for themselves whether a particular law is constitutional or not. They must wait for a court to rule, and enforce it in the meantime.
Newsom is perfectly free to vote as he sees fit. The measure having passed, he is duty-bound to treat is as presumtively constitutional until a court has spoken on the issue.
I am, of course, utterly opposed to the merits of this ban. Nor am I a fan of Newsom. But he’s acting appropriately here.
Me too, but it still tickles me that this initiative sounds so much like “Preparation H”. 
No he isn’t. Newsome swore to uphold the laws & Constitution. Voting for a law he admits is contrary to both is in conflict to his oath. This is not a matter of ideology but of law. Elected officials who vow to uphold & defend the laws and constitutions should not be endorsing laws that they publicly state are illegal & unconstitutional.
If President Bush came out and said “I believe [some new law] is contrary to [some other law], and that it also will not survive a constitutional challege in the Supreme Court, but I am asking Congress to pass it anyway” the left would go ape shit, and rightfully so!
You are correct.
Which is why, on this issue, i will defer to Bricker, who is not only a lawyer, but has also specifically stated what the Mayor’s obligation is under the California Constitution. If you can provide evidence that the Constitution does not say what Bricker says it does, or that his analysis of the legal issue is flawed, then present your evidence.
Of course, on the occasions when San Francisco decides to allow something that it believes should be a private matter, the rest of the state then gangs up and decides to outlaw it because they “find it icky.”
You have mentioned being shot in a bar fight as a big fear several times in this thread. Every CCP of which I am aware specifically excludes bars as a place where it is legal to carry (If I’m wrong on this, could one of out more knowledgeable members correct me?), meaning that anyone who shoots you in a bar is not a law abiding citizen in the first place and is in fact no different than those LA Gangs whose violence you poo-poo. Do you understand that? THE GUY CARRYING A GUN IN A BAR IS ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW. How are more laws going to prevent him from carrying a gun in a bar, he’s already breaking the laws currently on the books that prohibit his behavior. Why do you think more laws is the answer when the ones we have now aren’t doing jack?
Dude, you’re making a series of statements here without demonstrating any connection between them at all. Here, try them this way, it’s more honest:
- In 2002 22% of murders were committed by family memembers and the majority of victims knew who their assailant was.* Yup, OK, you provided a cite for this one.
The danger of being murdered for most of us is greatest from a close family or an acquaintance not from gang related violence. Same here, no problems so far.
*Assaults and attempted murders committed with guns are more likely to end in death than those that don’t. * This statement doesn’t make any sense at all, but assuming what you meant to say was “more likely to end in death than those using other weapons”, you haven’t proved that whatsoever. Blake has repeatedly torn large holes in the cites and logic that you’re using to try and advance your knives vs guns agenda. It also has no connection to the two previous points you made.
- If the access to guns is limited then the amount of these murders will be reduced.* As far as I can tell, your source for this claim is the inside of your ass, because I can’t see where else you pulled it from. In any event, you have shown absolutely no basis for this claim, ignored evidence posted showing that the contrary is the case IRL (Boy that murder rate is sure down in DC since they banned handguns there, isn’t it?), and once again demonstrated absolutely no connection between this statement and the two you started with about family assaults. This entire paragraph is a model of dishonest discussion.
I’m not talking about the mayor enforcing that law, I’m talking about him voting for it in the first place. I feel that voting for a law he knows is illegal & unconstitutional, violates his oath to uphold laws and the constitution.
But I have a question. Over the last week I’ve been reading more and more about the higher ups in Frisco saying they know the ban won’t survive a court challenge.
Then why the flunk did they try to get it passed in the first place? What a waste of time and money.
Okay. Now show me that these 22% of all murders are committed with handguns. Then, from the remaining handgun murders committed by family members, we’ll have to elimnate those that are the result of other crimes and those that are committed by persons with previously existing violent crime convictions. Your data set, from what I can tell, doesn’t make any accomodations for these types of things. The only murders in there should be those of family members where the murderer was a previously law-abiding handgun owners.
If we go get the .csv files available, we find that only 36.8% of family murders, where the weapon is specified, is it a handgun. And that there were a total of 1958 family member murders in 2002. Doing the math . . . 721 family members murdered by handguns in 2002. And it is still unknown, and to be subtracted from that total, in how many of these 721 dead folks were killed during the commission of some other crime, and how many of the perpetrators had a violent criminal record at the time. Also of note, is that there are slightly more murdered members of one’s extended family included in the family murder category than there are immediate family members (spouse and children) - 37.1% vs. 36.8%.
