San Francisco gun ban overturned 3-0 by higher court.

[randalee]

Good news for you guys in California. It's good for the rest of us, too, as it helps set precedent. I look forward to hearing the outcome of DC vs. Heller this summer as it goes before SCOTUS.

Reuters link on California court ruling.

 

[lozina]

Eh, Kinda odd considering California has some of the harshest gun laws in the nation. But good news nonetheless. Now for them to overturn the "assault weapons" ban....

 

[StageLeft]

Thank God. Dewalt was worried that we'd have to delay this weekend's drive-by but I've just told him and he's delighted. Said we can hit up the 40's in celebration.

Kidding.

 

[Vette73]

ha you think this will stop a city from banning guns?

All a city has to do is say ok we allow guns but they must be registered and there is a million dollar fee. Guns need to be registered each year and fee is paid each year. If you are caught with a gun then you must pay a min. of one years fee, if unable to pay then 10 years in jail for each non-payment.


See you can have a gun, just pay the fees. Can;t pay then no guns.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
ha you think this will stop a city from banning guns?

All a city has to do is say ok we allow guns but they must be registered and there is a million dollar fee. Guns need to be registered each year and fee is paid each year. If you are caught with a gun then you must pay a min. of one years fee, if unable to pay then 10 years in jail for each non-payment.


See you can have a gun, just pay the fees. Can;t pay then no guns.

as usual your thinking or lack therof is convoluted!

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
ha you think this will stop a city from banning guns?

All a city has to do is say ok we allow guns but they must be registered and there is a million dollar fee. Guns need to be registered each year and fee is paid each year. If you are caught with a gun then you must pay a min. of one years fee, if unable to pay then 10 years in jail for each non-payment.


See you can have a gun, just pay the fees. Can;t pay then no guns.

as usual your thinking or lack therof is convoluted!

And your witty response really showed me.


Cities have used fees and "permits" to control issues that they are not supposed to. A city can ask for a high fee, special permit, etc... to ban/control things that other laws forbid but usually have loop holes like this.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
ha you think this will stop a city from banning guns?

All a city has to do is say ok we allow guns but they must be registered and there is a million dollar fee. Guns need to be registered each year and fee is paid each year. If you are caught with a gun then you must pay a min. of one years fee, if unable to pay then 10 years in jail for each non-payment.


See you can have a gun, just pay the fees. Can;t pay then no guns.

as usual your thinking or lack therof is convoluted!

And your witty response really showed me.


Cities have used fees and "permits" to control issues that they are not supposed to. A city can ask for a high fee, special permit, etc... to ban/control things that other laws forbid but usually have loop holes like this.

Makes me wonder if the cry babies who use the cost of an ID in a right to vote will cry about a fee to invoke another right, the right to bear arms.

Ill guess they wont and will provide ample excuses as to why.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
ha you think this will stop a city from banning guns?

All a city has to do is say ok we allow guns but they must be registered and there is a million dollar fee. Guns need to be registered each year and fee is paid each year. If you are caught with a gun then you must pay a min. of one years fee, if unable to pay then 10 years in jail for each non-payment.


See you can have a gun, just pay the fees. Can;t pay then no guns.

Cities can't make up felones (10 years in prison.) That's why cities banning guns is always a joke. Worst you're going to get is a couple days in jail and a $1000 fine.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
ha you think this will stop a city from banning guns?

All a city has to do is say ok we allow guns but they must be registered and there is a million dollar fee. Guns need to be registered each year and fee is paid each year. If you are caught with a gun then you must pay a min. of one years fee, if unable to pay then 10 years in jail for each non-payment.


See you can have a gun, just pay the fees. Can;t pay then no guns.

Cities can't make up felones (10 years in prison.) That's why cities banning guns is always a joke. Worst you're going to get is a couple days in jail and a $1000 fine.

That's interesting. I've never actually given thought to what level of punishment municipalities beneath the state were able to impose. So a city cannot legislate a felony (1 yr+ prison time) statute?

ED: Apparently:

In December, Mayor Bloomberg also announced that New York City subways would begin a new public service advertising campaign warning riders about the increase in the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a loaded handgun. In June, at the Mayor's urging, the State Legislature passed a bill increasing the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a loaded handgun from 1 year to 3 ½ years, and eliminated the loophole that allowed judges to let offenders off with probation rather than jail time - changes the Mayor had called for in his State of the City Address last January. In October, Governor Pataki signed this bill into law. The subway ad campaign will run through the winter and will be displayed in 2,044 subway cars - 32% of all cars in the subway system. The simple and stark message featured in the ad is "Illegal possession of a loaded gun now carries a minimum of 3 ½ years in prison. Period. End of Story." The ad also includes a photo of a prison cell.

