Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
p0ink
New member
Bid for handgun ban faces hurdles
S.F. measure's legal, practical obstacles
Suzanne Herel, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, December 17, 2004
San Francisco supervisors want to make the city the second in the nation to ban the ownership of handguns, but whether such a law would prove to be more than symbolic remains to be seen.
First, legal challenges are being readied by those who see the proposed law -- set to go to voters next fall -- as bucking state law, which says law-abiding citizens do not need permits or licenses to keep handguns in their homes.
Then there are practical hurdles: How do you enforce a ban in the absence of a public registry of gun owners in California? And of what value is such a measure for police, who already have the authority to take guns from criminal suspects?
Supporters of a ban say it would curb gun violence in the city by reducing the number of weapons available. Bill Barnes, spokesman for the campaign, said many guns used in crimes were purchased legally -- and later stolen.
According to a report by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, 213 people were victims of 176 incidents of handgun violence in 1999, the last year for which the data are available. Of all firearms used to cause injury or death that year, 67 percent were handguns.
Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, one of five supervisors who signed off on placing the proposed law on the next ballot, said it was concern about guns' falling into the wrong hands that motivated her.
"You have to keep guns away from kids," said Alioto-Pier, the mother of young children. "We're not taking away people's constitutional rights. This is about ensuring the safety of people who live here."
But gun-owner-rights groups say that such a law would invite crime, not prevent it, by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and would not take guns out of the hands of criminals.
"Guns are being made the scapegoat for policy failures of the city," said Chuck Michel, spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Michel, an attorney, represents that group and the National Rifle Association. The proposed law, he said, "is based on the myth that if you disarm civilians, the bad guys won't have guns either. I think that's a bunch of baloney."
He added: "We're already in the process of putting together the petition for an injunction to try to keep it off the ballot."
The measure would ban handguns in San Francisco -- except for police officers, security guards, military personnel and others who require them for their job. Only 10 people in the city have permits to carry a concealed weapon, Barnes said.
By allowing some people to have handguns and not others, opponents say, the law would create a new class of people. And any requirement of permission to own handguns amounts to a license -- which, according to state law, cities are not permitted to require.
It was just this issue that torpedoed the last effort by San Francisco officials to ban handguns, in 1982, Barnes said. The drive was led by Dianne Feinstein, who became mayor after Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were shot to death in City Hall. This time around, Barnes said, the law was written to avoid any city participation in licensing or registration of guns, and he doesn't consider it to be creating a new class of people, as foes of the measure claim.
The ordinance, which would go into effect Jan. 1, 2006, if passed by a simple majority of voters, also would prohibit the sale, manufacture and distribution of all firearms in the city.
That portion of the law has less effect on San Francisco, which is home to one gun shop, High Bridge Arms, whose online phone listing carries a slogan: "Stop crime before it starts." A store employee would not comment on the ordinance, and the owner did not respond to a request for an interview.
Two other dealers have permits to sell guns in the city.
The only other major city to have enacted a handgun ban is Washington, D. C., which did so in 1976. However, Congress has the right to supercede local laws in the District of Columbia, and in September the House of Representatives repealed most of the city's gun-control laws by passing the D. C. Personal Protection Act. The measure now is before the Senate.
The homicide rate in Washington, D.C., in 2002 was 9.4 incidents per 100, 000 people. In San Francisco that year, the rate was 5.2.
Supervisor-elect Ross Mirkarimi, who himself owns two handguns because of his job as an investigator in the district attorney's office, said he supported the ordinance.
"How many more Michael Moore films does it take to tell us that the Second Amendment is absolutely archaic, and other nations do it better than we do?" said Mirkarimi, who plans to donate or sell his own guns. "We should absolutely go forward with it despite the constitutional challenges."
However, he said, the legislation largely would be symbolic without enforcement.
Although gun sales in California must be recorded, residents are not required to have a permit for handguns kept in a private home or business, so it's unclear how many San Francisco residents would be affected by the law.
The initiative was filed with the Department of Elections this week by five supervisors representing a spread of ideology on the board -- Chris Daly, Matt Gonzalez, Tom Ammiano, Bevan Dufty and Alioto-Pier.
Alioto-Pier and Dufty often side with Mayor Gavin Newsom on issues. Newsom has not taken a position yet on the ballot measure, said spokesman Peter Ragone, though he has talked much in this past year about getting guns off the street.
Eric Gorovitz, West Coast director of the Alliance for Justice, who has spent a decade working for gun control policy statewide and nationally, said he thought the San Francisco measure was written in a way that would withstand legal challenge.
"I think banning handguns is the central issue for gun violence prevention, and it's been somewhat of a third rail -- people haven't wanted to talk about it," Gorovitz said. "It's a very good strategy for a community that has excessive gun violence."
Sam Paredes, executive director of the political action committee Gun Owners of California, couldn't disagree more.
"We think this is a disastrous idea," he said. "We think that if you disarm people in their own homes, you invite criminals to attack these people. Law abiding citizens are just prey. They walk in fear."
