SAF sues to stop disarmament in San Francisco - The Orange Mane

W*GS · 11-09-2005, 10:38 AM

NEWS RELEASE

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION SUES TO STOP VICTIM DISARMAMENT IN SAN FRANCISCO

BELLEVUE, WA – Despite opposition from police, media organizations and various organizations to an ill-advised ban on handguns and the sale of firearms and ammunition, Proposition H passed in San Francisco Tuesday, and today, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is joining in a lawsuit to challenge this measure in court.

"If you ban firearms, criminals will not obey the law and only law-abiding citizens will be victimized, first by the ordinance, which we believe violates state statute, and then by the outlaws," said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "In addition to all the gun rights organizations and various other groups, the San Francisco Police Officers Association opposed the ban and so did the media. Mayor Gavin Newsom, Senator Dianne Feinstein and others acknowledge that the measure is pre-empted by state law.

"If this measure were to go unchallenged, San Francisco would become a magnet for criminals," Gottlieb said. "That's a high price for law-abiding San Franciscans to pay, just so the city's social Utopians who pushed this ban can feel good about themselves, because that's really all this ban amounts to ; a feel-good act of symbolism without substance."

Proposition H was authored by San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, who insisted that the law is necessary to reduce the number of firearms in the city. The law prohibits sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city and bans possession of handguns.

"The proponents of this initiative acknowledge it will only ‘reduce' the number of firearms in the city," Gottlieb observed. "Enactment of this measure will leave guns in the hands of the criminal element, while disarming the public. Even Daly admits that it will not solve the city's violent crime problem.

"We are going to court in an effort to protect the rights of law-abiding San Franciscans," Gottlieb stated. "Twenty years ago, we successfully battled an earlier gun ban in this city, and we're willing to fight this battle a second time because it is the right thing to do."
-END-

Copyright © 2005 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-7012
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
email: InformationRequest@saf.org

Rascal · 11-09-2005, 10:52 AM

Reason number 1,000,001 why I would never live in San Fran.

It's in the freaking constitution...unless you want a new one get over it.

enjolras · 11-09-2005, 03:15 PM

completely agree.. I dig San Fran (its a great place), but this is overstepping a few bounds.

Garcia Bronco · 11-10-2005, 07:28 AM

What a bunch of dumb people....especially when you consider they're in a prime position to get rocked by a national disaster...and if social order breaks down like in NO...you better believe I'm going to have a piece for protection..

W*GS · 11-14-2005, 12:49 PM

SAF SAYS SUPERVISOR DALY SHOULD PAY SAN FRANCISCO'S LEGAL BILLS FOR LAWSUIT

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today suggested that San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, author of that city's ballot measure to ban guns, should pay for the city's defense of that proposition in court and spare the taxpayers that expense.

"Supervisor Daly cooked up this gun ban measure and now that it is being challenged in court, he ought to personally cover the legal bills," said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "San Francisco taxpayers, many of them gun owners who will be adversely affected by this ban measure, should not have to pay for Daly's folly.

"Local news organizations, the San Francisco Police Officers' Association, Senator Dianne Feinstein and even Mayor Gavin Newsom all said Proposition H was not going to stand muster under the state preemption law," Gottlieb noted, "but Daly pushed it anyway. There is no way that San Francisco taxpayers should pay the legal bills that are already mounting up."

One day after San Francisco voters approved the measure, it was challenged in court by SAF, the National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the California Association o f Firearm Retailers and several citizens. A similar ban was successfully challenged in court 22 years ago by SAF.

"Chris Daly's measure is anti-choice," Gottlieb observed. "The reason that we've gone to court is to protect the citizens' right to choose whether they want to have the means to defend themselves against criminal attack. We believe that passage of Proposition H is not only contrary to state law, it sends the wrong message to criminals in the Bay area that they will have a risk-free working environment, where their victims will be unable to protect themselves, their families and their homes. If this stands, what other choices will Daly want to take out of the hands of his constituents? What else will he tell them they can't do in their own homes?