So is Bloomberg a conservative because he's tough on crime and raised mandatory minimum sentences for criminal possession of an illegal weapon, or is he a loony lefty because there shouldn't be such a thing as an illegal handgun?

 

[palehorse]

Doesn't this mean that all residents of San Fran may be dead by Monday!?? I mean, that's what they've been saying would happen...

Oh, the humanity!!!

 

[theeedude]

That's terrible. I hope they come up with other ways to keep guns off SF streets. We don't need more guns in SF. It's bad for tourism. It's no coincidence that the most gun control cities are also some of the biggest tourist attractors.

 

[zinfamous]

eh, they'll just ban bullets.

there's no "right to own bullets" granted anyone, last time I checked.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's terrible. I hope they come up with other ways to keep guns off SF streets. We don't need more guns in SF. It's bad for tourism. It's no coincidence that the most gun control cities are also some of the biggest tourist attractors.

oh, please.......

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's terrible. I hope they come up with other ways to keep guns off SF streets. We don't need more guns in SF. It's bad for tourism. It's no coincidence that the most gun control cities are also some of the biggest tourist attractors.

oh, please.......

your response is most insightful, with well-argued counterpoints. may I subscribe to your pamphlet?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's terrible. I hope they come up with other ways to keep guns off SF streets. We don't need more guns in SF. It's bad for tourism. It's no coincidence that the most gun control cities are also some of the biggest tourist attractors.

oh, please.......

your response is most insightful, with well-argued counterpoints. may I subscribe to your pamphlet?

I found it a quite acceptable response to the claim of purposeful correlation between tourism and gun control laws.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's terrible. I hope they come up with other ways to keep guns off SF streets. We don't need more guns in SF. It's bad for tourism. It's no coincidence that the most gun control cities are also some of the biggest tourist attractors.

That is an amazing correlation you've invented there. And here I always thought it was Pier 39...

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's terrible. I hope they come up with other ways to keep guns off SF streets. We don't need more guns in SF. It's bad for tourism. It's no coincidence that the most gun control cities are also some of the biggest tourist attractors.

oh, please.......

your response is most insightful, with well-argued counterpoints. may I subscribe to your pamphlet?

oh, please.......

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
ha you think this will stop a city from banning guns?

All a city has to do is say ok we allow guns but they must be registered and there is a million dollar fee. Guns need to be registered each year and fee is paid each year. If you are caught with a gun then you must pay a min. of one years fee, if unable to pay then 10 years in jail for each non-payment.


See you can have a gun, just pay the fees. Can;t pay then no guns.

No, the fees, registration process, and any necessesary registration or paperwork has to be reasonable. No court would find a million dollars reasonable, and it'd get smashed.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's terrible. I hope they come up with other ways to keep guns off SF streets. We don't need more guns in SF. It's bad for tourism. It's no coincidence that the most gun control cities are also some of the biggest tourist attractors.

oh, please.......

your response is most insightful, with well-argued counterpoints. may I subscribe to your pamphlet?

I found it a quite acceptable response to the claim of purposeful correlation between tourism and gun control laws.

Ok, well then I'll link crime levels and tourism. Obviously tourists like going to city with higher crime levels!

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's terrible. I hope they come up with other ways to keep guns off SF streets. We don't need more guns in SF. It's bad for tourism. It's no coincidence that the most gun control cities are also some of the biggest tourist attractors.

oh, please.......

your response is most insightful, with well-argued counterpoints. may I subscribe to your pamphlet?

I found it a quite acceptable response to the claim of purposeful correlation between tourism and gun control laws.

Ok, well then I'll link crime levels and tourism. Obviously tourists like going to city with higher crime levels!

No, the faulty correlative interest is between gun control laws and lower crime. Prove cities with harsher GC laws have lower crime. You can't. And I'm pro gun control.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Great news folks....

Like similar laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C., San Francisco's ban also prohibited residents from possessing handguns unless they are government employees or security guards.

Postal employees are now allowed guns again!!!

I think that the ban was unconstitutional. I so support background checks and possibly training though before any CC permit.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's terrible. I hope they come up with other ways to keep guns off SF streets. We don't need more guns in SF. It's bad for tourism. It's no coincidence that the most gun control cities are also some of the biggest tourist attractors.

