Hand Gun Ban Proposition H

This November San Francisco residents will vote on a gun control measure unlike any other that made its way in the headlines with former President Bill Clinton and the Republican majority in Congress battled over the waiting period necessary to perform background checks. The ex-president and most Democratic colleagues favored a three-day waiting period while Republicans insisted upon a more limited 24-hour waiting period or instant background checks.

San Francisco's gun control measure, Proposition H, would impose a ban on the sale, distribution, and possession of handguns within the city, with exceptions being made for government employees like "peace officers" (the police), animal control officers, the military, and security personnel who use them for their job at public or private business. If passed, the ordinance would go into effect on January 1, 2006. Residents would have 90 days to surrender their firearm to the San Francisco Police Department or the San Francisco Sheriffs Department, something even Chicago and Washington D.C., did not require from those who already possessed those weapons when they passed their own hand gun bans.

The bill sets no penalty upon noncompliance but instructs the mayor to consult with the Chief of Police, Sherriff's Office, and District of Attorney before submitting a list of penalty and enforcement recommendations to the Board of Supervisors within the 30-day time limit. And the Board of Supervisors would have 90 days from the day the law went into effect to impose a set of penalties for gun violations.

Few outside of San Francisco expect this measure to fail at the ballot box. San Francisco is a liberal and anti-gun city. It was endorsed by the San Francisco Democratic Party, and the Committee to Ban Handgun Violence. Supervisors Tom Ammiano, Bevan Duffy, and Chris Daly support the measure the measure as well. The Democrats know their politics. Its opponents include the San Francisco Republican Party, the National Rifle Association, the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, the homosexual gun rights organization Pink Pistols, and the Coalition Against Prohibition, a self-described "non-partisan grassroots organization that reflects the diverse population of San Francisco."

Supporters refer to a San Francisco Department of Health Report published in 2002 to make their case that hand gun incidents account for the overwhelming majority of fire-arm related injuries and death, a statistic that is cited in Proposition H. Supervisor Chris Daly says the handgun restriction could reduce suicides and the number of domestic arguments that escalate into murder

In theory, handgun bans like the one proposed in San Francisco might reduce the homicide risk in the home but the anti-handgun activists may be wrong. Law-abiding citizens who could not by law own a handgun for homeland security could purchase a shotgun and, in the heat of a serious argument, the shotgun or rifle might go off. San Francisco residents who want to curtail domestic violence by reducing the number of lethal devices on the home would presumably want a more inclusive ban than the one now proposed. The same logic for banning handguns can certainly be applied to rifles and shotguns. Or should the Board of Supervisors go after stores that sell sharp cutting knives? Anyone for banning the sale of cutting knives with a blunt point?

The need for this ban is questionable. Responsible gunowers presumably would lock their shotgun (or handgun for that matter) away and keep it out of reach so it cannot be used during a heated argument. More often than not, these gunowers won't use their weapons though it might help them feel more secure.

But whether San Francisco passed a theoretically more effective handgun ban or the one now under consideration , enforcement by the police will be minimal at best. One could not expect the city's police officers (or should I say, "peace officers") to barge into the homes of citizens and confiscate their weapons without a warrant and a reason to believe that they do have a firearm.

The "peace officers" will spend their time inspecting gun stores to make sure these weapons aren't sold and add a possession of illegal weapons charge to those implicated in a robbery, assault, rape, or homicide - the very people who wouldn't surrender their handguns within the 90-day amnesty period anyway.

Background checks would provide law enforcement and sellers the tools necessary to keep these weapons out of the hands of known criminals, newly-released prisoners, pyschotic people, and those who are too immature to handle the awesome responsibilities associated with gun ownership.

Those who support firearms restrictions are of course making a broader point. Guns have but one function which the state has every reason to minimize - they are used to kill or to ward off those who would kill by functioning as a threat to kill. But as with any device, a person is needed. One can use the gun sparingly or every day. One may use it for hunting, for warding off the home intruder or suspected group of thugs following him or her on the street, for law enforcement, as backup to the military if there is an invasion or a war, or as a means to overthrow a corrupt, oppressive and tyrannical regime. Or, of course, for the illicit purposes that most residents fear.

Criminals prefer handguns because it is easier to conceal handguns than rifles or shotguns. I don't know if this is true or not. I guess if we were talking about a surprise attack on a rival gang member that might be true but that might not be an advantage in a robbery. The smart robber knows he or she would need to wear a mask and that alone should warn the store owner to alert the police right away.

But say they are the weapon of choice for criminals. Say they had no access to handguns. Criminals in the past used rifles and shotguns and, if they needed to do without the handgun or more sophisticated weaponry, they could purchase these rifles or shotguns again. The typical store owner may concern him or herself with the easy acess to guns but only for his or her own safety.They want loitering teenagers removed from their property for the same reason.

Police can address these concerns by enforcing late night curfews by arresting loitering teens and have their parents pick them up at the county jail or the local precinct and increase patrols at crime-ridden areas. And they could address those concerns by forbidding their residents and those who travel through it from carrying rifles, shotguns, handguns, or any concealed gun in public without depriving responsible gun owers a handgun for their own safety.

San Francisco residents will nevertheless vote for Proposition H. The framers of our Constitution would be turning in their graves. They knew what it was like to live in an oppressive state. Their fathers came from countries where religious and economic freedom was suppressed, and where trumped up charges were used to execute or incarcerate indefinitely political opponents. They carried guns to hunt and defend themselves, and when George Washington formed an army for the war for independence, local citizens formed their own militias and joined in the war effort. They didn't rely upon the government alone.

San Francisco's residents are rejecting their understanding of government nature. The Framers' jealously guarded their rights from the government but the residents in this Californian city have a mentality that will allow them to yield to powers reserved for a police state.

The PoliticalHeretic does not support them in this endeavor and hopes other cities and towns do not follow suit and impose broad bands like this one. Like the sodomy laws which the Supreme Court struck down in 2003, these laws impose a burden upon the freedom of those who do no harm to the public good. And maybe one day, a Supreme Court will reverse its own course on gun rights and strike down as unconstitutional laws banning hand guns.