Chris Daly’s Gun Ban – A VERY Bad Idea!

This is a blog entry that I didn’t have time to comment on when the issue first arose, and I am having a difficult time finding enough news articles to link to for your informational viewing. However, whatever I have been able to find, I am providing here for your perusal to help you to come to your own (logical) conclusion regarding this issue.

San Francisco stupidvisor Chris Daly spearheaded a ban on gun purchases and ownership, and the sale and manufacture of guns and ammunition in the San Francisco city limits in last November’s 2005 election that passed with 58% of the vote. It was known as Proposition H.

This article from the San Francisco Chronicle gives a little preface to what was to be expected come November 2005. It was reported by the Associated Press on 12/15/2004.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/12/15/state1859EST0145.DTL

Here is a website that was established by those who are opposed to Proposition H:
http://www.sfgunban.com/

For the text of the November 2005 San Francisco voter pamphlet:
http://sfpl4.sfpl.org/pdffiles/November8_2005.pdf
[Note: I had to do a bit of searching through the City of San Francisco’s website at http://www.sfgov.org to get to where the voter pamphlet was located! Be sure to select Elections from the City Agencies drop-down menu in the upper left hand corner of the page.]

Although there were other liberal stupidvisors who co-sponsored the city’s ordinance, Chris Daly was the biggest proponent of this and so I pin much of the blame on him for putting forth such a dumb idea that tramples every citizen’s Constitutional right to bear arms (excluding convicted criminals, of course).

What was his premise for the ordinance? If we banned all guns in the city (except for those who require the possession of firearms for their jobs such as police, security guards, etc.), then there would be less crime and less gun-related violence. Gosh, it’s so simple! It’s a great idea! How wonderful! WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, CHRIS DALY, UTOPIA?! GET A REALITY CHECK!

Daly, along with stupidvisors Bevan Dufty, Michela Alioto-Pier, Tom Ammiano and Matt Gonzalez sponsored the ordinance in this fashion so that it didn’t have to get a whole bunch of signatures from registered voters to be placed on the ballot. Can we say sneaky??? It should be noted, however, that Alioto-Pier withdrew her support for the measure before it was placed on the November ballot. I feel, despite the fact that 58% of voters approved the proposition, that if it had actually gone through the usual process of being placed on the ballot through signature-gathering, I doubt that it would have made it. What rational and law-abiding citizen would allow their rights to be taken away in such a wanton manner? There is a rule in the city charter that allows four supervisors to place a measure on the ballot without having to go through the usual process. In other words, the stupidvisors are saying: “We believe that the local citizens are too stupid to figure this out. We’ll place it on the ballot ourselves because we know what’s best for San Franciscans.”

Who do the stupidvisors think they are? Do they think they are gods who are above the law? Do they really believe can usurp state law in favor of creating their own local city ordinances? If that’s the case, why don’t they go whole hog and totally ignore federal laws and create their own set of laws so that it fits their own version of reality? California state law already specifically prohibits local jurisdictions from passing laws that may or will conflict with state law; so, why is San Francisco trying to cram Proposition H down our throats? Because it is “feel good” legislation that appears to be appealing to all and will solve all of our social ills. Also, the stupidvisors think that it will buy them brownie points with San Franciscans because it looks like they are being tough on crime.

What a crock of bull!

If they really wanted to be tough on crime, why don’t they prosecute those who are actually breaking the law and keeping them behind bars? The District Attorney’s office has been very weak in this area. Former D.A. Terence Hallinan and the current D.A., Kamala Harris, have not done enough in this area. Hallinan was weak in enforcing drug laws and solving homicides while Harris has done nothing to stand up for San Franciscans. She even refused to seek the death penalty on a parole violator who killed an undercover SFPD officer, Isaac Espinoza. This issue still remains a sore point in the police department and the officer’s family. See, if that criminal didn’t have access to the gun that killed Officer Espinoza, then he would be alive today.

