TV Schedule

NRA targets San Francisco gun ban

  2. current89
  3. related topics
Targeting San Francisco, the National Rifle Association is attempting to overturn the city's gun ban. The move was prompted by a recent Supreme Court decision not to grant Washington DC a handgun ban.

"The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its ban on handguns in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital.

The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday's high court ruling.

In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project.

The gun owner, who is gay, says he keeps the weapon to defend himself from "sexual orientation hate crimes." He was not identified in the complaint because he said he fears retaliation.

Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city will "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the ban as good for public safety.

"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority."

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said that the Supreme Court ruling didn't address gun bans on government property and that he is "confident that our local gun control measures are on sound legal footing and will survive legal challenges"."

By Paul Elias and Associated Press staff
current89

33 responses // NRA targets San Francisco gun ban

  • If Sean Taylor of the NFL would of had gun to protect himself in his home he might be alive today
    jeromecon
    2 responses to this
  • The NRA is wasting their time. San Francisco doesn't suffer fools gladly. They will have a fight on their hands.
    Marilynn_Murray
  • Sweet. Gun control is every bit as unconstitutional as the Patriot Act. Even if guns are illegal, criminals will always be able to get them one way or another. It's just like drugs. If you have one person out of 50 who would use a gun to harm someone, and nobody else out of the 50 has a gun, what's going to happen?
    Now, everyone else has a gun. Everyone can defend themselves.
    Dmitri_Molotov
  • Just like the wild west. Sounds fun.
    Marilynn_Murray
  • The NRA needs to get out of San Francisco's business. The people there don't want guns, and they don't want the NRA's crazy conservative ideas either.
    recommended by  Marilynn_Murray
    PoisonTheMonkey
  • Guns are not necessary for self-protection at all. Look at Europe and other developed nations that have long since banned guns, they don't suffer the same massacres and constant bloodshed that we have let happen for so long that we are becoming indifferent. If you support the NRA and that pointless and abundantly out-dated amendment than you support the death of those 15,000+ Americans killed by guns a year.
    recommended by  Marilynn_Murray
    fuckthechurch
    2 responses to this
  • Last week in SF a father and his son were shot to death because someone had road rage. People bitch about others abusing welfare, but the abuse of the right to bear arms is much more detrimental. Let SF make its own decisions.
    mayalynn
  • the only way i would ever even consider and i'm not even hinting at the way i would ever lay down my guns. unless from my cold dead hands. is if just like japan and england if the government/law enforcement personnel lay down theirs too. but see if no one is allowed to have them what about the guy who just happens to get them illegally like in SF. i dont really care what SF does but I would never live there. its kind of like nukes no body wants them but we all seem to want control over them just in case. i say strengthen the constitution not abolish it. we were warned by our forefathers and it was made for a reason. history repeats itself in circles. DIE ON YOUR FEET OR LIVE ON YOUR KNEES!
    7c0m9
    3 responses to this
  • I lived in San Francisco for many years and never felt afraid for my life because every yard bird in town wasn't packing a gun. Now I live in Texas and everyone has guns and even in my small town people shoot and kill other people over stupid stuff. You might get cold dead hands sooner than you think. Hand guns have nothing to do with hunting. They are to kill people.
    Marilynn_Murray
  • Who said handguns were for hunting?
    Dmitri_Molotov
  • I've carried a gun for 30 years and have used the threat it represents 13 times, and it has worked every time, to scare the bad guys away.
    In 1995, 10 states passed concealed carry laws at the same time, civilians have been killing their potential murderers ever since. The murder rate in this country used to be 48,000 /yr. Now, 26,000. With almost double the guns. Can't kill the person that would murder you? Your dead.
    wasser
    1 response to this
  • It is nice to know the number of murders that are prevented by being able to scare ones attacker away with a legal firearm, but how many people are accidentally killed by their own guns each year? How many kids find Mommy or Daddy's pistol loaded and decide to play cowboys and indians?

    On top of that, guns are highly overrated for self protection either at home or out in public. If you are attacked by someone with a knife, in order to make good use of your gun (other than for a bluff to maybe scare your attacker away) you need to be about 21 feet away from the attacker on average. At the average rate that an attacker advances, you need to be 21 feet away in order to draw your gun, take effective aim, fire, and get out of the way of the attackers continued momentum. This of coarse assumes that your gun is in the holster when you are attacked. You could be a person who just walks around town carrying your pistol in hand all day. The source for this immediate information was a police officer training video about the dangers of criminals with knives.

    Also for home defense, you likely want a shot gun, especially if you have a family or live with other people. The reason you would want a shotgun if you live with other people is penetration power. House walls are not designed to stop or absorb bullets and slugs, and unless you miss and get lucky by hitting a support behind the wall, that bullet is going to pass through that wall like a hot knife through butter. Shotguns firing shells will destroy your wall if you miss, but you will have much less penetration and much less risk to any family or roommates that live with you. Your aim does not have to be perfect as well with a shotgun. That scatter effect makes it much easier to maim or kill your target without having to take precise aim.
    Varex_Sythe
  • Gun control- the solution to a problem that does not exist.
    There is NO Constitutional anti gun law anywhere in this country.
    Go NRA. We either live in a free country or we don't. Libs want Bush impeached for doing things which are later determined to be unConstitutional. How about we impeach lawmakers who seek to destroy the civil rights of the people with gun laws.
    It's settled law folks. This is an individual right and the government shall not infringe on it. End of story. Either you consent to be a victim or throw the tyrants out.
    Paratus
  • ditto....Paratus
    Revolution9562
  • I'm almost positive that there are more children killed by irresponsible gun use each year than thwarted murderers.