That is an amazing correlation you've invented there. And here I always thought it was Pier 39...

It's not just the sights, it's the people too. It's not a castle mentality over here, people are chill and not paranoid like these 2nd amendment nuts. Tourists like that. That's why not as much tourism to redneck coastal cities that could build a pier 39 too if that was all there was. People from all over the world want to come to San Francisco, not Galveston or Mobile.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's terrible. I hope they come up with other ways to keep guns off SF streets. We don't need more guns in SF. It's bad for tourism. It's no coincidence that the most gun control cities are also some of the biggest tourist attractors.

That is an amazing correlation you've invented there. And here I always thought it was Pier 39...

It's not just the sights, it's the people too. It's not a castle mentality over here, people are chill and not paranoid like these 2nd amendment nuts. Tourists like that. That's why not as much tourism to redneck coastal cities that could build a pier 39 too if that was all there was. People from all over the world want to come to San Francisco, not Galveston or Mobile.

The idea that harsh gun control increases tourism is ludicrous. CA has pretty lax gun control, and most counties have easily obtained CCW permits. Then there's Florida, Alaska, blah blah blah.

San Francisco has a crime problem, and it won't be fixed by only giving CCW permits to political donaters while attempting to disarm all the good people.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
ha you think this will stop a city from banning guns?

All a city has to do is say ok we allow guns but they must be registered and there is a million dollar fee. Guns need to be registered each year and fee is paid each year. If you are caught with a gun then you must pay a min. of one years fee, if unable to pay then 10 years in jail for each non-payment.


See you can have a gun, just pay the fees. Can;t pay then no guns.

Cities can't make up felones (10 years in prison.) That's why cities banning guns is always a joke. Worst you're going to get is a couple days in jail and a $1000 fine.

That's interesting. I've never actually given thought to what level of punishment municipalities beneath the state were able to impose. So a city cannot legislate a felony (1 yr+ prison time) statute?

ED: Apparently:

In December, Mayor Bloomberg also announced that New York City subways would begin a new public service advertising campaign warning riders about the increase in the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a loaded handgun. In June, at the Mayor's urging, the State Legislature passed a bill increasing the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a loaded handgun from 1 year to 3 ½ years, and eliminated the loophole that allowed judges to let offenders off with probation rather than jail time - changes the Mayor had called for in his State of the City Address last January. In October, Governor Pataki signed this bill into law. The subway ad campaign will run through the winter and will be displayed in 2,044 subway cars - 32% of all cars in the subway system. The simple and stark message featured in the ad is "Illegal possession of a loaded gun now carries a minimum of 3 ½ years in prison. Period. End of Story." The ad also includes a photo of a prison cell.

So is Bloomberg a conservative because he's tough on crime and raised mandatory minimum sentences for criminal possession of an illegal weapon, or is he a loony lefty because there shouldn't be such a thing as an illegal handgun?

Guliani set in motion the (recent) gun control craziness in NYC.

The fact is, the change in that law will do absolutely nothing to protect anyone, or stop anyone from carrying a loaded gun. I've carried illegally and legally in NYC on mulitiple occassions. The fact is that unless you place the city under martial law and put metal detectors everywhere, any laws you pass against carrying weapons are little more than "feel good" legislation.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's terrible. I hope they come up with other ways to keep guns off SF streets. We don't need more guns in SF. It's bad for tourism. It's no coincidence that the most gun control cities are also some of the biggest tourist attractors.

That is an amazing correlation you've invented there. And here I always thought it was Pier 39...

It's not just the sights, it's the people too. It's not a castle mentality over here, people are chill and not paranoid like these 2nd amendment nuts. Tourists like that. That's why not as much tourism to redneck coastal cities that could build a pier 39 too if that was all there was. People from all over the world want to come to San Francisco, not Galveston or Mobile.

The idea that harsh gun control increases tourism is ludicrous. CA has pretty lax gun control, and most counties have easily obtained CCW permits. Then there's Florida, Alaska, blah blah blah.

San Francisco has a crime problem, and it won't be fixed by only giving CCW permits to political donaters while attempting to disarm all the good people.

It's true, people don't want to come visit paranoid redneck infested sh!tholes.
Alaska and Florida, people go for natural beauty and weather. San Francisco, people go for the culture and the people, in large part. The weather isn't bad, but that's not what makes it a top tourist destination.