"We're not saying everyone should have a gun," Gottlieb explained. "Our lawsuit to stop enactment of this ban is to protect the right of every San Franciscan to make that choice. If Chris Daly sincerely bel ieves it is best to deny his constituents the right to choose, then he should finance the legal battle out of his own pocket."
-END-

< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >
Copyright © 2005 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-7012
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
email: InformationRequest@saf.org

enjolras · 11-14-2005, 12:55 PM

Of course.. I recently saw a video (floating around the net) which showed a crazy (probably drunk) redneck taunt a police officer who had pulled him over... he then went to his truck and pulled out a AK-47 and proceeded to murder the police officer. Its the most shocking.. sadistic..thing I've ever seen.

Intellectually I support the right to bear arms... I really do. But when you see something like that its so hard to rail against it. To hear a human being scream the way this guy did as he was shot to death...its traumatizing. There is a wife without a husband and a child without a father (she was expecting at the time) all because this jackass had a right to carry something that serves no other purpose than to kill.

note: Watching videos like this isn't something I generally do for fun. It was mismarked as something rather different...

enjolras · 11-14-2005, 12:56 PM

Quote:

"We're not saying everyone should have a gun," Gottlieb explained. "Our lawsuit to stop enactment of this ban is to protect the right of every San Franciscan to make that choice. If Chris Daly sincerely bel ieves it is best to deny his constituents the right to choose"

MAN this argument sounds familiar...

W*GS · 11-14-2005, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enjolras

There is a wife without a husband and a child without a father (she was expecting at the time) all because this jackass had a right to carry something that serves no other purpose than to kill.

Murder is a terrible thing - regardless of the instrument used.

Would it be any less traumatic for the wife and kid if the LEO had been killed by an idiot driving drunk? Or stabbed to death?

Rascal · 11-14-2005, 01:19 PM

Cars and knives should be banned.

Don't even get me started about fast food...that stuff is deadly.

alkemical · 11-14-2005, 01:53 PM

if you pass a law to ban guns, do criminals care?

11-09-2005, 10:38 AM	#1
W*GS Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 19,509	SAF sues to stop disarmament in San Francisco NEWS RELEASE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION SUES TO STOP VICTIM DISARMAMENT IN SAN FRANCISCO BELLEVUE, WA – Despite opposition from police, media organizations and various organizations to an ill-advised ban on handguns and the sale of firearms and ammunition, Proposition H passed in San Francisco Tuesday, and today, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is joining in a lawsuit to challenge this measure in court. "If you ban firearms, criminals will not obey the law and only law-abiding citizens will be victimized, first by the ordinance, which we believe violates state statute, and then by the outlaws," said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "In addition to all the gun rights organizations and various other groups, the San Francisco Police Officers Association opposed the ban and so did the media. Mayor Gavin Newsom, Senator Dianne Feinstein and others acknowledge that the measure is pre-empted by state law. "If this measure were to go unchallenged, San Francisco would become a magnet for criminals," Gottlieb said. "That's a high price for law-abiding San Franciscans to pay, just so the city's social Utopians who pushed this ban can feel good about themselves, because that's really all this ban amounts to ; a feel-good act of symbolism without substance." Proposition H was authored by San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, who insisted that the law is necessary to reduce the number of firearms in the city. The law prohibits sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city and bans possession of handguns. "The proponents of this initiative acknowledge it will only ‘reduce' the number of firearms in the city," Gottlieb observed. "Enactment of this measure will leave guns in the hands of the criminal element, while disarming the public. Even Daly admits that it will not solve the city's violent crime problem. "We are going to court in an effort to protect the rights of law-abiding San Franciscans," Gottlieb stated. "Twenty years ago, we successfully battled an earlier gun ban in this city, and we're willing to fight this battle a second time because it is the right thing to do." -END- Copyright © 2005 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved. Second Amendment Foundation James Madison Building 12500 N.E. Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-7012 Toll Free: 800-426-4302 FAX: 425-451-3959 email: InformationRequest@saf.org

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-09-2005, 10:52 AM	#2
Rascal RIP Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 16,581 Adopt-a-Bronco: Turf	Reason number 1,000,001 why I would never live in San Fran. It's in the freaking constitution...unless you want a new one get over it.