San Francisco now joins two other cities, Washington, D.C. and Chicago, with handgun bans that basically do not work. Washington, D.C. banned handguns in 1976. According to the citations in the 2005 voter pamphlet on page 96, their crime rate rose to 60%. Chicago followed suit in 1982 and its crime rate also shot up (no pun intended) to 38% in 2003 compared to pre-1982 statistics. The stupidvisors basically pushed this ordinance by using emotional appeals instead of logical thought.

They used fear tactics and slippery slope arguments to get what they wanted. On page 97, under Proponents Argument in Favor of Proposition H, stupidvisor Chris Daly and the Coalition to Ban Handgun Violence make this argument: “…The New England Journal of Medicine found that a handgun in the home makes it 43 times more likely that a friend, family member or acquaintance will be killed than an intruder. In addition, suicide mortality increases fivefold with a handgun.” This excerpt is misleading because there is no way that they can go into greater detail on these points in a voter pamphlet. If one is to make this kind of argument, one needs to be able to explain the factors that go behind the statistics. Even I can’t go into great detail here in my blog without totally boring you, the reader, to death.

Well, now that San Franciscans have passed Proposition H, the Board of Stupidvisors want it implemented ASAP. It was supposed to take effect on January 1, 2006, but was already being challenged by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Years before, I was a skeptic about what the NRA did, but in this particular case, I agree with their stance that this is bad legislation. The stupidvisors totally ignored facts and statistics which show that this sort of law just doesn’t work. Now, its implementation has been delayed and is awaiting its turn in our courts system.

Why would criminals turn in their guns? The upholding of Proposition H would allow them to have unfettered control over their selected turf after people have been stripped of their firearms, those which were LEGALLY PURCHASED by LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE. There simply is no incentive at all for anybody to turn in their guns. Do you want to surrender your legally purchased firearm and leave yourself defenseless against criminals? Under this law, even those who are simply gun collectors – antique firearms and those guns which are now banned in the state of California including certain classes of guns – would have to turn in their weapons. If I were such a collector (which I am not), I would be thinking, “Hmm, I spent thousands of dollars over the years to amass a beautiful collection and now I have to lose it all. What should I do?” I would probably tell the stupidvisors a resounding “FUCK YOU!!!”

I asked a colleague at work whose partner has amassed a rather large collection of guns over the years for his opinion on Proposition H. Even he said that he felt that it was wrong for the stupidvisors to put such an ordinance in the books.

Remember, criminals are criminals for a reason: They don’t follow the rules like everybody else. And after getting in trouble with the law they continue to disobey the rules. In other words, they can’t play nicely with the rest of us. Also, does Chris Daly really think that they purchase their guns like everybody else? I mean, they obtain their guns ILLEGALLY, so they’re STILL committing a crime. And, what makes him think that they’re going to suddenly have a change of heart and decide to turn in those guns? To avoid “getting in trouble?” I can just hear them now, “Oh no! Chris Daly says I’ll get in trouble if I don’t turn in my gun! What should I do? I’m so scared! Bwahahahahaaa!!!” Do you see my point?

So, to subject the local citizenry to such an ordinance would be akin to tossing somebody into a lion pit with only a dinner fork as a weapon to defend themselves. Their rights are being decided by people (read: liberals) who are out of touch with reality, who think they are acting in the best interests of the people of San Francisco, and believe that they can do whatever they want despite what state and federal law may say about the passing of such ordinances.

One has to remember that as long as there is a liberal board of stupidvisors, they will NEVER act in the best interests of San Franciscans because they are acting only in their own best interests. They want to hold that office, the power that goes with it, and they also want to get that nice cushy $100,000+ salary and not be held accountable to anybody because they feel they know it all. They make emotional appeals that have little or no basis in fact and actually conflict with facts and reality (and, in this case, state law).

If they really cared, they would never have put Proposition H on the ballot. In this case, Chris Daly’s overzealousness in backing this ordinance is a travesty against law-abiding San Franciscans. For that, Mr. Daly, you should be fired as a stupidvisor!