|
 |
 Copyright ©2003-2008 Anthony Canales |
|
 Anthony Canales is the President of the San Fernando Valley NRA Member’s Council. He works as a Quality Control Manager in Glendale, California. He is married with one son. The opinions expressed in 'News Briefs' belong soley to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Rifle Association of America or the NRA Members' Councils of California. |
|
Home
03-20-2008
12-31-2007 |
|
September 30, 2005 "...It limits handgun possession to those who protect us, and ends firearms sales...."
- Comments about Proposition H by Supervisor Chris Daly
"...Proposition H... Section 1. Findings The people of the City and County of San Francisco hereby find and declare:...
Article XI of the California Constitution provides Charter created counties with the "home rule" power. This power allows counties to enact laws that exclusively apply to residents within their borders, even when such a law conflicts with state law or when state law is silent. San Francisco adopted its most recent comprehensive Charter revision in 1996.
Since it is not the intent of the people of the City and County of San Francisco to impose an undue burden on inter-county commerce and transit, the provisions of Section 3 apply exclusively to residents of the City and County of San Francisco.
Section 2. Ban on Sale, Manufacture, Transfer or Distribution of Firearms in the City and County of San Francisco
Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition shall be prohibited.
Section 3. Limiting Handgun Possession in the City and County of San Francisco
Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, no resident of the City and County of San Francisco shall possess any handgun unless required for professional purposes, as enumerated herein. Specifically, any City, state or federal employee carrying out the functions of his or her government employment, including but not limited to peace officers as defined by California Penal Code Section 380 et. seq. and animal control officers may possess a handgun. Active members of the United States armed forces or the National Guard and security guards, regularly employed and compen- sated by a person engaged in any lawful business, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment, may also possess handguns.
Within 90 days from the effective date of this section, any resident of the City and County of San Francisco may surrender his or her handgun at any district station of the San Francisco Police Department, or to the San Francisco Sheriff's Department without penalty under this section...."
-Excerpts from Proposition H, the proposed ordinance that would ban firearms possession among San Francisco residents that is up for a local vote in November 2005
" ...D'oh!!..."
-Signature utterance of the cartoon character Homer Simpson (Voice by Dan Castellanata)
To All, It seems that the LCAV has joined forces with some Bay-Area manufacturer of the ever-popular "Kick Me" sign, if the fine print of Proposition H really is as proposed:
Masochism Tango: If firearms owners are to understand Supervisor Chris Daly and the Committee to Ban Handgun Violence correctly, with the actual language of Proposition H they are apparently intending to make it unlawful for San Francisco residents to possess handguns by April of 2006. This allegedly will reduce firearms-related crime in Baghdad-By-The-Bay, which over the past few years has seen a certain increase in gang-related crime from local residents as well as hoodlums who filter over from the other side of the Bay.
But will Proposition H perform "as advertised"? After the raw example of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in the Algier's Point district in New Orleans, home and business owners will most likely question any quack political nostrum that will inhibit their ability to protect life and property while, at the same time, giving carte blanche to the criminal classes.
Yet it is certainly clear that Proposition H, to avoid conflict with state law, was made applicable only to residents of the City and County of San Francisco (talk about the burden of government- two complete sets of bureaucracy in a postage-stamp of a location where only one is truly needed). Non-residents are clearly not addressed anywhere in the bill, except for prohibited persons already banned from owning firearms under existing sections of Federal and State law.
In other words, Proposition H is specifically not applicable to non-residents, as well as the exempted law enforcement, military, and guard personnel noted in Section 3. "Tourists" and other "non-prohibited" persons who can show proof of residency outside of San Francisco can apparently possess their handguns in the city/county without fear of the long arm of the law.
Of course, the age-old conundrum of criminals ignoring the law (especially gun control laws) remains. If anything, citizens from the Tenderloin to the Golden Gate will most likely be faced with an increase of the same kinds of "hot-prowl" burglaries that have plagued the United Kingdom since guns were banned after the Dunblane Incident.
Other questions as to the potential "efficacy" of Proposition H revolve around the certain lack of availability of ammunition sources for private armed guards as well as law enforcement. Proposition H will ban retail sales of firearms and ammunition, forcing armed guards to make their ammunition purchases out of the city.
In addition, Section 3 may require armed security guards to not be in possession of the tools of their trade if they are "between gigs" (Note: Section 3's language requires armed guards to be "...regularly employed and compensated by a person engaged in any lawful business, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment...". This also may mean that they cannot be in possession of their firearms once they clock out at the end of their shifts at Bank of America or Wells Fargo.). What a "strict" interpretation of Prop H will do to the jewelry, armored courier, and banking sectors can only be imagined.