11-09-2005, 03:15 PM	#3
enjolras Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 6,940	completely agree.. I dig San Fran (its a great place), but this is overstepping a few bounds.

11-10-2005, 07:28 AM	#4
Garcia Bronco Hokie since 1993 Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 45,991 Adopt-a-Bronco: Tom Jackson	What a bunch of dumb people....especially when you consider they're in a prime position to get rocked by a national disaster...and if social order breaks down like in NO...you better believe I'm going to have a piece for protection..

11-14-2005, 12:49 PM	#5
W*GS Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 19,509	SAF SAYS SUPERVISOR DALY SHOULD PAY SAN FRANCISCO'S LEGAL BILLS FOR LAWSUIT BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today suggested that San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, author of that city's ballot measure to ban guns, should pay for the city's defense of that proposition in court and spare the taxpayers that expense. "Supervisor Daly cooked up this gun ban measure and now that it is being challenged in court, he ought to personally cover the legal bills," said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "San Francisco taxpayers, many of them gun owners who will be adversely affected by this ban measure, should not have to pay for Daly's folly. "Local news organizations, the San Francisco Police Officers' Association, Senator Dianne Feinstein and even Mayor Gavin Newsom all said Proposition H was not going to stand muster under the state preemption law," Gottlieb noted, "but Daly pushed it anyway. There is no way that San Francisco taxpayers should pay the legal bills that are already mounting up." One day after San Francisco voters approved the measure, it was challenged in court by SAF, the National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the California Association o f Firearm Retailers and several citizens. A similar ban was successfully challenged in court 22 years ago by SAF. "Chris Daly's measure is anti-choice," Gottlieb observed. "The reason that we've gone to court is to protect the citizens' right to choose whether they want to have the means to defend themselves against criminal attack. We believe that passage of Proposition H is not only contrary to state law, it sends the wrong message to criminals in the Bay area that they will have a risk-free working environment, where their victims will be unable to protect themselves, their families and their homes. If this stands, what other choices will Daly want to take out of the hands of his constituents? What else will he tell them they can't do in their own homes? "We're not saying everyone should have a gun," Gottlieb explained. "Our lawsuit to stop enactment of this ban is to protect the right of every San Franciscan to make that choice. If Chris Daly sincerely bel ieves it is best to deny his constituents the right to choose, then he should finance the legal battle out of his own pocket." -END- < Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family > Copyright © 2005 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved. Second Amendment Foundation James Madison Building 12500 N.E. Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-7012 Toll Free: 800-426-4302 FAX: 425-451-3959 email: InformationRequest@saf.org

11-14-2005, 12:55 PM	#6
enjolras Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 6,940	Of course.. I recently saw a video (floating around the net) which showed a crazy (probably drunk) redneck taunt a police officer who had pulled him over... he then went to his truck and pulled out a AK-47 and proceeded to murder the police officer. Its the most shocking.. sadistic..thing I've ever seen. Intellectually I support the right to bear arms... I really do. But when you see something like that its so hard to rail against it. To hear a human being scream the way this guy did as he was shot to death...its traumatizing. There is a wife without a husband and a child without a father (she was expecting at the time) all because this jackass had a right to carry something that serves no other purpose than to kill. note: Watching videos like this isn't something I generally do for fun. It was mismarked as something rather different...

11-14-2005, 01:19 PM	#9
Rascal RIP Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 16,581 Adopt-a-Bronco: Turf	Cars and knives should be banned. Don't even get me started about fast food...that stuff is deadly.

11-14-2005, 01:53 PM	#10
alkemical Guerrilla Ontologist rorrim\|mirror Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Future Posts: 42,694 Adopt-a-Bronco: Prima Materia	if you pass a law to ban guns, do criminals care?