Janie's Got A Gun

I just heard that yesterday the city of San Francisco voted to ban all guns in the city. No one is allowed to own a gun, make a gun, sell ammunition, sell a gun, or carry a gun. No one in the entire city except the police. Oh yeah, and the thugs. The gang members and drug dealers that carry unlicensed weapons with the serial numbers filed off. But Joe Neighbor can't keep on, registered or not, in his own home. Not for hunting, not for target shooting, not for protecting his family. Bob Shopowner can't keep one behind the counter for the next time he gets held up. Only the cops. And if you live or work in San Fransisco and currently own a licensed gun, you have until April 1 to turn it in.

WHAT THE HELL? Did the people of San Fransisco forget all about a little thing called THE SECOND AMENDMENT?! I don't get it. My first thought, when I heard this, was that of course this is unconstitutional and it will be surely taken to the Supreme Court and struck down. But then I found out that it's not just the wacky tree-hugging San Franciscans that have done this. Washington D.C. and Chicago both have similar gun bans currently in effect! Unbelievable. What happens when, God forbid, Frisco has a massive earthquake and the place turns into what we saw in New Orleans after Katrina. You say "Oh, the police will have guns to stop the looting." As we saw in New Orleans, THEY WON'T BE THERE!

Why did our forefathers enact the second amendment? Because they wanted the people to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Think that's unnecessary in this day of civility and democracy? Think again. What were the first things Hitler and Stalin did when they came to power? Got rid of all the citizens' guns. They people were defenseless.

My husband will probably read this and laugh, knowing how I feel about guns. I admit, I don't want one in my house ever. I am not comfortable with the idea of Nathan playing in other kid's houses where there are guns. I'm glad Mike is the oddball of his family that doesn't hunt. While I think learning to shoot a handgun at a target would be very cool, I don't want one in my home because WAY too many accidents happen with guns at home. But I believe in my right to have one. And if I were living in downtown San Fransisco or Washington where I know the bad guys have them, I might have one too.


Bill said...

Think "choice."
Now you have your choice of whether to live in a city where guns are not allowed in the public's hands or a state (Florida) where it is legal for residents who "perceive" you to be a threat to legally shoot you to death. Or you can live in a state which does neither. Isn't it nice to have a choice?

Mainline Mom said...

Not everybody gets to choose where they live. You have to have some means to make choices like that. What Frisco has done is 100% unconstitutional. If you live there you no longer have the legal choice of whether or not to own a gun. You can use the same arguments pro-abortionists use...isn't outlawing legal gun ownership with licenses and people who use them responsibly with safety training going to drive up the use of guns illegally and hence create more danger?

Mike said...

What if Kansas passed a law outlawing abortions? Wouldn't it be nice to have the choice to live in a state that didn't allow abortions?

Only in Bill's world would taking something away from us constitute giving us a choice.

MCANDOU said...

I'm like you. I don't want to own a gun. Don't want it my house. Don't want to hold a gun. Don't want to fire one. But I do want to have the option to buy one if I so choose. I've even thought of joining the NRA.

I don't see how taking guns from law abiding citizens makes the world a better place.

blogawakening said...

The far left's platform is the party of absolutely no choice (except abortion). No choice of health care, no choice of gun ownership, no choice of retirement accounts, no choice of giving freely because you're taxed up to your eyeballs. The list is long and the concept is called socialism. San Fran just invited a host of criminals and misfits to make a new home on the left coast.

Alisa said...

I just want to know where politicians get the idea that they're more powerful than our constitution? And why hasn't someone brought this to the supreme court? They've brought gay marriages that far, why not violations of our rights granted to us through that document?

I'm like you, I don't own a gun and probably won't ever but it's my right to have that choice.

Legal gun owners don't run around killing people. It's illegal weapons that do. Getting rid of legal weapons isn't going to solve the problem on the street.

The Attractive Nuisance said...

It probably will go to the Supreme Court eventually, but that takes a long, long, long time. It also requires an entity (such as a private citizen, or possibly a group) to file a lawsuit starting all the way down at the lowest state or federal court, depending on who has jurisdiction based on the types of claims brought. If the law just went into effect, it will probably remain in effect for months or years until it can work its way up through the judicial chain of command to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court hears fewer and fewer cases as time goes on, and they have complete discretion whether or not to grant certiorari on any given case. If other cities have similar bans (I believe but am not 100% certain that New York bans handguns within city limits if you don't have some kind of special permit above and beyond the normal gun licenses) and the Supreme Court hasn't struck them down as unconstitutional, it's possible that they don't believe these laws are unconstitutional, or that they are waiting for the circuit courts to tease out all of the arguments before weighing in.

Since the Supreme Court requires someone to actually file a lawsuit before they could rule on this issue, it's also possible that Congress might act to legislatively overrule San Francisco's law, though this also seems unlikely if there is a similar law in place right in Congress's backyard of Washington, D.C.

Personally, I agree with San Francisco's ban, but I would be surprised if this issue didn't make its way to the Big Nine eventually.

Bill said...

It is amazing, when you think about it, that in the past 200 years plus we haven't as a nation come to understand what the "right to bear arms" actually means. I've heard claims that the founding fathers never meant for that to apply to individuals, only to states' rights to arm militias. Historically that never held much water in my mind.
But it seems to me that here we have a perfect example of a "right" granted by the Constitution whose meaning is unknown until the Supreme Court defines it. But how can it be proper for the court to define this "right" when it is improper for "activist" courts to define other rights?

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Web Analytics