    Question: why do people need assault weapons? I'm fine-ish with small caliber rifles, but why would someone, living in a country with world's most advanced military, need a Kalashinokov?
    mransom
  • may LA' RAZA begin and end in Ca.
    Blackfoot777
  • If gun control is a good thing then SF would not have any crime.....funny they seem to have plenty of violent crime. I don't understand how that is. Didn't anyone fail to mention to the criminals that they are not suppose to have guns?
    jason1973tl
    1 response to this
  • No I would most certainly only arm the smart people. Other than that, yea sounds like a plan.
    jason1973tl
  • I don't think gun control is so much a matter of removing all illegally owned guns, but rather is an attempt to make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns. Without gun control a criminal could just walk into any gun store and purchase a pistol to commit a crime with. With gun control laws criminals have to go through at least some hassle of either stealing the guns or purchasing the guns from illegal sellers.

    Also, what major city with or without such restrictive gun control laws doesn't have problems with violent crimes?
    Varex_Sythe
  • criminals certainly are not going to go to a gun shop to buy a gun. And, there will always be a market for them. Like drugs.....as long as the public enjoys getting high, there will always be a market. Always.
    Revolution9562
  • It boggles the mind to know that a lot of people still think guns are good. All it takes is a mental imbalance, or prejudice, or a bad day,... to turn that "self-defense" gunner into a murderer.

    Just because we have "The Right To Bear Arms", doesn't mean it's a good idea. That was a time when killing British, killing Native Americans, and enslaving Africans was deemed normal.

    It's also mind boggling to think that some people would be fine knowing that they killed someone's son, daughter, father, mother, etc., for whatever reason.

    Isn't death a bad thing?
    PajamaDan
  • Are we REALLY sick and tired of all of this gun violence that we see? I know I am. As an activist for a less violent world, the way I see it is that we have a great deal of work to do in order to reduce all of this gun violence and it's not going to happen unless we take action and take it NOW.

    What should we do? well whoever is serious and wants to actually do SOMETHING instead of nothing, the first step on the ladder begins in our very own homes, the second in our classrooms, via non-violence/conflict resolution classes.

    We need to educate our children on how to treat one another with respect, understanding and tolerance and we need a complete mindset change as we relate to relying upon guns and for that matter ALL lethal weapons to solve our problems and our differences. We need to replace lethal weapons with less than lethal weapons until guns filter down to where they become merely objects to be found in history books and collections. This is the ONLY way less people will be maimed and/or killed and our future generations will be able to perpetuate this beautiful planet that we so cherish.

    If I could re-write the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this is precisely what I would love to see:

    "We, the people of the United States, in order that we shall have the right to preserve a State free for all races, shall achieve this end by the use of less-lethal weaponry only for our continued survival as human beings. This free State entails our personal self-defense as well as our right to our food consumption. In keeping with current government law, if we so choose to possess a less-lethal weapon (be it either upon our persons or within our private homes), we are obligated to store these aforementioned weapons plus any ammo relating to its use in a manner which will serve to protect the welfare of a minor child."
    badthing
  • 15 states currently have laws that make placing a fire arm and ammunition in any place where a child may gain acces to it a felony so if you're really concerned about the number of accidents with guns that involve children maybe you should push for similair legislation in your home state, since in the states where these laws were passed the number of children killed in accidents with guns declined 17 percent on average. in addition, claiming that more children are killed in accidents with guns than the number of avoided murders is totally unsubstantiated when you consider the fact that the number of avoided murders that take place every year is impossible to calculate because they were AVOIDED.

    Likewise over 400,000 people a year are killed in car accidents. Do you know how many people die from guns; 11,000. Does this mean we should ban cars as well. Statistically they are a mucher greater threat to human life than guns in this country.

    The problem is not that people in this country choose to own guns. The problem is that people feel the need to kill each other which is largely a result of poverty and a lack of opportunity. Wealthy, successful individuals rarely see reason to murder each other. Violent crime can be decreased in this country by improving education and increasing the number of stable two parent families in poor demographics, but thats difficult. It takes time and money that we are not willing to spend and it won't happen overnight, so instead we infringe on everyone's freedoms while adding no appreciable improvement to the lives of individuals who would normally be affected by violent crime.
    niloc040389
  • This reminds me of the P2P file sharing debate. It seems important to me to separate the technology from the crimes committed with it.

    Make it hard for criminals to get guns but realize that guns are not likely to go away completely. Besides, anyone hellbent on killing people, will find a way, with or without guns. And even if you rid the world of guns and all we have are sticks, the people willing to pick up a stick and beat you to death for whatever reason will be the newest fear. Will we outlaw sticks? How about people with big hands?

    And lets not forget the possible corruption of our police and those who claim to protect us. If they are the only ones with guns, how long til "the squeaky wheel get " a bullet?

    Its not about guns. Its about violence, crime and oppression.

    There are some great comments here! I appreciate both sides to this issue because I dislike violence and oppression equally.

    My opinion is always changing as I find new perspectives and so I officially love current.com
    subsecret

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.