Nope. Acqauintances incliudes gang members known to each other, as well as criminals who’re not known to be a member of a gang who have a past, or current, association. Many of the murdered in this category are, in fact, victims of a murder during, or after, a crime has gone bad.
It is, I guess if you want to broaden the argument to cover violent crime in general, rather than limit it to handgun murder. I’m not particularly interested in doing that here, but if you are, go right ahead.
The mayor’s vote for this proposition is no more or less legally significant than any other citizen’s vote. His vote doesn’t enforce or create the law; it is simply one of the 58% that caused it to pass.
The proposition was legally crafted and placed on the ballot. Every citizen of San Francisco, including the mayor, has a right to vote on it. Voting in favor of it does not derogate his duty to uphold laws and the constitution.
One of the more silly assertions I’ve seen in a while. What you do as a citizen in the voting booth is entirely up to you as an individual. Once he steps in that booth, he is no longer Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, but, rather, Gavin Newsom, private individual. He doesn’t have to say how he voted; he doesn’t have to vote in any particular way. It is a frightening thought to think that there are those who believe you have any obligation to vote in any specific manner on any item proposed on a ballot.
But let us suppose, for kicks and giggles, that we are talking about some vote that Hizzonor had as Mayor on the issue. Is he constitutionally obligated not to vote in favor of something he thinks likely is unconstitutional? Why so? How is he doing anything which violates his oath? Is our Constitution so fragile that it cannot withstand the passage of laws which are predicted to fail muster? Would any law that challenged accepted interpretation of the Constitution ever be passed were it so? Forbid it, one and all!
Gavin Newsom is no more constrained on this issue than he is on the issue of passing laws intended to allow for same-gender marriage. Once the law is declared unconstitutional by appropriate legal authorities, he then is constrained not to break that determination.
ROFL Very true!!! Not just the rest of the state, I’m as guilty as anyone, in that regard. To me, excessive (as I selfishly see it) government control or interference (whether it is city, state, or federal) in my personal life and business is “icky”. On the other hand, it is a lot less “icky” if it’s something I want. I find the outlawing of icky things to be icky in itself, but I still would support the outlawing of cockfighting, dogfighting etc everywhere. Guilty as charged
“Freakonomics” has a chapter showing stuff that effectively reduce violent crime- and stuff that doesn’t. Statitically speaking, gun control does NOT reduce violent crime. That’s a proven- and this dude ain’t biased either way (he also goes on to show that easy access to guns doesn’t reduce violent crime either).
However- back to the SF Law- it will- and should be- thrown out. Mainly because it confiscates without recompense and also it attempts to make law in a section where the State has authority- thus in California Citys and such can’t trespass. It also doesn’t allow for retired Police Officers to keep their guns- which has turned the Police against it. Can anyone argue here that we need to disarm a retired Police officer? :dubious:
Here’s what it will do- some confused dudes- mostly older citizens- will turn in their guns- as they are scared. The Widow O’Flarity (made up) whoes husband was a police officer, and who still keeps his service revolver. Captain Brown, who still has that Luger he got in WWII. No riminals will turn theirs in. The Law will be overturned- but somehow Mrs O’Flarity and Cap’t Brown will never get theirs back… 
So a few old confused scared peoples will lose a gun that either has important memories or- if sold- could mean paying that gas bill this winter.
It’s a stupid law that will only hurt the confused and scared honest law abiding citizens.
Sorry dudes- *Freakonomics *has spoken- it’s right there in numbers- Gun Control has no significant effect on violent crime.
Well, whether or not you agree with the merits of the law as it stands, i believe that this point is irrelevant. Former police officers are citizens like the rest of us, and should be governed by the same laws that cover the rest of us.
Well, actually, San Francisco’s law will be superceded on this point by federal law – specifically HR 218, which provides that regardless of local law, any current or retired police officers may possess and carry concealed a firearm anywhere in the country (some exceptions not applicable to this discussion omitted for brevity’s sake).
Well, color me surprised. I wasn’t aware of that.
I should ask my retired cop stepfather if there is any similar statute governing former police officers in Australia.
Does the federal law make any exception for officers who leave the force under, er, less than honorable circumstances?
No. Under HR 218 one must either be employed, in good standing, as a sworn police officer, or have retired with at least 15 years on the job. Click the link for the full law. Leaving the force under less than honorable situations usually disqualifies.