Skip to comments.THE LINE OF FIRE:Some citizens fear for safety if courts uphold S.F.'s voter-approved ban on handgun
Posted on 12/05/2005 7:38:31 AM PST by SmithL
For a long time, Margaret Hurst lived in fear.
Gangs control turf just a few blocks from her Mission District apartment in San Francisco, and she's sure a neighbor across the street deals drugs. Her building was broken into four times in one year. She saw teenagers on her street display a gun. And while she was stopped at a red light one day, a man tried to punch in her car window in a case of road rage.
So she bought a handgun. Now Hurst is no longer scared.
"I'll tell you one thing. If I'm going down, I'm taking them with me," said 49-year-old Hurst, who is about as un-Charlton Heston as any woman with a British accent, braided bun and long flowing skirt could be.
After a heated campaign brought the national debate over gun control to San Francisco, the city's famously liberal voters passed a law last month banning the sale, manufacture and distribution of firearms and ammunition within city limits. The measure, which takes effect Jan. 1, also makes it illegal for residents to possess handguns.
And as that date approaches, handgun owners like Hurst are becoming increasingly fearful of the consequences.
"We're exactly the kind of people that should have weapons. We're vulnerable," Hurst said during a recent conversation in her cozy apartment, where she lives with her partner and their two cats. "The guns are not going away unless they absolutely have to."
When 58 percent of the city's voters approved the handgun ban, San Francisco joined only two other cities in the nation with similar laws, Chicago and Washington, D.C.
The day after the election, the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates filed a lawsuit challenging the ban, saying it oversteps local government authority and intrudes into an area regulated by
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
There is a lot of confusion about what is a man and what is a woman in San Francisco.
Exactly. Liberal laws are intended to make the people passing them feel good rather than to actually have any positive effect.
A family member or friend who is knowledgeable can teach someone the basics of the individual gun they have.
.It's not like they are going to go out in the streets as professionals do,kick down doors and fight crime or fight gun battles. Most simply just want to be able to protect themselves in their home.
I do not think it ought to be required to take a firearms course to own a weapon.
There are people from from their teens through their eighties who have and do defend themselves and their families effectively on a daily basis if you read some of the self defense news articles available.
While professional instruction is a plus and is desired if it can be afforded it should not stop someone from being able to defend themselves.
As for the lady in the photograph she is at least doing one of the most important and most often neglected things that is required to be competent with a handgun and that is practice.
Yes her thumb from the photograph [though they can be deceiving at times] is in a bad position. however we do not know it is her weak hand as I look I think what I see which makes it look odd is the grip of a southpaw or left-handed person. Two members of my family are left-handed and if this is the case at least it explains the left thumb on top.
We also do not know at what stage this person is in with her association with firearms and she may be firing for the first time and in the presence of someone who is giving her instruction.
I do not want the elderly who are one of the high risk groups to be targeted by criminals or women to think that learning to defend yourself requires some big expensive training course to be able to defend yourself with a handgun nor should they be required to complete some rigorous course that may be beyond their physical ability to do so.
. If we are not careful we will regulate the ones who need it the most out of the right and ability to defend themselves ie: the frail, the elderly, women, and the handicapped.
The Second Amendment - Commentaries
Thanks for the ping.
The second silver lining to this story (the first being that Hurst may buy a rifle to replace the handgun stolen by the city) is that Hurst and her girlfriend may finally figure out that liberals are willing to sacrafice them (two people who I bet vote a straight liberal ticket and think conservatives are gay bashing neocons) on the alter of political correctness.
These two ladies may be moving toward the libertarian camp.
I was waiting for someone to propose this epiphany, but I wonder, as Hurst mentions that she stores her firearm and ammunition separately. It appears she is of the understanding that San Fransicko criminals honor time outs to load.
Re: #23, all excellent points, I have great suspicions that required training is really about incremental discouragement rather than safety.
Looks like someone forgot about NYC
"as Hurst mentions that she stores her firearm and ammunition separately."
Handgun is in the right pocket, magazine in the left or handgun in the holster, magazines in the counter balancing ammo pouch.
The effect desired by liberal morons is a change from a Constitutional Republic to a Marxist Community-based Utopia. They need to disarm the sheep first.
Oh, that's just ridiculous. Way overkill. Nobody would ever...uh...
How much are they going for?
I'm still planning on their .50 AE upper for a future project. Next upgrade for the Mistress is converting her over to an M-4gery "Space Gun".
I checked the site. $1650 for a semiauto. 18 rounds of .458? I figure I'd get the same effect by rolling my truck over my shoulder about ten times. But it'd sure take out those squirrels...
Cans aren't illegal, in some States, just darn hard to get due to paperwork from the Feds.
Since Ms. Hurst knows about the drug dealers living across the street from her apartment, I assume that SF PD also knows; what the hell is Mr. Daly doing about that?
Sadly lots of libs have left San Fran and Kalifornia for surrounding states so they are all getting more liberal. Washington just passed a Kali style anti-smoking law that is the most strict in the nation. Oregon is far gone, though they haven't attacked gun ownership yet. I feel it is only a matter of time in both states. Because SOCIALISM is the new norm in the USA, along with BUSYBODY BIG MOMism I'm not sure there is really anywhere left to go.
I think they have it. Obviously the Constitutional Republic is hurting big time. Everything from the Fed to agricultural subsidies, to welfare, to social security, to medicare, to NPR, etc, etc.
As I said elsewhere FDR won. We're a post-Constitutional mobocracy now.