Posted on 05/16/2007 7:41:35 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
(CBS 5) SAN FRANCISCO -- On Wednesday, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced a new round of gun control measures. The announcement comes nearly one year after a judge struck down a law banning handgun possession in San Francisco.
"In the last 24 months, just to give you perspective, we've taken more guns off the street than we have in the last decade," Newsom said.
A total of 2,262 guns since the crackdown began.
One part of the measure bans guns from any city owned property, not only in buildings like city hall, but also city parks.
Guns are already banned at some city buildings, such as schools.
Mayor Newsom hopes to extend the ban to public housing complexes, but federal laws make that complicated.
The proposed legislation would also require people who commit crimes with guns to sign up with the police department, then probation officers could keep better tabs on them.
Another aspect would require all gun owners to store their arms with a trigger lock or in a lock box. Authorities say lock boxes would help to keep legal guns from being stolen and then later used illegally.
The idea is to remind legal gun owners how to behave.
"Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs," District Attorney Kamala Harris said.
San Francisco's only gun shop is also a target. The proposed legislation would require it and any future gun shop to send the authorities a gun sales list every six months.
Even though criminals already don't follow the law, the mayor believes any gun crackdown makes the city safer.
"It is fair to say that a majority of gun crime is committed with illegal guns," Harris said.
Are they supposed to sign up before or after they commit their crimes?
This will save the taxpayers a lot of money.
They won't have to spend money any more on investigations, arrests or trials.
All the police have to do now is sit around, eat donuts, and wait for the criminals to come sign up.
The mayor is psychotic and unfit for office. He is suffering from delusions and cognitive dissonance.
My GAWD..!! What if I LEGALLY POSSESS an SUV?????
Are you going to come to my home and check if I'm operating it responsibly?
Forgive me but....Kamala...you are an idiot!!
What. An. Idiot. San Francisco is living proof that Darwin was wrong.
How very compassionate of the city that shouts from every mountaintop about how compassionate it is....job one is to disarm the poor.
Take away the guns from those who need the most protection because they are the most likely to be victimized by crime, the poor and the minorities.
Hitler and Goebbels would be so very, very proud.
You ask, "have you ever been there"? Yes, I have. I didn't find it so romantic, I didn't find it terribly exciting, nor did I find it that scenic. I found it offensive, and hard to get around!
Strong statement, yes. But, it is what I perceive...sorry.
You have got to be f**kin kidding me. A politician can actually make a statement like this in this country without fear of any repercussion from their constituents?
SF is an embarrassment! All our brave fighting men who died to protect our freedoms! The citizens of San Francisco just lay down and give it away!
Yea a government owned book from a government owned library will put them into a panic.
Clinton tried this under Cumo when he was over HUD. I do not think it passed the stink test. Clinton was horrible on individual rights espically for the poor black people.
ATTENTION OAKLAND RESIDENTS:
San Fransisco will soon be a Gun-Free Disarmed Victim Zone.
Free Plasma TV Day TBA...
I'm amazed that the gun prohibition in or on city owned property are not already on SF's lawbooks. Even here in relatively gun-friendly GA I can't legally carry my concealed (or unconcealed) weapon on state, county, or city property even though I have a valid CCW permit.
Sounds like Rudy Giuliani.
What, pray tell, would be wrong with just locking violent armed criminals up for life, or at least for very long periods of time, as was once common practice in America? A convicted serial killer on parole could report to his probation officer every day of the week and still kill people every night without the officer knowing anything about it. Taking away his right to possess guns is about as effective at keeping him disarmed as is me telling my 4 year-old grandson that he can't jump up and down on the new sofa.
No-knock, no-knock...
“Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs,” District Attorney Kamala Harris said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think I saw her on TV one time,,,hard to remember...
Shouldn't "authorities" also say that having your gun locked away in a lockbox is a good way to make sure that it isn't of any use as protection from criminal home invaders who usually don't call before coming over to visit?
No trigger locks or lockboxes are in use in my house. I would probably have trouble dropping off to sleep at night without my trusty S&W .38 Special lying at ready on my bedside table, and I don't even live in a big crime-ridden city like SF.
"sweeps can occur where consent has been given. That consent can take several forms. It may be consent that is given in advance as an element of a lease where people in the agreement to sign a lease for a building sign a consent that would allow searches for weapons just as they allow consent for searches -- for maintenance problems, inspections that are now a standard part of a lease. "
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.