Tweet
San Francisco Gun Vote: Tough Law or Thin Gesture?
San Francisco Gun Vote: Tough Law or Thin Gesture?
By MATT RICHTEL
Published: November 5, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO - With warring gangs igniting a surge in homicides here in the last year, voters on Tuesday will consider a sweeping proposal to curb the violence: the nation's strictest municipal gun control ordinances, a measure that would ban possession, sale and manufacture of handguns and ammunition within city limits.
Pedestrians passed in front of a gun store on Mission Street in San Francisco in December 2004.
Polling data taken over the summer suggested that the measure, Proposition H, enjoyed overwhelming support of likely voters. But it has since come under attack from a coalition of critics - including the National Rifle Association and a smattering of community groups - and legal experts say that should it pass, it is likely to face a stiff challenge in state courts.
Should it succeed in banning handguns, it would join big cities like Washington, which banned handgun ownership in 1976, and Chicago, which in 1982 banned manufacture, sale and possession of handguns, but grandfathered in guns owned when the ordinance went into effect. Chicago has since banned the sale of ammunition.
Whatever the measure's fate in San Francisco, it has sparked some conflict. The San Francisco police union has lambasted the local elected official who authored the ordinance, which it said would do little except take guns out of the hands of law-abiding residents. The police have also said the law, which would require residents to surrender weapons by March 1 of next year could present an enforcement headache.
The measure provides for the city's board of supervisors, in consultation with the law enforcement community, to determine after the election what will be the penalty for violators.
"This is putting a Band-Aid on heart surgery," said Gary P. Delagnes, president of the San Francisco Police Officer's Association. He called it another "silly idea" from elected officials whose progressive ideas are not grounded in the realities of fighting crime.
The ordinance's author and chief sponsor, San Francisco City and County Supervisor Chris Daly, said he doesn't expect the law, if passed, to curtail crime by itself. But he said that it could reduce the number of guns in circulation, and thus limit the number obtained by would-be criminals.
"If a criminal wants to get a gun outside of the county, clearly he can," Mr. Daly said. But "if we're able to limit the number of handguns in circulation in San Francisco, we can take a handgun out of some of these situations where there are homicides."
Mr. Daly, a self-described far-left progressive, quipped of his critics: "I know I'm crazy, but they're crazier than I am."
Many San Francisco voters will be considering a measure intended to impact a part of the city with which they rarely interact. As the city has gentrified, and housing costs skyrocketed, poorer residents have been pushed into a handful of neighborhoods on the outskirts, like Bayview-Hunters Point. There, crime has had a resurgence, helping lead to 88 gun deaths overall in San Francisco in 2004, up from 69 the year before, and the highest since 1995, according to the California Attorney General's office.
Mr. Delagnes attributed the surge to drug- and gang-related violence in pockets of San Francisco. Overall, he said police have confiscated some 1,400 guns this year. And he said that if the city were serious about fighting gun violence, it would better enforce existing laws, such as urging judges to give jail time to people caught with unlicensed firearms.
Mr. Delagnes said the city also should follow the lead of Oakland, across the bay, which has seen its crime rate fall recently after giving more resources to police and working with federal law enforcement.
A poll taken in July of 600 likely San Francisco voters found 74 percent support for Proposition H, with 21 percent of voters against the ordinance and 5 percent undecided, according to the Democratic pollster David Binder. Mr. Binder said he thought that the heavy lobbying by various opposition groups, including the NRA, had cut into the margin, but that it would still pass.
In 1982, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a measure banning gun ownership that was signed into law by Dianne Feinstein, who was then mayor. The city had been shaken in 1978 when Dan White walked into city hall and shot and killed Ms. Feinstein's predecessor, George Moscone, and supervisor Harvey Milk.
But several months later, a California appeals court said the law violated a statute that gave the state the authority to license and regulate guns. Mr. Daly, the supervisor, said the new proposition was carefully worded in a way to avoid the basis on which the last ordinance was rejected. "We've got a decent chance in court," he said.
Others are less generous, saying the ordinance is doomed to be overturned in court.
"This is a triumph of symbolic politics," said Franklin E. Zimring, at professor at the University of California at Berkeley Boalt School of Law, deeming the ordinance a "sure loser" in state court. Both daily newspapers in the city, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Examiner, cited the likelihood of a successful legal challenge as one key reason they recommend voters reject the measure.
Mayor Gavin Newsom, citing the likelihood of a successful court challenge, said he hasn't bothered to take a position on the measure. "It's a symbolic gesture," Mayor Newsom said. "It's a public opinion poll."