E-mail Suzanne Herel at [email protected].
S.F. measure's legal, practical obstacles
Suzanne Herel, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, December 17, 2004
San Francisco supervisors want to make the city the second in the nation to ban the ownership of handguns, but whether such a law would prove to be more than symbolic remains to be seen.
First, legal challenges are being readied by those who see the proposed law -- set to go to voters next fall -- as bucking state law, which says law-abiding citizens do not need permits or licenses to keep handguns in their homes.
Then there are practical hurdles: How do you enforce a ban in the absence of a public registry of gun owners in California? And of what value is such a measure for police, who already have the authority to take guns from criminal suspects?
Supporters of a ban say it would curb gun violence in the city by reducing the number of weapons available. Bill Barnes, spokesman for the campaign, said many guns used in crimes were purchased legally -- and later stolen.
According to a report by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, 213 people were victims of 176 incidents of handgun violence in 1999, the last year for which the data are available. Of all firearms used to cause injury or death that year, 67 percent were handguns.
Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, one of five supervisors who signed off on placing the proposed law on the next ballot, said it was concern about guns' falling into the wrong hands that motivated her.
"You have to keep guns away from kids," said Alioto-Pier, the mother of young children. "We're not taking away people's constitutional rights. This is about ensuring the safety of people who live here."
But gun-owner-rights groups say that such a law would invite crime, not prevent it, by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and would not take guns out of the hands of criminals.
"Guns are being made the scapegoat for policy failures of the city," said Chuck Michel, spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Michel, an attorney, represents that group and the National Rifle Association. The proposed law, he said, "is based on the myth that if you disarm civilians, the bad guys won't have guns either. I think that's a bunch of baloney."
He added: "We're already in the process of putting together the petition for an injunction to try to keep it off the ballot."
The measure would ban handguns in San Francisco -- except for police officers, security guards, military personnel and others who require them for their job. Only 10 people in the city have permits to carry a concealed weapon, Barnes said.
By allowing some people to have handguns and not others, opponents say, the law would create a new class of people. And any requirement of permission to own handguns amounts to a license -- which, according to state law, cities are not permitted to require.
It was just this issue that torpedoed the last effort by San Francisco officials to ban handguns, in 1982, Barnes said. The drive was led by Dianne Feinstein, who became mayor after Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were shot to death in City Hall. This time around, Barnes said, the law was written to avoid any city participation in licensing or registration of guns, and he doesn't consider it to be creating a new class of people, as foes of the measure claim.
The ordinance, which would go into effect Jan. 1, 2006, if passed by a simple majority of voters, also would prohibit the sale, manufacture and distribution of all firearms in the city.
That portion of the law has less effect on San Francisco, which is home to one gun shop, High Bridge Arms, whose online phone listing carries a slogan: "Stop crime before it starts." A store employee would not comment on the ordinance, and the owner did not respond to a request for an interview.
Two other dealers have permits to sell guns in the city.
The only other major city to have enacted a handgun ban is Washington, D. C., which did so in 1976. However, Congress has the right to supercede local laws in the District of Columbia, and in September the House of Representatives repealed most of the city's gun-control laws by passing the D. C. Personal Protection Act. The measure now is before the Senate.
The homicide rate in Washington, D.C., in 2002 was 9.4 incidents per 100, 000 people. In San Francisco that year, the rate was 5.2.
Supervisor-elect Ross Mirkarimi, who himself owns two handguns because of his job as an investigator in the district attorney's office, said he supported the ordinance.
"How many more Michael Moore films does it take to tell us that the Second Amendment is absolutely archaic, and other nations do it better than we do?" said Mirkarimi, who plans to donate or sell his own guns. "We should absolutely go forward with it despite the constitutional challenges."
However, he said, the legislation largely would be symbolic without enforcement.
Although gun sales in California must be recorded, residents are not required to have a permit for handguns kept in a private home or business, so it's unclear how many San Francisco residents would be affected by the law.
The initiative was filed with the Department of Elections this week by five supervisors representing a spread of ideology on the board -- Chris Daly, Matt Gonzalez, Tom Ammiano, Bevan Dufty and Alioto-Pier.
Alioto-Pier and Dufty often side with Mayor Gavin Newsom on issues. Newsom has not taken a position yet on the ballot measure, said spokesman Peter Ragone, though he has talked much in this past year about getting guns off the street.
Eric Gorovitz, West Coast director of the Alliance for Justice, who has spent a decade working for gun control policy statewide and nationally, said he thought the San Francisco measure was written in a way that would withstand legal challenge.
"I think banning handguns is the central issue for gun violence prevention, and it's been somewhat of a third rail -- people haven't wanted to talk about it," Gorovitz said. "It's a very good strategy for a community that has excessive gun violence."
Sam Paredes, executive director of the political action committee Gun Owners of California, couldn't disagree more.
"We think this is a disastrous idea," he said. "We think that if you disarm people in their own homes, you invite criminals to attack these people. Law abiding citizens are just prey. They walk in fear."
E-mail Suzanne Herel at [email protected].
