The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has proposed a sweeping ban on handguns, propelling one of the nation's most liberal cities back into the national spotlight with a gun control proposal far more severe than a typical waiting period or background check requirement.
The law would prohibit all residents from keeping handguns in their homes or businesses and bar the sale, manufacture and distribution of any firearms or ammunition of any kind in San Francisco.
It would become only the third major city after Washington D.C. and Chicago to implement an all-out ban on handguns, and the national gun lobby is already prepared to challenge the ban if voters approve it.
This attempt is not the first by the city to rid itself of handguns. In 1982, a city ordinance was overturned after a state court ruled that only the state Legislature could pass a measure that affect anyone who entered the city.
The supervisor who proposed the most recent ban, Chris Daly, appears to be flustered over rising crime rates.
"Up to this point, I don't think anyone has come up with anything that's working," Daly said. "This is my contribution to trying to figure out a way to turn back the tide of violence."
While last year's number of homicides is an increase from the previous year, it's comparable to other U.S. cities of similar size — roughly 750,000 residents.
Chuck Michel, a Los Angeles lawyer who represents the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said San Francisco's plan is ill-conceived and misplaced.
"It's turning firearms into a scapegoat for failed city policies," Michel said. "Criminals are never going to have any kind of problem getting the kind of guns they want."
Michael believes a ban would violate the Second Amendment and that cities do not have the authority to regulate firearms.
If approved by a majority of the city's voters in November, the law would take effect in January 2006. Residents, who have bought nearly 22,000 handguns since 1996,would have 90 days to relinquish their weapons.
Officials have not commented on the prospect of citizens willingly turning in their guns they say are used for nothing more than recreation and self-defense. So far on all accounts city officials appear to be optimistic with the 90-day window.
The ban would make an exception for police officers, security guards, military personnel and others who require guns for their job, but not for responsible law abiding citizens who wish to protect themselves and their families from home invaders and violent criminals. After all, homicides in San Francisco have increased slightly since last year.
Gun-control opponents argue such bans elsewhere have had little or no long-term effect on reducing homicides.
Washington D.C., notoriously known as America's murder capital banned handguns in 1976 and did immediately notice a small drop in homicides, by about three a month. What gun-control advocates don't mention, however, is that the population sharply declined after many citizens moved to other cities for reasons that include not wanting to live in an area that handicaps society by punishing non-offenders who own guns.
Since 1976 the pendulum has been shifting in the other direction, as no person entering D.C. is legally allowed to possess a handgun. Violent felons have apparently ignored the law, and now, naturally, make-up the vast majority of gun owners in D.C.
Last year, the district had 248 homicides, or 20.7 per month — a rate of 44 homicides per 100,000 residents. By comparison, San Francisco, has a rate of 9.2.
As for concealed-weapons permits, just 10 have been issued to private citizens throughout the city because the police have sole discretion, and approve or decline any application for no specific reason.
The Associated Press notes one of the very few residents allowed to carry for self-protection. Jack Hart, a former California Highway Patrol Officer of six years, said he generally carries a .357 semiautomatic handgun with him for protection and doesn't think the ban, if passed, will be allowed to stand.
"Only the lawful people will be deprived," he said while at the Pacific Rod and Gun Club in San Francisco. "The others, it won't affect them at all."
But gun-control advocates don't see the obvious logic. They don't look at the Washington D.C. scenario or understand that law abiding citizens don't commit crime. That criminals commit crime and when you take guns away from non-felons you give the edge to the felons.
One has to look no further than the "report cards" issued by the deceitful Brady Campaign to tell which states have the most gun control and consequently the most crime. Maryland received the highest grade (A-), even though it has the nation's second highest murder rate and highest robbery rate. However, states with low crime levels and few gun restrictions like Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Vermont received a "D" or "F."
As for the fate of San Francisco, it will be up to the voters to determine if the measure passes; forcing law abiding citizens to relinquish weapons that would otherwise be used for self-defense and recreational purposes. Time will soon tell if felons are licking their chops.