Keeyth, what is your opinion on this?
By MATT RICHTEL
Published: November 5, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO - With warring gangs igniting a surge in homicides here in the last year, voters on Tuesday will consider a sweeping proposal to curb the violence: the nation's strictest municipal gun control ordinances, a measure that would ban possession, sale and manufacture of handguns and ammunition within city limits.
Pedestrians passed in front of a gun store on Mission Street in San Francisco in December 2004.
Polling data taken over the summer suggested that the measure, Proposition H, enjoyed overwhelming support of likely voters. But it has since come under attack from a coalition of critics - including the National Rifle Association and a smattering of community groups - and legal experts say that should it pass, it is likely to face a stiff challenge in state courts.
Should it succeed in banning handguns, it would join big cities like Washington, which banned handgun ownership in 1976, and Chicago, which in 1982 banned manufacture, sale and possession of handguns, but grandfathered in guns owned when the ordinance went into effect. Chicago has since banned the sale of ammunition.
Whatever the measure's fate in San Francisco, it has sparked some conflict. The San Francisco police union has lambasted the local elected official who authored the ordinance, which it said would do little except take guns out of the hands of law-abiding residents. The police have also said the law, which would require residents to surrender weapons by March 1 of next year could present an enforcement headache.
The measure provides for the city's board of supervisors, in consultation with the law enforcement community, to determine after the election what will be the penalty for violators.
"This is putting a Band-Aid on heart surgery," said Gary P. Delagnes, president of the San Francisco Police Officer's Association. He called it another "silly idea" from elected officials whose progressive ideas are not grounded in the realities of fighting crime.
The ordinance's author and chief sponsor, San Francisco City and County Supervisor Chris Daly, said he doesn't expect the law, if passed, to curtail crime by itself. But he said that it could reduce the number of guns in circulation, and thus limit the number obtained by would-be criminals.
"If a criminal wants to get a gun outside of the county, clearly he can," Mr. Daly said. But "if we're able to limit the number of handguns in circulation in San Francisco, we can take a handgun out of some of these situations where there are homicides."
Mr. Daly, a self-described far-left progressive, quipped of his critics: "I know I'm crazy, but they're crazier than I am."
Many San Francisco voters will be considering a measure intended to impact a part of the city with which they rarely interact. As the city has gentrified, and housing costs skyrocketed, poorer residents have been pushed into a handful of neighborhoods on the outskirts, like Bayview-Hunters Point. There, crime has had a resurgence, helping lead to 88 gun deaths overall in San Francisco in 2004, up from 69 the year before, and the highest since 1995, according to the California Attorney General's office.
Mr. Delagnes attributed the surge to drug- and gang-related violence in pockets of San Francisco. Overall, he said police have confiscated some 1,400 guns this year. And he said that if the city were serious about fighting gun violence, it would better enforce existing laws, such as urging judges to give jail time to people caught with unlicensed firearms.
Mr. Delagnes said the city also should follow the lead of Oakland, across the bay, which has seen its crime rate fall recently after giving more resources to police and working with federal law enforcement.
A poll taken in July of 600 likely San Francisco voters found 74 percent support for Proposition H, with 21 percent of voters against the ordinance and 5 percent undecided, according to the Democratic pollster David Binder. Mr. Binder said he thought that the heavy lobbying by various opposition groups, including the NRA, had cut into the margin, but that it would still pass.
In 1982, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a measure banning gun ownership that was signed into law by Dianne Feinstein, who was then mayor. The city had been shaken in 1978 when Dan White walked into city hall and shot and killed Ms. Feinstein's predecessor, George Moscone, and supervisor Harvey Milk.
But several months later, a California appeals court said the law violated a statute that gave the state the authority to license and regulate guns. Mr. Daly, the supervisor, said the new proposition was carefully worded in a way to avoid the basis on which the last ordinance was rejected. "We've got a decent chance in court," he said.
Others are less generous, saying the ordinance is doomed to be overturned in court.
"This is a triumph of symbolic politics," said Franklin E. Zimring, at professor at the University of California at Berkeley Boalt School of Law, deeming the ordinance a "sure loser" in state court. Both daily newspapers in the city, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Examiner, cited the likelihood of a successful legal challenge as one key reason they recommend voters reject the measure.
Mayor Gavin Newsom, citing the likelihood of a successful court challenge, said he hasn't bothered to take a position on the measure. "It's a symbolic gesture," Mayor Newsom said. "It's a public opinion poll."
Keeyth, what is your opinion on this?
Comment