It is clear to see that Proposition H is the "Mother of All Catch .22's", given it's current form. But then, what is one to expect of a town where ACLU orthodoxy reigns supreme, and where the "Workplace Safety For Criminals" Crowd holds sway. But that is not to mean that all of the city's residents are willing to give up their personal wealth, property, or even their persons to an armed non-resident of evil intent. Perhaps, with a bit of tough-minded advocacy between now and Election Day 2005, some common sense will prevail. Stay tuned.
Links at: http://www.stopsanfranban.com/news/read.aspx?id=6415
http://www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/07/28/news/ http://www.sfcall.com/issues%202001/11.19.01/dimmick,_murder.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunters_Point
Wasted Time: The Toronto Sun editorialized on September 26 about the "robustness" of the failure of Canada's gun registry system, Bill C-68.
For the princely sum of almost $ 2 billion (Canadian), money which could have been used to hire more police, Canadians are stuck with a program that cannot even accurately tell authorities who has a lawfully owned firearm, not to mention those owned by criminals.
Whether Canadian Liberals will ever own up to yet another failed gun control scheme remains to be seen. The tendency of Liberals to pursue, lemming-like, every gun ban scheme known to Urban Man is not to be underestimated. But it may be that the higher priority demands of socialized medicine and other "Nanny State" schemes may finally cut the funding mechanisms needed to maintain the registry off at the knees. Given a softening auto manufacturing sector in the Great White North, Independence Day may not actually be that far away. Stay tuned.
Link at:
http://torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/
Don't Go There: The Associated Press reported back on September 16, 2005, about a grizzly bear attack in Yellowstone Park.
It seems that the ostentatious clue of a freshly steaming pile of grizzly doo-doo was insufficient to turn two hikers away from an appointment with ursus arctos horribilis.
The two Nimrods in question, Pat McDonald and Gerald Holzer, where hiking near Shoshone Lake when they came upon the quintessential answer to a certain age old question. Instead of turning around and heading away from the find as fast as their legs could carry them, the two unarmed hikers proceeded with their walkabout. The rest of the story was predictable- they met the bear nearby, the bear attacked, and only an intervention by Providence and capsicum spray seemed to keep the casualty rate down to a bitten leg and some scuffs and scrapes (Try walking out 4 miles with grizzly bite marks through your leg before accepting the desirability of pepper spray over a .454 Casull).
Now, one can easily criticize the Preservationist's efforts to introduce large land carnivores in proximity to so many tasty tourists and hikers. After all, we here in the Fool's Golden State have found that our very own bureaucrats have had to learn the hard way about interactions between mountain lions and the public in a number of state and local parks. But it is clear that, given the re-introduction policy, the duplication of the Washington DC gun ban in some of the nation's most popular park venues is a "cluster-flop" of epic proportions. Unfortunately, it will probably take the snarfing of some covey of Brownies before the public at large will wake up to a dilemma caused by adherence to an ideology long past it's prime.
Link at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050916/ap_on_re_us/
Don't Be At Home Without It: Jim Kirksey wrote a story about a successful example of armed self defense in the September 23 edition of the Denver Post.
It seems that a serial rapist has been plaguing the Aurora, Colorado area. Using an evening-time "breaking and entering" model of getting at his victims, the bad guy has effected at least nine sexual assaults and attempted at least two others besides the incident of this Denver Post article.
But in at least one case, a young woman had in her possession a handgun. Upon hearing a noise in her outer apartment, she remained in the bedroom with her pistol at the ready. When the assailant tried to enter the bedroom, one shot sent the would-be rapist running for the tall grass. In this case, having access to a firearm meant personal salvation, as well as a fairly decent description of the assailant for the police investigators to chew upon ("...Well, officer, he had Really Big, wide open eyes and...")
Now, it is common knowledge that Aurora is a "liberal" town, one where the politically correct do not believe in armed self defense. But it is also clear that at least one young lady refused to be a victim in the one meaningful way that does not rely on Providence or surrender. It will be interesting to see whether the serial rapist ceases and desists from his criminal activities over his close brush with Death, thereby helping validate a key premise of the right to keep and bear arms.
Link at: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3054275
Respectfully, Anthony Canales SFVMC-NRA
Copyright 2005 Anthony Canales All rights reserved. |
|
